HL Deb 05 August 1919 vol 36 cc319-452

House again in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 3:

Power to control temporarily railways, etc.

3.—(1) With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this section applies, the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect for a period of two years after the passing of this Act, or where as respects any particular provision a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period:—

  1. (a) Where at the passing of this Act possession has been taken of any railroad undertaking or part thereof in pursuance of section sixteen of the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or otherwise, possession thereof shall be retained without any renewal of the warrant granted by the Secretary of State in pursuance of that section, upon the same terms as to compensation as those heretofore in force, and the Minister may exercise over all such undertakings all such powers as have hitherto been exercised by the Board of Trade under the said Act or with the consent of the owners of the undertakings or otherwise, and such other powers as may be conferred by this section or agreed to by the railway companies concerned:
  2. (b) The Minister may, after giving not less than one month's notice in writing, take possession, in the name or on behalf of His Majesty, of the whole or any part of any other railway undertaking or of any light railway or tramway (other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority), canal, inland navigation undertaking, and subject 320 as hereinafter mentioned any harbour, dock or pier undertaking, or of any plant belonging thereto or used thereon (exclusive of privately owned railway wagons), and of any barges, tugs, and other craft owned or held by the undertaking of which possession has been taken:
  3. (c) The directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking of the whole or part of which, or of the plant whereof, possession is retained or taken shall obey the directions of the Minister as to the user thereof, and any directions of the Minister in relation to any undertaking or part or plant thereof of which possession is retained or taken—
    1. (i) as to the rates, fares, tolls, dues, and charges to be charged; subject, however, to the provisions hereinafter contained respecting references to the advisory committee established for advising as to directions on the matters aforesaid;
    2. (ii) as to the salaries, wages, and remuneration and conditions of employment of persons employed on or in connexion with the undertaking;
    3. (iii) as to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking or any part thereof including directions as to keeping open or closing of any stations;
    4. (iv) for securing that the permanent way, rolling stock, plant, appliances, or equipment, whether fixed or moveable, are satisfactory in type and design;
    5. (v) as to the carrying out of alterations, improvements, and additions which the Minister considers necessary for the public safety or for the more efficient and economic working of the undertaking;
    6. (vi) for securing co-operation between undertakings and for securing the common user of facilities, rolling stock and equipment whether fixed or moveable;
    7. (vii) for affording running powers over their system, or any part thereof, to the owners of any other undertaking;
    8. (viii) for securing that manufacturing and repairing facilities and auxiliary and ancillary services shall be used, and the purchase and distribution of stores shall be conducted in such manner as may be most conducive to economy and efficiency:
  4. (d) For enabling any directions given by the Minister under subsection (c) of this section as to alterations, and improvements and additions to be carried into effect the Minister may, by order, authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire any land (including easements) and to construct any works 321 and the order may incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvement Funds Acts, 1909, or any other enactment, and may incorporate or apply any of the provisions of any enactment relating to the construction, maintenance, or working of railways, light railways, tramways, canals, harbours, docks, and piers, and any such order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to empower the Mister to authorise the acquisition, otherwise than by agreement, of any land belonging to the owners of another undertaking to which this section applies, or of it local authority, or of harbour dock or pier undertaking, but the Minister may anthorise the acquisition of an casement or right of using such land for the purposes of any works the construction of which he May authorise under this section:
  5. (e) In the case of any undertaking of which possession is retained or taken by the Minister as aforesaid any rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges directed by the Minister shall be deemed to be reasonable, and may notwithstanding any agreement or statutory provisions limiting the amount of such charges or increases therein, but without prejudice to claims or complaints in respect of undue preference under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 to 1913, be charged in respect of any undertaking during the period for which the Minister retains possession of such undertaking and for a further period of eighteen months after the expiration of the said period, or until fresh provision shall be made by Parliament with regard to the amount of any such rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges, whichever shall first happen.

(2) Subject as aforesaid, any agreement made between the owners of any undertaking, of the whole or part of which possession has been retained or taken under this section, and any other person shall continue in force in like manner as if such possession had not been so retained or taken, unless the Minister considers that such agreement is contrary to the public interest, and in that case he may suspend or modify the operation of such agreement during the period of such possession and for a period not exceeding eighteen months thereafter, and any party to the agreement who suffers loss or injury by reason of such suspension or modification, and any person who, by virtue of arty special statutory provision or agreement, is entitled to the benefit of any special rate, fare, toll, duo, or other charge, and whose position relatively to other persons is prejudiced by any direction of the Minister altering such special charge, shall be entitled to receive such compensation as, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, regard being had to any change in circumstances.

(3)—(a) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by any directions as to rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges or special services, a committee shall be appointed consisting of five persons, one being a person of experience in the law (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Lord Chancellor, two being representatives of the tracing interest nominated by the Board of Trade, one being a representative of transportation interests nominated by the Minister, one being a representative of labour interests nominated by the Minister of Labour, together with, if deemed advisable, one additional member who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him.

(b) Before directing any revision of arty rater, fares, tolls, dues, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their and they shall report thereon to him, and where such revision is for the purpose of an increase in the net revenue of any undertakings which the Minister determines to be necessary, the committee shall also advise as to the best methods of obtaining such increase from the different classes of traffic, having due regard to existing contracts and the fairness and adequacy of the methods proposed to be adopted.

(c) The committee, before reporting or advising on any matters referred to them under this section, shall, unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so, give such public notice as they think best adapted for informing persons affected of the date when and the place where they will inquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the committee, and apply to be heard at such inquiry, and if the committee in their discretion think fit, the whole or any part of the proceedings at such inquiry may be open to the public:

Provided that, for the purpose of this provision, any city, borough, county, or district council shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or arty persons represented by them may be affected by any proposed revision as aforesaid.

(d) The committee shall hear such witnesses and call for such documents and accounts as they think fit, and shall have power to take evidence on oath, and for that purpose any member of the committee may administer oaths.

(e) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any of the members of the committee such salaries or other remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

(f) For the purposes of this section, special services means the services mentioned in section five of the schedule to the orders relating to railway rates and charges, and in the corresponding sections of the schedules to the orders relating to canal tolls, rates and charges confirmed by various Acts passed in the years eighteen hundred and ninety-one to eighteen hundred and ninety-four.

(4) Section twenty of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916 (which relates to the establishment of new routes for omnibuses), shall continue in force until the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if—

  1. (a) the following provision was substituted for subsection (2) of the section (that is to say):—
  2. (b) the following subsection was added to the section (that is to say):—

(5) The exercise by the Minister of any of his powers under this section as respects any tramway or light railway used as a tramway which a local authority, or two or more local authorities, have power to purchase under any Act of Parliament or order having the effect of an Act of Parliament shall not affect such right of the local authority, or authorities, and upon the purchase thereof such tramway or light railway shall cease to be in the possession of the Minister.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt from any rate any undertaking to which this section applies.

EARL BRASSEY moved, in subsection (1) (e), after "Minister" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "if approved by the Committee to be appointed under subsection 3 (a) of Clause 3." The noble Earl said: My reason for putting this Amendment on the Paper is that the clause as it stands appears to give the Minister power to fix the rates and fares as he pleases, and that is another reason why I object to the Bill. Passengers and traders will, in my judgment, receive far more consideration from boards of directors well acquainted with the districts which the companies serve, than from a central authority.

Clause 3, subsection (3) (a), provides for the appointment of a committee for the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by any directions as to rates, etc. The composition and the method of appointment of the committee will be discussed on Lord Midleton's Amendment to that particular subsection. Subsection (3)(b) provides that before directing any revision of any fares, etc., the Minister "shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice." It seems to me quite clear that the establishment of this committee is no check whatever on any decision of the Minister, and does not limit in any way the arbitrary powers conferred upon the Minister by the Bill. There is nothing in this clause which prevents the Minister from entirely ignoring any recommendation of his committee.

The object of my Amendment is to prevent the Minister from fixing rates and fares without the approval of a competent committee, and I think the insertion of these words is absolutely necessary for the protection of the users of railways, whether passengers or traders.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 35, after ("Minister") insert ("if approved by the Committee to be appointed under subsection 3 (a) of Clause 3").—(Earl Brassey.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The effect of this Amendment is to remove from the Minister the responsibility for variation in the rates, and to place that responsibility upon the advisory committee which is set up in the Bill. This, of course, as the noble Earl has pointed out, raises a very large question of principle which will arise more directly when we come later to deal with the composition and powers of the various committees set up in the Bill. It is a little inconvenient now to consider this question before we come to the clause which constitutes the committee, but since the division that we shall take on this Amendment will determine this question of principle, perhaps it will be convenient if I now state to your Lordships the attitude of the Government upon this matter.

There are three committees set up in the Bill to advise the Minister in the exercise of his duty. In every case the committees are advisory committees. The performance of the duties is left in the hands of the Minister. This Amendment would make the committee responsible, but the committee is not answerable to Parliament. It is not appointed by Parliament nor by the Minister, and cannot be removed by Parliament. I submit, therefore, that if responsibility for carrying out the powers which have been entrusted by Parliament to the Minister is placed in the hands of the committee, that will be constitutionally quite inadmissible. There are three com- mittees in the Bill. The first is to advise the Minister in the matter of rates, the second to advise him in the matter of roads, and the third to advise him generally before he is to exercise any of his powers under Clause 3 of taking over new undertakings.

In the case of the Rates Committee, which we are discussing at this moment, the procedure would be as follows. The Minister, in carrying out his responsibilities, will decide that it is necessary to get a certain increased revenue from the various transport undertakings, in order by that means to reduce the obligation to pay public moneys in pursuance of the guarantee to die railway companies. Having made up his mind that increased revenue is necessary, he will then go to the. Rates Committee and ask them to advise him how he may get this increased revenue from the railways with the least possible injury to the undertaking affected or to the trade of the country generally. It will be the committee's business to advise the Minister now this money can be obtained with as little injury as possible to the Various interests. The Minister will either accept the report made to him by his committee, or he will vary it at hit, discretion.

The point which I want to make is this—that even if he accept the report of the committee, that will in no way absolve him from responsibility in the matter. He cannot shield himself behind the committee, and say "I have done this because I was advised by my committee to do it." Whatever the committee advise him to do, he will be eventually responsible for the action which he takes; and similarly, if he decides to act, contrary to their advice, he will do so on his own responsibility and will be answerable to Parliament for his action.

If we were to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl we should be in fact giving to the committee power to force the Minister to resign, because if he found himself in this position that he disapproved of the advice given him by the committee, and decided to act in a different sense, he would be unable to do so because the obligation would be put upon him not to act contrary to the wishes of the committee. He would be in a position of being unable to carry out his policy as a Minister of the Crown, and would have no alternative but to resign. That is, I submit, constitutionally impossible. I know that I am speaking in an Assembly which contains many learned Lords who are authorities upon the practice and theory of the Constitution, and I speak, therefore, with diffidence, but that is how the matter appears to me. If Parliament gives to any I person powers to act, then that person must be responsible to Parliament and to Parliament alone for the way in which he uses those powers.

There are only two possibilities—either to do what we have done in this Bill, namely, give powers to a Minister who will be responsible for carrying them out, or, if you think the matter is of such importance that you are not prepared to trust a single man, then you must give the responsibility to a corporate body, and that corporate body would have to be responsible in its corporate capacity to Parliament. That is not the position which we should reach if this Amendment were accepted, and I know of no body in the Constitution which, in its corporate capacity, is responsible to Parliament. There is no choice between those two alternatives, unless you are to have a procedure which would cover up responsibility altogether. Either the Minister to whom these powers are entrusted must be responsible for using them, or else they must be entrusted to some other body who in its turn must be responsible. For these reasons the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am a little disappointed that the noble Earl did not take this opportunity—the first opportunity that he has had—of making a full statement of the line that the Government intend to take in respect of these advisory committees. He seemed to show in the way that he dealt with it—the perfectly legitimate way—a great want, if I may say so, of appreciation of the terrific proposals which the Government are making in this clause. It is nothing less than this, to place the whole commerce and trading interests of the country at the mercy of this new Ministry. These rates are to be deemed to be reasonable if the Minister says they are reasonable. His ipse dixit is to control the whole fortunes of the trading community of this country.

Let your Lordships contrast for a moment how great is this new departure. What has been the protection which the subject has had up to now? What are the protections which in this light-hearted way the Government are proposing to obliterate? First of all there is the Railway and Canal Commission. That no doubt is to some extent maintained in the Bill, but by no means completely. As regards undue preference it is maintained to some extent, but as regards the whole question of the reasonableness of rates the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission is abolished. That is the first great protection. Of course your Lordships know that there is a much greater protection than that. The real protection of the traders of this country, lies in Parliament itself, because you may not make great changes without the authority of Parliament. If you want to make them you have to go to Parliament in the form of a Private Bill or a Provisional Order, and you have to justify all that is necessary before you are allowed to make time changes. All that is to go. The Government are going to do this for two years—they say only for two years, but we know that it will be continued long after two years. They say in effect: "have such a splendid Minister; he is such a wonderfully great man, that we can trust him with the fortunes of the whole trading community of this country." I have never said in the course of these debates a single word derogatory of time ability of Sir Erie Geddes—he is man of great ability, and of great public spirit—but I do not believe that any man is fit to be trusted with authority of that kind. When they realise it I do not think that the trading community will accept such a revolutionary change in the protection afforded to them.

The noble Earl bad nothing very much to say as to any modifications in their plan which the Government would be prepared to consider. This Amendment refers to the Advisory Committee, and it proposes to give the Advisory Committee real power. At present the Advisory Committee has no real power. I do not want to anticipate the discussion on other Amendments, but merely to point out first of all that the Advisory Committee is not really a representative committee at all, but is a committee of mere nominees of the Government—a committee of the several Departments of the Government acting by nominees. In the second place, the committee has no power. They have power to consider and to advise, but nothing happens if their advice is ignored. Not only that, but it is not even known if they have given advice. The whole thing is secret. It is a hole-and-corner affair. The trade of the country is to be decided by a secret committee, deliberating in secret and making representations in secret to the Minister, the import of which is never revealed. If the Minister overrides them they are to be under an obligation, in the terms of the Act of Parliament (if it passes into law) to treat everything that passes as confidential, so that what they have said and what the Minister has refused will never be known. That is the proposal of the Government.

I had hoped that the noble Earl would have said, if he thinks that the Amendment of my noble friend goes too far—possibly it does—" My Lords, we cannot go as far as this, but we recognise that the criticism which has been made on this proposal is well-founded, and we are prepared to make a certain concession." The noble Earl sail nothing of the kind. He merely said, "You cannot allow any infringement of the responsibility of the Ministry." I can only anticipate one line of answer to the criticism which I venture to make, and that is that after all the Minister is responsible to Parliament. That might have been a good answer in old days. I want to speak with due moderation. Does the noble Earl really contend that time responsibility of the House of Commons would in those crowded days, in the present condition of politics, be a real protection to the traders of this country? How can the little relatively small grievances—legiti mate grievances—of traders, even important traders, be brought before Parliament perpetually in the working of this Bill? Everybody knows that that would be quite impossible.

If Parliament had the opportunity of considering the careful advice of a representative committee, there would be a chance then that the grievances might be properly weighed, but they have nothing before them except, of course, the ex parte statement of the trade in question or the trader in question. Everything else will be secret. I submit that to ask your Lordships to pass such a provision as is contained in the whole of this clause without Amendment is a tremendously strong measure, and I invite the noble Earl, if he wishes us to debate this Bill with any approach to coming to a conclusion, to take an early opportunity of telling us what concessions the Government are going to make upon this very important proposal.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I have no desire to cover any of the ground which noble Marquess has occupied in the very serious pretest which he has addressed to His Majesty's Government in regard to this proposal for the creation of a Minister who is able, as he said, to bring forward changes affecting the whole trading interests of the country with no safeguard except that which is provided by the compulsion placed upon him to consult a small nominated committee. That is a very serious proposition in itself, when yon think what it means and what the possibilities are. At present rates are fixed according to statutory maxima, framed with the greatest care and attention Parliament after hearing hosts of witnesses directly affected by possible changes, through an Inquiry or series of Inquiries occupying weeks, months and even years of Parliamentary examination. There is nothing, so far as I am aware, to prevent the Minister from abolishing all those maxima and fixing scales of railway rates of his own, after taking the advice which I have mentioned. That is a most gigantic proposal, and it is, as the noble Earl very well knows, exciting public opinion to a degree which no parallel proposal has, so far as I can recollect, produced of recent years.

Take, for instance, the industry of agriculture. Farmers are in a state of profound apprehension as to what the future rates for the carriage of agricultural produce may become under this new régime. They feel that their interests are not likely to be, I will not say fully represented, but to be represented at all under the proposals of the Bill as they stand. As the noble Earl will have observed, some Amendments on the Paper are designed to give a special representation to agriculture when we come to consider the composition of this nominated body. But, as the Bill stands, it, is very difficult to suppose that the two representatives of trading interests nominated by the Board of Trade are likely to prove satisfactory to this particular industry. It is the apprehension of the agricultural community as a whole that their particular interests are likely to be crowded out and ignored in a body of this kind in favour of more powerful interests, partly those of the consumers of produce, partly the interests of more formidable and more highly organised bodies of traders, and that they are therefore, to suffer severely.

But there is a further consideration which it is altogether impossible to ignore. You leave the whole settlement of these matters to a Minister who, of course, as a public man, considers, as we are bound to assume, the interests of the public generally, but who is his almost certain to consider the position of the Government to which he belongs; and, like all members of all Governments, he is certain to become the subject of the pressure applied by particular interests. He is likely to be placed in a position of extreme difficulty in this regard. He will find, when some propositions are made for the raising of rates on a particular line in order to supply a sufficient sum of money to meet the possible deficit of transport, that he will be told by the party managers with whom he is concerned, "It is a very dangerous thing to touch this and that interest; yon will finch that the North of England, or the South of England, will not stand this particular interference with their interests." The temptation placed upon him to act, I will not say unfairly, but unequally in such matters will be exceedingly strong.

And, as the noble Earl has told us, the Minister is not permitted to shelter himself behind any advice which he receives. He remains solely responsible, and he may find that if he acts according to what appear to be the obvious dictates of justice and fairness he is inflicting a severe political blow upon the Government of which he will be one of the most prominent and important members. That is a very serious position in which to place any man. I do not myself believe that it is possible to relieve him of that responsibility by turning this Advisory Committee, as the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment proposes, into a responsible Committee. I do not think there is any answer to the arguments which the noble Earl used, that you cannot a body of this kind and make it directly responsible to Parliament unless it is really an official body and part of the Government of the day. I confess I see no answer to that proposition, and therefore I could not support the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl.

But you will have to do, as I venture to think, one of two things. You will either have to remodel your Advisory Committee completely by making it thoroughly representative of the different interests involved, by election or selection by the particular interests concerned, of you will have to revert to the practice or obtaining the direct consent of Parliament, though a Committee or otherwise, to the particular charges that are made. That second process, which has been the rule of the past, is, I suppose we shall be told, a long-winded process—that the settlement of railway rates by a Parliamentary Committee is a long affair, and that it is important to proceed with lightning speed; but it is no use proceeding with lightning speed if the result is injustice and discontent. I trust, therefore, that if His Majesty's Government desire the progress of this Bill to be smooth here, they will seriously consider whether there are any further courses beyond those two which I have named, and if not whether they will not at once at any rate proceed upon one of them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)

I will add only a word because of the speeches that have been made. It is undoubtedly the wish of the Government that this Bill should have a smooth, and, as far as may be, rapid progress through your Lordships' House, and there is hardly anything which they could reasonably be asked to do that would secure that result which they are not willing to do. I cannot think that my noble friend in charge of the Bill would have adopted a course which in the long result would have been thought either to be useful or economical of your Lordships' time, if he had anticipated debates which are inevitable on later Amendments standing upon the Paper. My noble friend will take an early opportunity of indicating the extent to which it is possible willingly to make the change which is suggested by some of your Lordships who have been among the critics of the Bill.

On this Amendment one can only usefully and, indeed, in all orderly manner consider the particular proposal. I confess I think that the final observations of Lord Crewe are quite conclusive when considered together with the careful arguments of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Thy proposal contained in this particular Amendment, is one which so far as I know would produce a state of affairs wholly without parallel in any department of our Government if it were adopted by this House. It is true that one can get, up and say, as noble Lords have said, "Here is a Minister who in his sole power and discretion is given tins power, that power, and the other power." Suppose that we were making the Constitution of this country for the first time. Suppose we were constituting the offices of the President of the Board of Trade and of the Home Secretary, and were proposing to set them up with the very powers that they exercise to day, and a list of those powers were read out. I can imagine the apparent force and weight with which one critic after another would rise and say, "Are you really going to give the Home Secretary this power and that power?"—and enumerate the terrific powers in the aggregate which that Minister discharges. The same would be at least as true—in this connection, probably, even truer—of the President of the Board of Trade.

Surely some observations may be made on the other side. In the first place it must never be forgotten that the powers given can be exercised only for two years (or whatever the period may be) and for ten years afterwards—the noble Earl (Lord Brassey) laughs, but I think he will find that my statements are quite accurate—and for eighteen months after that period is concluded. That makes a very considerable modification of the sweeping claim for supremacy that has been put forward. But another consideration will, of course, occur to every one's mind. This Minister is not only responsible to Parliament, bat he is also a member of a Cabinet, and he has colleagues.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

He is not a member of the Cabinet.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Marquess says that he is not a member of the Cabinet. I do not think I shall be betraying any secrets when I say that by the time these matters arise for action there will be a Cabinet of which it seems to me unlikely that a Minister so important will not be a member. I shall not have the forming of that Cabinet, and I do not know; at any rate I do not put it any higher than that. Anyhow, there is a Cabinet, which is a considerable check. The noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) spoke—not indeed in disparagement,—of the degree of control likely to be exercised by the House of Commons, as if in these matters it was almost negligible I cannot believe that this is really true In the last six months we have passed through a period which everyone must hope is wholly exceptional. During that period the most influential Ministers have been periodically absent from this country, in circumstances the like of which have never before been experienced. That has been reflected, of course, on the House of Commons to which they belong; but if a really grave matter arose which affected the traders of this country—the language used in this debate has not been on small Amendments but on the risk of grave mischief—surely it is inconceivable that in the case of such a mischief as that the echoes of it, if a Minister were arriving at a wrong and irrational conclusion, would not be able to make themselves heard in the House of Commons. Every form of articulate and formal protest would be made.

I will add only this in conclusion, and I am certain the noble Marquees will think it is a point of some importance. No answer has been made—I am persuaded that no answer has been made because none could be made—to the fairly constitutional objection taken by my noble friend Lord Lytton. This committee is to be elected, partly by myself—I have to nominate the chairman—two by the Board of Trade, and one by the Minister of Labour, and so forth. The proposal contained in this Amendment is actually that a body constituted in that way shall be able to take a decision which overrides the Minister and puts the Minister in the position that he may go to the House of Commons and say, "I disapprove entirely of what has been done; this committee has forced a decision on me in which I do not concur and for which I will not take responsibility." Government cannot be carried on in those ways. It may be that. later Amendments may afford a more plausible and arguable proposal, but I shall be reluctant to believe that your Lordships, in a very thin House, would revise a decision of the House of Commons in favour of proposals for which so far as I know no precedent in our whole system of government, can be found.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I do not think that the speech of the noble and learned Lord has appreciated the depths of our feeling on this matter. The noble Earl spoke very strongly about the powers that Parliament could exercise, and the noble and learned Lord spoke to some extent about the power of the Cabinet. But surely neither of them has reflected what they have taken out of the hands of Parliament and how impossible it would be, in the present situation of the clause, to get the matter again into the hands of Parliament. With regard to that last point, there is no publicity. If the Minister is disagreeing entirely with his committee there is no means by which Parliament becomes seized of it except by the action of individual traders.

On the other hand, look at what the measure is knocking over. The great majority of the railway fares in the past have been laid down by agreements and bargains sanctioned by Statute. The sort of thing which the Minister can tear up the day after the Bill is passed are agreements such as these: The agreements made in 1865–1866, still on the Statute Book, for the fares to be charged between Edinburgh and Glasgow; the agreements fixed in 1859 for the train service between London, Portsmouth, and Southampton; the ½d. a mile fares on the London, Tilbury, & Southend Railway; the Great Southern & Western purchase of 1899. All these have been defined by Statute; yet by a few words in this clause you tear up the whole thing and allow the Minister to fix what fares he pleases and do what he thinks right, subject to advice from a committee, which advice is never to be made public and which the Minister keeps in his own desk. It is asking too much.

Look at the way the Government, have treated Parliamentary Inquiries in the present session. We found what we believed to be a very bad case on the part of the Minister of Supplies. It was condemned by a Joint Committee, but although it was condemned the Minister in charge merely observed that the Government could go on with it as they did before. Supposing, for the sake of argument, some trader manages to get the rates before Parliament and Parliament condemns them, the Minister would have power to go on as before. The noble Earl rebuked me the other night, because he said I had read into the Bill things which were not there. I assure him that if he had seen my letter-bag since he made that statement he would feel that I was thoroughly justified.

I said that it was in the power of the Minister to divert traffic from one port to another. The noble Earl said there was nothing of the kind in the Bill. No, not in terms, of course; but take the case of wool. The Minister himself, though the noble Earl had forgotten it at the moment, admitted that the control by the Government of the rates on the railways had had the effect of killing 70,000,000 tons of coastwise traffic. Wool which went coast-wise so long as it paid was crushed by the Government subsidising rates at a price at which they do not pay. Very well, the Minister has only to continue that system, or, if he chooses to do the reverse, raise the rates for wool from London to Yorkshire, to force the delivery of wool into the port of Hull or any other port he desires. I submit that the powers given by this Bill are too large to be placed in the hands of any one man.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

They tend not to democratic control but to autocratic and bureaucratic control. So long as this House does its duty, it is, I think, bound to see that in the desire to co-ordinate all these functions we do not put the matter beyond the reach of Parliament. I really think—although perhaps my noble friend has gone a little too far—if you give the thing into the hands of a Minister the utmost we can do is to give him a committee which is independent of the Government, which he has not got at present, and to give publicity to the points on which he differs from that committee. At present there is no publicity at all. If in giving up those two safeguards we give him a committee which he can disregard at will and leave it to private subsequent action of individual traders or committees of traders in Parliament, I say you at once camouflage the committee and say that the Minister is autocratic and intends in future to fix all rates throughout the United Kingdom. For that reason, although I cannot support Lord Brassey's Amendment in its present condition, I hope the Government will consider that it is absolutely necessary that the checks we have indicated should be accepted.

EARL BRASSEY

After what has been said by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and by the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I will not press this Amendment to a Division. I would like, however, to observe in reference to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord opposite as well as by the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, that their arguments seem to be in favour of the appointment of a, Parliamentary Committee to check the decisions of the Minister, and so put the matter right on constitutional lines.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Do you mean Members of Parliament?

EARL BRASSEY

Yes. I am not experienced in constitutional law, but that seems to me to be the direction in which the argument of the noble and learned Lord and of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill tended. I should like to say again what has already been said by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, that I sincerely hope that those in charge of the Bill will appreciate the strong feeling which many of us hold as regards this Bill putting too arbitrary powers into the hands of a single individual. I happen to have served for a time as the representative of Sir Eric Geddes. No one has a higher opinion of his ability than I have. I think he will be of immense service as adviser with a small staff in co-ordinating the various transport services of the country; but to put him at the head of a big Ministry with the arbitrary powers proposed under the Bill would, I think, be a very great mistake, and would be fatal to the trade of this country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1)(e), after "reasonable," to insert "subject to the power of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission." The noble Lord said: This raises to a large extend the point we were discussing on the last, Amendment, and I venture to think that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will consider that it renders it perhaps in a more reasonable way. I suggest, that after the word "reasonable" should be inserted "subject to the power of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission." Perhaps this would be a convenient opportunity for the noble Earl to tell the House exactly the powers which he says should be given to the Railway and Canal Commission and what would be their functions under this Bill.

This Amendment of mine is again raised on page 6, line 6, where I propose a new paragraph. The whole point is, Is the Minister to have undisputed power to raise rates without any check at all upon him, or is he not? That is the important point. Although I admit fully the Ministerial responsibility, I think there ought to be something to protect the trader and the great trading communities throughout the country, such as agriculture, from injustice which might mean their ruin. This subject received a great deal of attention in the House of Commons, and in several eases, although Divisions ware not taken, it was obvious that it had a great deal of support.

I take this opportunity of answering the noble Earl as to what he said the other day in regard to something I said in my Second Reading speech about London, Southampton, and Bristol, which I took as an illustration. I did not interrupt the noble Earl when he contradicted assertions I made then, because it was not convenient in the debate. He will perhaps excuse me if I answer him to-day. I understand that the Minister can by preferential rates divert traffic from one port to any other port. The illustration I used was therefore a perfectly correct one. The Minister can make rates low or high according to his will, and though he cannot, as the noble Earl said, divert shipping, I never suggested he would divert the actual shipping; I said he could divert trade. I have not the words by me, but that was what was in my mind and is what I still maintain he can do. That is, I think, a very serious power to give uncontrolled to the Minister.

I think it would be quite harmless if the Government saw their way to accept, after the word "reasonable," the words "subject to the power of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission." That would at least give the trailer some security and some power of appeal. Then, of course, comes the clause later on, which I will not discuss at the moment. I hope the noble Earl will make a statement as to the position of the Railway and Canal Commission and of the trader under this Bill. It might help to elucidate the point.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 35, after ("reasonable") insert ("subject to the power of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I was in a little difficulty in replying to the last Amendment, because, as I pointed out to your Lordships, it was impossible to range over the whole field and deal with the composition of the various committees with which we shall have to deal presently. I must plead that as my excuse if I was unable to give the noble Marquess the assurance which he thought I should have given on that occasion. I hope even now to keep strictly to the terms of this Amendment; but still I should like to say, in view of what was said on the last Amendment with regard to these Committees in the Bill, that the position of the Government is this. They have been inserted in the Bill as Advisory Committees and, provided are obtained as Advisory Committees, we are perfectly prepared to discuss with your Lordships any proposal for making them more representative of the interests which they are intended to represent. What we are not prepared to discuss is the question of turning an Advisory Committee into an Executive Committee. That, I hold, would have been the effect of the last Amendment and I was obliged therefore to oppose it as strongly as I could. When we come to deal with the composition of the Committees I am perfectly prepared to discuss with your Lordships any Amendment that may make them mare representative of the various interests that we desire to sac represented.

The noble Lord who moved the Amendment said it was more reasonable than the last. I think your Lordships will see, when I point out what the effect will be, that, whether it be more reasonable or not, it is far more destructive than the last. It would, in fact, make it impossible for any rates whatever to be raised during the next two years. I am sure that is not the intention of the noble Lord, but that would be the effect, and I will endeavour to show your Lordships why. If the power of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission is retained in the Bill by this Amendment it will leave us in exactly the position we are in to-day. I painted out to your Lordships on the Second Raiding that the railway companies, although they imposed a 4 per cent. increase of rates in 1913, have not to-day, in 1919, obtained the full benefit of that increase. Such are the delays inherent in appeals to the Railway and Canal Commission that after five years an increase of 4 per cent., imposed in 1913, is not yet operative.

That is the position in which we should be again placed if the Amendment were carried. There are on the books of the railway companies to-day something like 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 rates, and if you are going to give an appeal—I will not say "give" because it is true that traders have it to-day—if you are going to retain, as you will by this Amendment, the right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission on all these rates, it would be perfectly impossible for any rates to become operative during the next two years. However much we may differ about the advantages or the disadvantages of the various clauses in the Bill, one thing upon which all speakers appear to be unanimous is that there must be an increase of rates during the next two years. The Government have even been criticised because they did not use their powers under the Defence of the Realm Act to put up the railway rates during the war, without an appeal to anybody and without an Advisory Committee. We have been told that this killed the coastwise trade. Let me point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, that, so far from forgetting that fact, I mentioned it in my Second Reading speech as an illustration of the necessity for putting up rates in the immediate future. I did not forget it at all. It was one of the chief points of my argument.

If the appeal to the Railway Commission is retained, there can be no increase Operative during the next two years. It is precisely to meet that situation that we propose, for the next two years, to substitute the Minister for the Railway and Canal Commission. I admit perfectly frankly to the noble Marquess that that is a very strong order. At least, it would be a very strong order if we were proposing to do it permanently, but perhaps your Lordships are hardly aware of the fact that this power is taken for two years, and two years only. At the end of that time all the rates so raised will automatically revert. The noble Marquess shakes his head. Unless Parliament in the meantime otherwise determines they will automatically revert to the present rate, always subject to the fact that a period of eighteen months is given, after the two years, to enable the railway companies to come to Parliament and obtain statutory powers to charge the rates which will have been charged in the meantime. Unless Parliament otherwise decides in the next two years, or unless powers from Parliament are obtained by the railway companies during the eighteen months, all the rates which have been increased during the two years by the action of the Minister will automatically revert. I agree that the action proposed is auto- cratic, but it is an autocratic action rendered necessary by the emergency in which we are placed. I do not think that either in this House, or in the House of Commons, anybody has disputed the necessity for action of this kind. I say it is modified by the fact that the powers are temporary, but it is true that even in two years you can do a great deal of injury by unwise action, and it is necessary during that time that some safeguard should be retained against the action of the Minister in regard to rates.

I would ask your Lordships to consider what the safeguards are. First of all there is the Committee which we have already discussed. The Committee will advise the Minister as to how he is to get his money with the least possible injury either to particular traders or to the trade of the country generally. But it is quite possible that, inadvertently, the Minister and the Committee who advise him may so arrange the rates as to create a prejudice or an injury as between one trader and another. Obviously that is not a matter you can bring to Parliament. It is not appropriate that a subject of that sort should be brought to Parliament to consider or decide upon. Therefore, we have retained in the Bill the right of traders on questions of undue preference to go to the Railway and Canal Commission and state their case. That power with regard to undue preference is retained in the Bill to-day. As I am on this point let me deal with the question to which Lord Montagu has referred. He suggests that the Minister may so arrange his rates that he will transfer trade from Southampton to Liverpool. This was the instance he quoted.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I never mentioned Liverpool.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes; Southampton and Liverpool were the two places the noble Lord quoted. If the noble Lord will allow me I will refer him to the matter.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I meant London, but it is not material to the argument.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is material. Is it conceivable that a Minister, whom the noble Lord calls a "Railway Minister," who, by virtue of having in his possession the London and South-Western Railway, will own the port of Southampton, will so manœuvre his rates as to force the trade of Southampton to Liverpool with which he would have noting whatever to do? That is the sort of argument the noble Lord employs as to the way in which the Minister will use his power.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You may put it just the other way and the noble Earls' argument would break down.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Indeed, no. I am saying that, in order to prove the Minister unreasonable in the way he will use his power, the noble Lord suggests that by the operation of rates he will divert traffic from Southampton to Liverpool. I say the suggestion is altogether fantastic. So far as undue preference is concerned the rights of the trader to go to the Railway and Canal Commission are retained; and let me say here that when we come to the Amendment of the noble Lord further down [to add a new paragraph at the end of subsection (1)] I propose, with the exception of the reference to "reasonable facilities," with which I will deal when I come to the Amendment, to accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The new paragraph beginning "Notwithstanding"?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes. I do not propose to enter into the argument now, but that retains the rights of the traders to go to the Railway and Canal Commission. On matters which obviously cannot be brought before Parliament I feel that it is perfectly right and reasonable.

There is another safeguard retained in the Bill, of which perhaps your Lordships are not aware. Under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, a trader who has a grievance against increased railway rates on the ground that the increase will ruin trade generally, not that it will give an undue preference to one trader against another, has a right to go to the Board of Trade and represent his case to that Department, who will then act at conciliator in the matter. That right is not interfered with in this Bill. The only difference will be that the Board of Trade will negotiate with another Government Department and not with the railway company. The right of the trader to represent that trade generally is injured will be retained.

Lastly, there will be a reference of the matter to Parliament if it is a case which cannot be dealt with as a matter of undue preference but is held to be seriously injurious to trade generally. Every constituency has its Member of Parliament; the matter can be brought to the notice of the Member, raised in the newspapers, and all the ordinary measures utilised of bringing forward the grievance of any constituency. That is the position in which we stand to-day, and if your Lordships will consider the enormously increased cost of running the railways (due to the increased cost of labour, and to the fact that the Government have guaranteed to the railways their net revenue for 1913) and the consequent necessity for raising the rates in order to transfer the burden to a large extent from the shoulders of the taxpayer, together with the necessity for doing it without delay, I hope you will see that, although the powers which we ask for in this Bill may be autocratic, the necessity for asking for them is justified, and you will not accept an Amendment which would render these powers nugatory.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

May I just reply to the noble Earl on the question as to the power of the Minister to transfer traffic. I had the case most carefully worked out by an expert, and this is what he said— Lord Lytton has stated that it is absolutely untrue to say that the Minister would be able to divert traffic from one port, e.g. Southampton, to another, e.g. Cardiff, but unless the rights of the traders of the dock companies to appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission in respect of undue disadvantage are preserved the Minister will, by so fixing railway rates for the docks, be able to attract what traffic he pleases to any docks he pleases. The following instance might easily be quoted. Bristol docks at present obtain a very large share of the banana traffic from the West Indies. The Minister might wish to transfer this traffic to Southampton. What does he do? He just places a prohibitive rate on banana traffic from Bristol to all ports of the country, and at the same time reduces the rates from Southampton in the same proportion. It will necessarily follow that the shipping company will be compelled to transfer its service from Bristol to Southampton. If I mentioned Liverpool in my speech I do not think it makes any material difference. I hold that the Minister can, by his own ipse dixit, transfer trade from one port to another.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

May I point out to the noble Lord that in his speech on the Second Reading he said "Suppose it is said that ships bringing a certain commodity shall not go in future to Southampton but to Liverpool," it implied that it was in the power of the Minister to say that ships should go from one port to another. I said that no such power was given. He suggests that it is possible, by manipulating rates, to bring that transfer about, although admits that the Minister has no power to direct that any such thing should be done. It is, of course, possible for railway rates to be raised by one railway company and diminished by another. Obviously trade would be affected, but there would be no appeal. No trader would have any right of appeal. On the other hand, supposing the rates upon the same railway were differentiated as between one trader and another, there would be a right of appeal on the question of undue preference. That is retained in the Bill to-day. The reason why these things are not done is not because they are impossible but because they would be bad business.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Let me thank the noble Earl for the extremely conciliatory character of his reply, but he must see the weakness of an argument which depends for its cogency on the fact that my noble friend selected Southampton and Liverpool, instead of Liverpool and Southampton.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It shows how little he thought the matter out.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I cannot believe that the noble Earl thinks that an important contribution to the debate. I think it is not worthy of him. It is a very trivial matter. The point is, that it is possible for the Minister (as the noble Earl admitted), unless some remedy is provided, to give preferential treatment to one road over another or to one port over another port. The noble Earl says it is not likely this will be done because it is bud business. We have to treat this point with great delicacy, and all the more so because the present advisers of His Majesty are men of high honour and reputation, including, of course, the Minister-designate. But in this matter you are legislating not in respect of particular individuals who may hold office for the moment. If we glance, as we are entitled to glance, at the experience of other countries we find that. Ministers there do use their Ministerial power in order to give preference to one locality over another. That is quite clear.

The noble Earl says it is bad business. Is he sure that the Minister will always be looking out for good business? It depends on what he means by "business." If he means the proper commercial industrial prosperity of the country, he may be quite right. But there are other kinds of "business." We have to treat this matter with great delicacy because it might be said we were bringing some obscure charge against the present Minister-designate. It is nothing of the kind. It may be perfectly possible for a future Minister to prefer a constituency in which one political Party was in the ascendant, or a port in which another political Party was in the ascendant. It would be possible, and it would be the kind of "business" he may be looking for. I think that is so, and I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell upon it.

I know the noble Earl would say that these provisions are only for two years. He said so just now Does anybody believe that they are to last for only two years? I think it is perfectly obvious that they will last for more than two years, and that at the end of that time there will have to be some provision made in Parliament for prolonging the Bill. You cannot have a revolution such as the noble Earl is now passing through Parliament lasting for two years. It is perfectly absurd. Of course it will go on. I am quite sure the noble Earl spoke what he believed to be true, but there is no such self-deception on the part of the Minister as to believe that legislation of this kind, though temporary in actual terms, is likely to be of a temporary character.

If your Lordships legislate on the assumption that it is only going to last for two years, I am certain you are preparing for yourselves a great disappointment. You must look at this as a measure which is likely, in some form or other, to be of a permanent character. I have no doubt about it whatever, and therefore we have to think, not of the present Ministers and Minister-designate; but of the possibility which such a power in a Minister holds out for the future. But, my Lords, I do wish to recognise, as I said at the beginning, the conciliatory character of my noble friend's speech. He has, as I think very wisely, said that he is perfectly prepared to accept with a certain modification the further Amendment standing in my noble friend's name, and no doubt my noble friend will consider himself very fortunate in having secured the support of the Government in that respect, and will probably not wish to press his present Amendment. I hope when we reach the second Amendment that we shall be able charge satisfy my noble friend in chare of the Bill that even the words to which he takes exception should be inserted.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

After what has been said by the noble Earl opposite, I do not wish to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1) (e), to leave out "but without prejudice to claims or complaints in respect of undue preference under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 to 1913." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is necessary in order to prepare the way for the Amendment which follows.

Amendment smoved— Page 5, line 38, leave out ("therein") to ("be") in line 41.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph: (f) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the rights of a consignor or consignee of goods or minerals, any trailer or class of traders, or any port or harbour authority or dock company to complain to the Railway and Canal Commission under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts in respect of the provision of reasonable facilities undue preference or undue disadvantage or allowances or rebates in relation to the provision of station accommodation or terminal services shall not be deemed to be affected, and it shall be no answer to any, such complaint that the railway company in respect of which the complaint is made was acting under the directions of the Minister. The noble Lord said: I do not think I need labour this Amendment, because I think it explains itself. An Amendment to this effect received a good deal of support in the House of Commons. It is supported by all traders. Its object is to secure the three great advantages which every trader values—namely, the provision of reasonable facilities, an appeal against undue preference and against undue disadvantage, and allowances or rebates in relation to the provision of station accommodation or terminal services it is a long and complicate, question to argue, which I will not detain the House by doing, but there is a good deal of difference between undue preference and undue disadvantage, the latter applying chiefly to docks. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has accepted this Amendment, and I desire to facilitate business, I will content myself by formally moving this new paragraph (f)

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 6, at end insert the said new paragraph (f).—-(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I need not detain your Lord hips, except to explain one point on which I am unable to meet my noble friend, and that is with regard to the words "the provision of reasonable facilities." If your Lordships will turn to Clause 3, subsection (1) (c) (iii), you will see that we have already passed that part of the clause which gives the Minister power to issue directions, which includes the power of closing any station. If these words "reasonable facilties" were put in they would nullify that power, because it might be necessary where a piece of line was practically die-used, or a station out of use, for the Minister to issue directions under subsection (1) (c) (iii), and the words "reasonable facilities" might be used in order to prevent him front exercising that power. If the noble Lord is willing to leave out those words I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think that before the Report stage my noble friend will have to consider this point, because there are certain things which might be done which would unfairly prejudice the trader, and which are not comprised in the words "undue preference." For instance, a railway company under the directions of the Minister might refuse to carry a certain class of goods, or only carry them at a very inconvenient time, or matters of that kind. These are, I believe, well known difficulties, and matters upon which at present there is a proper appeal. I think my noble friend will have to think of these matters before the Report Stage. It is true that he is in some difficulty with regard to the previous words to which the noble Earl has referred, but it will be for him to reconcile the two and I think he will before the Report Stage see that some such words are necessary in order to cover the cases which I have mentioned.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

In addition to special traders like those in china clay, which I have been asked to mention, there are also the cases of small stations which are immensely valuable to small communities but which are not paying; but the duty of maintaining which is put upon the railways by Parliament. It is very important for those scattered communities that they should have these railway facilities. If those small stations or branch lines were shut up a great deal of real hardship and grievance would arise, and I hope that on the Report sage the Government will see their way to give us some phrase like "reasonable facilities" which will be in accordance with the previous subsection. If he did I am sure it would ease the mind of a great many of us, who are afraid that under the autocratic powers of this Bill the Minister will be able to shut up branch lines and small stations without any power of appeal.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

We have already given power to the Minister to close a station or branch line which is found to be unnecessary or unprofitable to work, but I will, between now and the Report stage, certainly consider the matter which has been raised, in order to see whether words can be put in. At the same time I do not make any promise.

LORD EMMOTT

Is it not a fact that the directions given by the Minister would have to be carried out during the time when the appeal was being made, whether on undue preference or undue disadvantage, or even on a point of the provision of reasonable facilities. If that is the case I do not quite see why these words "the provision of reasonable facilities" should be omitted from the proposed new paragraph.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I will move the now paragraph in the form in which the Government are willing to accept it. On the Report stage we might have a discussion on the previous subsection, or I might move to re-insert the words "the provision of reasonable facili- ties" in order to learn the Government's intentions.

On Question, the said new paragraph, amended by the omission of the words "the provision of reasonable facilities," agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON rose to move to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I am proposing to leave out this subsection for the purpose of inserting it after Clause 19. As the Clause is at present printed, this clause is very long and complicated, with a great many subsections, and I think it would be more convenient to put all the sections relating to Committees together.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Earl moves this Amendment now it will rule out the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Midleton on which an important discussion is anticipated. But if my noble friend the Minister in charge were to postpone this till the Report stage there would be no difficulty.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am, of course, in the hands of the House. I only move it in order to make the Bill read better. Of course, the Amendments of the noble Viscount and others to this clause will go on. When we come to the clause later on I can move to re-insert it. It does not get rid of any of the Amendments.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

There is this to be said about that course. We have been engaged on this very subject for nearly an hour, and it would involve beginning all over again the whole subject at a later stage, possibly at a late hour of the night, and I suggest that it would be much more convenient to take the discussion now.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Then I will not move my Amendment now.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved, in subsection (3) (a), to omit all words after "a committee shall be appointed consisting of" to the end of paragraph (a) and to insert "six persons, one being an impartial person (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Railway and Canal Commission, two being representatives of trading interests nominated by the Chairman for the time being of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, one being a representative of agricultural interests nominated by the Chairman for the time being of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and two being representatives of labour interests nominated by the Chairman for the time being of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress."

The noble Viscount said: The reason for the change in the committee that we suggest has been already explained to the House at full length, but I confess, when I compare the committee as proposed by the noble Earl on page 15 of the Amendments with the Amendment which I have ventured to put down, I cannot but feel that if there is to be anything real in the committee at all the Government ought to give serious consideration to the Amendment which we propose. Take first Government Amendment. The noble Earl proposes to have a gentleman learned in the law appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That might be very desirable if they were going to settle questions, but they are going to hold an Inquiry if they chose, and the Minister is in no way bound by their decision. Therefore a judicial body is surely out of place, for it has not to decide but merely to make a recommendation. Then it is proposed that two representatives of the trading interests should be nominated by the Board of Trade. Why should they not be independent persons? Why should they not be nominated by those whose interests they have to consider? Again the representation of the transport interests is to be nominated by the Minister. That seems to be doubly faulty, for it means a representative of the railways who is not to be nominated by the railways but is to be the nominee of the Minister, and Is to represent, as I understand, his interests on the Committee instead of those interests which we want represented—the independent interests of the railways. Furthermore, the representation of labour interests is to be nominated by the Minister of Labour. In every case care is taken that the Government shall have the whole control of the Committee.

All these things really conflict with the words which the Government have put into the Act. Those who advise the Minister are to be purely advisory, and they are to be selected in such a way that they shall not be independent but shall be dependent on the Government Departments who select them. I submit to the Government that this course of action goes to the root of all the professions that they have made about the Bill. I am sorry to say that the noble Earl, who conducts the Bill so admirably, says in every speech something which shows quite clearly that he views the whole matter from a different point of view to that of Sir Eric Geddes, the Minister-elect. Sir Eric Geddes professes intentions exactly opposite to those which the noble Earl explained a few moments ago. The noble Earl poured scorn on the idea of diverting traffic from Southampton to Liverpool. Sir Eric Geddes, however, spoke some very eloquent passages on his determination to stop "the long haul." Yet that is precisely what the noble Earl says he is not to do.

Having regard to the fact that Mr. Bonar Law has declared that the desire of the Government is that they should have a Minister who should be advisory rather than an autocrat—which we are now finding out they intend him to be—I think they ought to meet us at any rate a quarter of the way, and allow the committee which advises the Minister to be independently nominated, and to give them access to publicity—the only means by which they can get access to the authority of Parliament. For that reason I propose that the Committee should be nominated as follows. The Chairman should be nominated by the Railway and Canal Commission, the two representatives of the trading interests by the Chairman of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the agricultural representative by the Chairman for the time being of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the two representatives of labour interests by the Chairman for the time being of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. All these are well known bodies, and each will have to a large degree the confidence of the interests which they represent. I desire if we can to avoid controversy at every stage of this Bill. The noble Earl in the speech he made on Second Reading, and again on going into committee, warned us that drastic alterations of the Bill would cause a serious collision with the House of Commons. If he meant by that that every justifiable Amendment which would bring this Bill into harmony with the professions of the Ministers who introduced it is to be ruled out, then he will have dealt a very severe blow at the interests and at the proper functions of this House.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 29, leave out from the first ("of") to the end of line 37, and insert ("six persons, one being an impartial person (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Railway and Canal Commission, two being representatives of trading interests nominated by the Chairman for the time being of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, one being a representative of agricultural interest nominated by the Chairman for the time being of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and two being representatives of labour interests nominated by the Chairman for the time being of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress")—(Viscount Midleton).

LORD WITTENHAM

I venture to hope that the noble Earl may see his way to accept this Amendment. The iron hand is manifest all through the Bill. I have voted so far with the Government because I feel that during the next two years at any rate they must have big powers in order to co-ordinate this business, but if the noble Earl refuses this quite moderate Amendment it will look as if from beginning to end we are going to be bound and not free. This Amendment after all is only for the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister. The iron hand is still retained. You are changing the personnel of the Committee no doubt, but the iron Minister can still say:" However expert you may be, however independent you may be, I will have none of you." Really it is only an act only of grace and of courtesy, and does not change the fundamental position of the Bill. I hope very much that the noble Earl may find himself able to accept this Amendment. It will at any rate show to the public outside that there is a manifest desire, wherever possible and without affecting the structure of the Bill, to give way, and also a genuine desire to meet the opponents who are only trying to do their best for the good of the country. There are two sides to the matter here as in all human affairs. I will not assume for a moment that any noble Lord opposite is doing this merely to press the Government unduly, but surely they have a right to their point of view, and a right, at any rate up to the point of this Amendment, of asking the Government to accept it.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

If I ask your Lordships to examine this Amendment of the noble Viscount in a critical spirit I hope my motives will not be misunderstood. I fully recognise that there is nothing obstructive in this Amendment, that it is intended to be helpful. I approach it entirely in that spirit. If I ask your Lordships to consider my objections to it, they are objections not of principle but of a practical nature. I think there is no difference of opinion between the noble Viscount and myself. He desires to have the best possible committee and we desire to have a committee which will be most representative of the interests concerned. That is common ground. The only question is, which of the two proposals will best achieve that object, and I approach the Amendment solely from that point of view.

I take the first question, the question of the chairman. The noble Viscount thinks that it is unnecessary that a lawyer should be chairman. We attach considerable importance to having a high legal authority as chairman of the committee for this reason, that the question of arranging these rates necessitates an intimate knowledge of complicated railway law. A great number of legal questions are involved in them, and we think it is very important therefore that a high legal authority, a Judge if possible, should be chairman of the committee in order to able to understand these legal technicalities which must arise.

Then there is one fatal objection to the noble Viscount's committee from our point of view. It is that he leaves out altogether any representation of transportation interests. We have provided one representative to be nominated by the Minister. That is an interest which surely deserves to be represented on this Committee, and I could not accept a Committee which ignored that representation altogether. Then upon the other points we are agreed: there must be representation of trading interests and representation of labour.

With regard to agriculture let me say this, that we always intended to include agriculture in the trading interests, but I have no objection to meeting Amendments which are proposed further on by Lord Bledisloe in either one of two ways—either by saying that one of these representatives shall be a representative of agriculture appointed by the Board of Agriculture, or adopting Lord Montagu's words and saying there shall be two representatives appointed by the Board of Trade "in consultation with the principal trade and agricultural associations." In any case I am quite prepared in one of these two ways to provide direct agricultural representation.

I come, therefore, to the question of who shall be the nominated bodies. The Government have not inserted the various Government Departments in order to ensure that the Government as a whole may nominate the committee. We have done so because we feel that these are the best bodies to speak for these industries and interests as a whole. I mention that to show that I do not attach importance to the fact of its being a Government Department. With regard to the chairman there is this difficulty about the Railway and Canal Commission. There are, in fact, three Commissions for the three parts of the United Kingdom, and, as only one nominee is to be appointed, I am not quite sure which of these three Commissions you could go to to get the Chairman appointed. For that reason and for the reason that we attach great importance to having a lawyer we prefer the nomination by the Lord Chancellor.

With regard to the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Central Chamber of Agriculture, apart from the fact that the Associated Chambers of Commerce cannot, I think, by any one be claimed to speak for the trading interests of the country as a whole—there are a great many trading interests in the country which are not represented at all by the Associated Chambers of Commerce—there is this further objection to both those bodies, that they are neither of them statutory bodies. They may at any moment disappear and be wound up and replaced by some other body; and if you are going to give in an Act of Parliament nomination of members to a committee I think you should choose some body upon whose existence and character you can permanently count.

Lastly, when you come to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress I repudiate altogether the suggestion that that body can speak for the labour world as a whole. That body represents only trade union Labour to begin with, and what we want represented on this committee is Labour consumers. Then I would point out that when the composition of this committee was under discussion in the House of Commons the Labour members there fully accepted the proposal that the Labour representative should be appointed by the Minister of Labour, and I think we are entitled to claim that the Labour members are well qualified to say who shall be the person who will best represent their interests.

My objections, therefore, are objections in detail of a practical nature to the particular form of representation which the noble Viscount proposes. There is one further objection which I ought to mention, and that is this, that we attach great importance to what I will call the floating member. As your Lordships will see, the Bill provides for a permanent committee of five, and then an additional member, whom I call the floating member, who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him. The necessity for this sixth additional member is this. These inquiries will vary greatly in different parts of the country, and they will vary as to the character of the rates into which the committee will inquire, and it is very important therefore, that there shall be some provision for putting on an ad hoc member who will be expert in the particular character of rates into which the committee will inquire. If they are inquiring into a dock rate you should have an expert in docks. It may be a rate which will affect passenger traffic, and you will require an expert who can speak from that point of view. Or it may be into a particular kind of rates dealing with iron, or steel, or other commodities, and you will want a mar who will give particularly valuable advice upon that matter. And therefore that is a matter which, I hope, whatever your Lordships do with the rest of the committee, you will not strike out of the clause. We should not be willing to part with the provision that there should be one additional member who can be nominated to deal with specific cases which will vary from time to time.

I hope I made it clear in what I said just now that I regard this matter merely as a question of what is really the best form of representation you can have. I am obliged to state our justification for our clause, and I naturally prefer the clause in the Bill to the clause of the noble Viscount for the reason which I have explained. But as I stated just now, I am perfectly prepared to discuss any proposals which may be put forward as regards representation on any of these committees, and my opposition is therefore confined to the reasons that I have expressed. But there are certain features of our committee which I must in any case press to retain. The first is that the chairman should be a lawyer, the second is that transportation should find some representation, and the third is that the floating member should be retained. I hope, therefore, that whatever else your Lordships do you will not accept an Amendment which would not make provision fur those points.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

We shall all feel that the noble Earl has desired to meet, so far as is possible my noble friend and those who agree with him. He has made two or three distinct reservations, however, in the qualified acceptance which he appeared to be willing to give, if necessary, to my noble friend's proposal. He did not make it quite clear to myself—I do not know whether he did to the House—how the particular representative of transportation interests nominated by the Minister serves the purpose of giving advice. One assumes that the Minister himself is that person in the extremest degree. He is advised by the Permanent Officials who will all be experts in transport, largely and mainly no doubt in railway transport—as I should have supposed absolutely competent to state the case and decide upon it from the point of view of transportation without the addition of this advisory person, and the noble Earl did not develop the reasons to which he appeared to attach great importance for the rather unexpected appearance of this gentleman in the small body for which the clause provides.

The proposal to include a direct representative of agriculture will no doubt be welcomed by that industry. But I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl has somewhat missed the point of my noble friend's Amendment, in this sense, that he has simply regarded the appointment of this Committee as a matter of efficiency, that thoroughly competent people can be, and we shall all hope will be, nominated, and, therefore, what more do you want? The noble Earl seemed to forget that the one thing you want is to inspire public confidence in this body, and you will not inspire it in the same degree by nominating a body however skilfully composed and however admirable the individuals who serve on it may be. I do not hesitate to say that it will be worth while to get a series of less positively efficient men in one sense if thereby you could gain enhanced confidence in their representative character felt by the communities for whom they would be entitled to speak. Since there is no question of giving any executive power to this body, I ask His Majesty's Government to consider whether it is not worth their while, by adopting the system of representation, to gain that confidence of which I have been speaking. I confess that it does not appear to me to be a paramount consideration that those bodies, who by my noble friend's Amendment would be the nominating bodies, should be of a permanent character because they have a Statutory existence. The nominating bodies that he has named are, as I think your Lordships will all agree, the most representative of any concerned with the particular industries that can be found at the moment. If at any time any of them should disappear and be replaced by others it would not be difficult to transfer the nomination to them. But I hope that His Majesty's Government will seriously consider the importance of giving this body a representative character and not stick so closely to the principle of nomination.

As regards the chairman, I can quite understand that a man of the peculiar legal qualifications and experience which would make him competent to preside over a body of this kind might well be chosen; but there again, on this matter of the inspiring of confidence, I feel certain that His Majesty's Government will do better to select some form of nomination other than by the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Government. They will be told that the probability is that some competent barrister is likely to be appointed for this post, some man who has had the special experience but who is also not unlikely to be chosen for some political service in the other House or elsewhere. The noble Earl might say that this is not the principle of which the appointment will be made. Perhaps not. But the fact that the imputation can be made makes it worth while, I think, to approach these really very important appointments without any suggestion of favour or prejudice.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

May I put one case before the House? Supposing that some day nationalisation takes place—I do not say that it will, but it might possibly take place before the expiration of two years. In the White Paper which has been presented to your Lordships, giving the powers taken over from the Board of Trade, you will find seven and a-half pages of those powers. If my view is correct, the Board of Trade under this clause will mean the Minister himself as he takes over all these powers from the Board of Trade. The noble Earl smiles. I may be wrong, but if I am correct he practically becomes the Board of Trade for these purposes. Now, is there not a risk that some future Minister may nominate the people from the Board of Trade almost entirely in order to get carried through a particular policy Then you have the Labour representative, who would naturally be in favour of nationalisation; and the Lord Chancellor, as a member of the Government of the day, would also be in favour. Against that you have two trading interests. Consequently I think that something in the nature of the committee proposed by the noble Viscount is essential if it is to command confidence. I assume that the Government want these committees to command confidence; and if so we should try to make them properly representative. If we could give wider powers for these committees in the first plance, and if, in the second place, they were composed in such a way as to command public confidence, it would meet the demand for the smooth working of this Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understand that the noble Earl has admitted that this Committee ought to be an independent one and not the mouthpiece of His Majesty's Government in any shape or form. That speaks very well for the noble Earl's intentions; but the Bill as it stands does not achieve that end, and it is clear that when it comes to the appointment of this Committee there might be, and probably would be, a meeting between the Ministers concerned who would arrange amongst themselves the personnel of the Committee. That would be in fact a Committee nominated by His Majesty's Government and representing His Majesty's Government. No doubt they might make an effort to make it as fair and impartial as they could; but it is almost impossible to expect human nature—even this Ministerial human nature—to avoid a desire to have members on the committee who would be likely to subserve that which the Minister-designate would wish. Therefore I take it as accepted by your Lordships that this ought to be, if possible, a representative Committee.

Then the noble Earl makes certain criticisms of the particular kind of representation which my noble friend has suggested. I will not go over the ground which has just been covered by the noble Marquess. I think he disposed of a good many of the objections of the noble Earl. The only objection which made a considerable impression upon me, if I may say so, was his plea for what he called the floating member. I think there is a good deal to be said for the floating member. I am sure my noble friend who sits beside me thinks that is so. I do not think any of us quite appreciated what was intended by the floating member until the noble Earl spoke. If, therefore, it was thought fit at a future stage of the Bill to add a floating member, I am sure none of us on this bench would resist it. The simple course which seems to be indicated, however, is that we should put this Amendment into the Bill. That would establish, as it were, the desire of the House to have a representative committee independent of the Government. If afterwards, on the Report stage, modifications ought to be introduced, your Lordships would have an opportunity then of considering them. I venture to suggest that as the best course.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It seems to me that I am rather in the position of pleading with the noble Marquess as to what he is prepared to give to me. I represented, when I was defending the clause as it stands in the Bill, certain features which I considered were indispensable. I am not aware from the speeches of either of the noble Marquesses that either of my points, with the exception of that of the floating member, is to be considered in the Amendment of the noble Viscount. I really do not understand what is meant by the noble Lord and others who say that this Committee does not inspire confidence. This Committee, as drafted in the Bill, was inserted in the House of Commons after a great deal of very careful consideration by the members of that House. It certainly inspired confidence there; it is the Committee which they themselves chose.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It was all they could get.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Not at all; this is what they proposed. I would ask your Lordships once more before we go to a Division to consider what is the purpose that this Committee has to fulfil. A great deal of trouble was taken in the House of Commons to make the Committee as helpful as possible to the Minister. It was in- tended to help him to carry out his duty; not to check or restrain him, but to give him the maximum of assistance in carrying out an extremely difficult task. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said that it was not necessary to have a legal chairman or to have transportation interests represented, because they existed already in the person of the Minister. I say again that the object is to assist the Minister by putting on to the Committee persons who, and who alone, can give him expert technical advice.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

His own Department might to be able to do that. I mentioned "Department" explicitly.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

That is what the Government thought when they introduced the Bill. The House of Commons thought that in addition to his expert advisers he should have advisers from outside; the Government accepted that view, and the Committee was appointed, therefore, to provide him with the most expert advisers outside. I think I ought, in answer to the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, to say that this is why we want special transportation interests. The business of the Committee is to advise the Minister as to how he can secure larger revenue from these undertakings.

I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the fact that it is quite possible to put up rates and lose revenue. What he requires, therefore, from the transportation member is advice as to the effect of any rate upon a, particular undertaking from a net revenue point of view so that he may be advised how, if he is going to put a rate upon a particular undertaking, it is likely to affect its revenue. It would be disastrous from his point of view to impose a rate upon a particular class of traffic the result of which was that the revenue was less and not greater. The object of the Minister is to secure more revenue, and we require on that Committee one member at least who shall be able to look at the matter from the net revenue point of view of the undertaking. That is what we mean by the transportation interest. I certainly could accept no Committee which did not make provision for the representation of that interest.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Does the noble Earl mean "railway" by the term "transportation."

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Quite. You may put up a rate upon a particular line of railway, and the traffic on that railway may decrease to such an extent that instead of getting more revenue you would get less. It really does require an expert to say what the effect of a rate upon a particular line of railway might be.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I must apologise to the noble Earl for my density, but I had suppposed that the whole Department was for the purpose of ascertaining those facts. If the Minister cannot ascertain the facts, he being in charge of all the railways and having all the experts attached to his Department, I cannot imagine how the presence of some transportation experts on this Advisory Committee would help him with regard to, say, the particular effect of raising a rate upon the Great Western Railway, for instance, from Bristol to London.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

May I ask if the noble Earl would use the word "railway" instead of ''transportation," because transportation in the real sense means all kinds of transport.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, but my point is that it is no use creating a committee unless it is going to be of value to the Minister. If it is only going to send in a report which he from his expert technical knowledge would always turn down, the Committee would be useless. We do not want a Committee to send up advice which the Minister would know was nonsense. We want a Committee to send him advice which he believes represents the best technical outside advice he can obtain. Our desire, therefore, is to ensure that when the advice of the Committee comes to the Minister it shall be in a form which will supplement his own officials' advice and his own personal knowledge and therefore be of real use and assistance to him.

There is only one other point I want to mention in answer to the noble Marquess, and that is with regard to the chairman. This Committee will have to deal with some of the most intricate legal questions. These questions of railway law are extremely complicated and technical, and if the advice is to be of any use whatever to the Minister it must come from a Committee on which real legal knowledge is represented. That is absolutely essential. If the Committee has no legal knowledge and no expert knowledge on the points to which I have referred, then the advice which it will give will be perfectly useless. For those reasons, unless I can secure some representation for the interests that I have pleaded are essential, I am afraid it would be quite impossible for me to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.

LORD ISLINGTON

I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Midleton will be prepared to add some of the proposals of the noble Earl to his Amendment, especially that which concerns the floating member, but I am sure that this discussion has shown more and more the necessity, in an Advisory Committee of this character, to represent two aspects—not merely the closely legal aspect upon which emphasis was laid by the noble Earl, but also that aspect which relates to the interest of concerns that are being affected by the proposal. The second one, to my mind, in its way is as important as the first. It, therefore, strikes me as being of the utmost importance that the gentleman who is to preside over this Advisory Committee should be nominated in as detached a manner as possible.

I can quite understand that legal and technical knowledge in railway matters is of great importance, and I cannot but feel that if such a gentleman is to be found there is no body more likely to find him than the body which is proposed by the noble Viscount in his A mendlnent—namely, the Railway and Canal Commission. In fact, I very much suspect that if the nomination rests in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, it will be to that body first and foremost that the Lord Chancellor will go for advice. The Railway and Canal Commission consists of a Judge from each country for each branch of the Commission and two gentlemen who have become experts in railway matters. A body so composed is, to my mind, the very best body that could be conceived to obtain for the post of Chairman a gentleman who possesses legal and technical railway knowledge. Therefore, I hope that this body will be the one Which will be retained for the nomination of the Chairman of this Advisory Committee.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

As regards the question of details in the Amendment I do not think there is the slightest difficulty in our coming to terms with the noble Earl opposite. Whether it is more desirable to have as Chairman a man simply of legal attainments rather than a man who has been nominated by the Railway and Canal Commission is a matter which I would not myself contest. Whether it is desirable to add a member ad hoc on behalf of the Minister or whether there should be some member who is seised of transportation—these are matters of detail. The real difficulty between the noble Earl and myself is the question of principle and ideal. His ideal is a Committee which is named by the Minister and is there simply to assist him. That is to say, the Minister says, "My policy is to do so-and-so; you find the way of doing it. Find a way out and you will be helping me, but make any objection on the ground that it will interfere with this trade or that trade, and you are not assisting me in the same way." We want an independent Committee as compared with a Committee tied to the Minister.

I think, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, that his constant references to what has been thought out clearly in the House of Commons do not assist us with regard to this particular Bill, because, at the outset, both Ministers in charge of the Bill announced that they were not going to take any Amendment at all which limited the power of time Minister. They were determined to press for every power of the Minister that was in the Bill. That is the first point. The second point is that a number of so-called compromises were carried under great pressure by a majority of one or two. These are not decisions which are really binding on this House if there is a good case against them. For that reason, I hope your Lordships will consent to take a decision on the main question of all—Shall the Committee be an independent Committee nominated by bodies outside, or shall it be nominated by various Departments of the Government? On that point I hope you will now decide.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-contents, 42.

CONTENTS.
Ancaster, E. Finlay, V. Hylton, L. [Teller.]
Bradford, E. Peel, V. Inverforth, L.
Chesterfield, E. Lambourne, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Baccleuch and Queensberry.) Clinton, L. Lee of Fareham, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L. Ludlow, L.
Howe, E. Colebrooke, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Lytton, E. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) Ranksborough, L.
Rosslyn, E. Shandon, L.
Faringdon, L. Sinha, L.
Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.) Gisborough, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.|
Churchill, V. Hindlip, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D. Hampden, V. Kintore, L. (K. Kintore.)
Hood, V. MacDonnell, L.
Crewe, M. Monkswell, L.
Salisbury, M Askwith, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Avebury, L. Parmoor, L.
Brassey, E. Bledisloe, L. Redesdale, L.
Lindsay, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Malmesbury, E. Chalmers, L. Sanderson, L.
Mayo, E. Charnwood, L. Sandys, L.
Morton, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Saye and Sele, L.
Selborne, E. Denman, L. Southwark, L.
Stanhope, E. [Teller.] Ebury, L. Sydenham, L.
Wicklow, E. Erskine, L. Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]
Farrer, L.
Chaplin, V. Forester, L. Wittenham, L.
Goschen, V. Islington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved, in subsection (3)(c), to leave out "unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so." The noble Viscount said: It seems absolutely necessary that public notice should be given before reporting on such an important matter as railway rates. I have put down another Amendment requiring the Committee to hear the evidence of those who wish to be heard.

Amendment moved— Page 7, lines 9 to 11, leave out ("unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so").—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think there is a complete misunderstanding in some of your Lordships' minds as to the reason for what is called the secrecy of the operations of this Committee. The fact that a discretion is let to the Committee in this matter is because it may be necessary, in the interests of the traders themselves, that matters which will be discussed between them and the Committee should be discussed privately. I do not want to forestall a question which will arise on a later Amendment of the noble Viscount's, but I would point out that there may be cases in which the mere fact of giving public notice of the intention to deal with a particular class of rates may seriously interfere with trade and lead to long contracts which might largely forestall the effect of the rise in rates. It is the same thing as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before making any additional taxes in his Budget, gave public notice of his intention to consider the matter. The same consequences which would accrue in that case might accrue in the case of public notice given with regard to the consideration of matters dealing with rates.

The exercise of this power will probably in the main be in connection with a general percentage rise in rates; but the revision may only affect one particular rate in one particular trade, and if the Committee consider it would be undesirable to give any chance of forestalling the operations of that rate by giving public notice, it is right and proper they should have discretion in the matter. There is also another point, but here again I am forestalling a later Amendment. No trader has an absolute right to be heard before any rate is put up. He does not enjoy that right to-day, and it would be impossible to give him that right under this Bill. The discretionary power left to the Committee is really absolutely necessary, and I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

May I point out one important matter? At the present time, and for the protection of traders, no rate can be raised unless there is public notice. As a matter of fact public notice has been introduced into all the Acts in order that all traders may have knowledge and not particular traders only. May I also point out another matter on which I think the noble Earl is under a misapprehension. Every rate is bound to be in the rating book at the present time. In other words, it is bound to be made a matter of publicity. I think it would be wrong to allow anything like secrecy in dealing with rates on the ground that a particular rate only affected one trader. The contrary has always been the principle of our law. Rates are matters of public interest, and if they are confined to one trader it is then there is a possibility of undue preference.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is impossible to see how the person affected Can make representations unless public notice is given, as it is impossible for the Committee to know all the persons affected. How can they possibly know? The persons who are affected are largely the public, and I really do not see the kind of case which the noble Earl points out as a possible exception. If he could show that there was a substantial number of cases where publicity would do a great deal of public damage it would be a strong point, and of course inconsistent with the whole tenour of the clause. The whole point of the clause is that the persons affected should have an opportunity of being heard; and how can they know unless public notice is given.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I hope, after the arguments which have been addressed to him, that the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am instructed that very great objections would result from giving public notice, not of an intention to increase a rate but of an intention to consider the matter. It is unnecessary that you should inform all the traders of your intention to consider what steps you are going to take with regard to rates. If you did that, you would be inviting the persons who might think they would be ultimately affected to take action in advance, which would forestall the operation of the rate. If the Amendment were carried there would be very grave objections to giving public notice before the Committee can even take a rate into consideration.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Might I ask whether the noble Earl means that he is afraid traders might raise prices in anticipation of railway rates being raised, if it was known that the particular subject was coming under consideration. Is that the point which he had in view? Because it is hard to see how the public interests which the noble Earl mentioned, and of the traders themselves, could be affected by publicity. When the noble Earl spoke of the interest of the traders themselves being in conceivable cases prejudicially affected, I thought perhaps he was alluding to special rates. Apparently he was not, but was dealing with general rates. I am not quite sure what the supposed damage to the traders or the public could be.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I mean that the giving of public notice that the Committee intended to take into consideration an alteration in rates in regard to particular goods might create such an uncertainty, in the trade which would be affected by such changes, as seriously to interfere with the trade, and might result in long distance contracts being made in order to forestall the operation of the rates, in the sense in which the traders might think the Committee might ultimately decide to change them. For these reasons I am instructed that it would be seriously damaging to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Is not this a question in which we should remember that transport is the servant of the trade and not the trade the servant of transport?

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Lord Parmoor, who is learned in the law, tells us that it is the law now, and therefore the Amendment would not lead to any inconvenience.

LORD PARMOOR

Rates are not fixed for the individual, but for the trade, because when you come to take them as a question for the individual you get undue preference, which all railway legislation is directed against. Therefore I think you should have publicity.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

There is all the difference in the world between giving public notice of your intention to take into consideration a rate, and notice that a rate has been made. What exists to-day is that notice is given that within fourteen days it is proposed to alter a rate. That will remain unchanged by this Bill. If the Minister decides, after consulting the Committee, to increase the rate, then of course notice of his intention to do so will be given.

Several NOBLE LORDS

That is too late.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is not incumbent upon a company, before considering whether to increase a rate, to hear all the arguments of the persons affected. If a company could only put up a rate after giving everybody concerned an opportunity of coming and stating their case, it is quite obvious that no increase could ever take place at all. The railway company, after deciding to increase a rate, has got to give fourteen days' notice of its intention to do so, and after that it would not be possible for contracts to be formed to forestall that increase. They would not be legal. But if the company gave notice that it was going to consider an increase, it is obvious that contracts could and would be made which would forestall the increase.

LORD PARMOOR

I think the noble Earl is wrong. There is no question of forestalling rates, but a question of a rate coming into operation or not. Forward contracts would not be affected in the slightest.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

If it is a question of a rate corning into operation fourteen days after notice has been given, that is not affected, because notice would be given in the same way. What is here suggested is that there should be fourteen days' notice of the intention of the Minister to refer the matter to the Committee.

LORD WITTENHAM

Is the notice which now has to be given merely a formal notice that the railway company has decided a general policy, or does it give notice so as to enable people who will be affected to make their representation either in favour of or against? Of course, if it is merely formal now, there seems to be a good deal in what the noble Earl said, but I understood from Lord Parmoor that at present it is a notice which gives the trader an opportunity of making his representation before the company has made up its mind.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

It is a rather difficult point and I quite see what the noble Earl means, but I suggest that I might be allowed to treat the matter in this way, that if the House has frankly affirmed that the Committee is to be an independent Committee, which is a most important matter, as regards the traders whom it represents, even if we are unable to persuade the Government to give publicity we shall have a security for the rates which will make it unnecessary to publish the fact that they are going to be considered before they are considered. We are as interested as the noble Earl in helping the Minister to get the best return possible, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment and I will re-introduce it on Report after we see how this clause emerges from Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (3)(c) after "they" ["they consider"], to insert "unanimously." The noble Lord said: I desire to insert the word "unanimously,'' because I think publicity is very desirable. The point I want to make about this is that hitherto traders have had alternative means of forwarding their goods, but it seems to me that in future, railway companies being practically one great company, there will be no remedy if the rates are put up, and it appears to me that the insertion of "unanimously" will strengthen the public protection.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 10, after ("they") insert ("unanimously").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not know whether the noble Lord realises that this Amendment would have the effect of giving one member of the Committee the power of overriding the whole Committee.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I did not appreciate that that would be the effect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved, in subsection (3)(c), to leave out "apply" ["apply to be heard"] and to insert "unless in their discretion the Committee consider it unnecessary, shall be entitled". The noble Viscount said: In order not to give an absolute right to a frivolous appli- cant to appeal before the Committee, I have added to the words appearing on the Paper—namely, "shall be entitled"—the words "unless in their discretion the Committee consider it; unnecessary." I think there is no doubt that traders who are genuinely affected ought to have a right to appear before the Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 14, leave out ("apply to") and insert ("unless in their discretion the Committee consider it unnecessary shall be entitled").—(Viscount Midleton).

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Here, again, I doubt if the noble Viscount has realised what the effect of this Amendment would be. I have already informed your Lordships that there are something like 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 rates on docks and railways. I will deal in a moment with the reservation which the noble Viscount has now handed in. But let me first explain what would be the effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment if he had moved it as it appears on the Paper. It would have given the right to any trader who might be affected by any one of these 40,000,000 rates to appear before the committee and have his case gone into before the committee could come to a decision. If that were done no rate could be effected within the lifetime of any member of the Commission, let alone in the two years with which we have to deal. Now the noble Viscount suggests that, although this right which does not exist to-day should be given to traders to be heard before the rate is altered, a reservation should nevertheless be made that the committee should be given a discretion. The thing would be perfectly meaningless. The committee could not possibly do its work if anybody could claim to have a right to be heard by them before they came to any decision. To-day traders have no right to be heard before a railway company prior to a rate being raised. It is perfectly true that they have a right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission on certain points after the rate has been put up. Some of those points have been retained by the Amendments which I accepted earlier in this Sitting. In these respects that right of appeal has gone. To say that no rate can be increased before any person who is affected by it—even subject to the discretion of the committee—may be heard would simply mean that you could never take into consideration at all the question of raising the rates.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The argument of the noble Earl has the great misfortune of proving rather too much. How many millions of people did he say that he was afraid of—thirty millions? He is quite prepared that 30,000,000 persons should make representations to the committee. I suppose he does not intend those representations to be waste paper. They will all have to be considered if he does not mean that the representations are to be a mere form. Surely he does not merely mean, when the test comes, that the committee shall say: "Oh, here is another representation, put it into the waste-paper basket." I presume, therefore, they will all have to be considered. Not only may they make representations, but they may also apply to be heard. This committee is a judicial committee.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I did not speak of 30,000,000 people; I spoke of 30,000,000 rates.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

These people may apply to be heard. This committee is a judicial body. As the Government Bill stands, if an application be granted each application will have to be judicially decided. There will have to be some kind of judicial discretion in deciding whether applications should be granted, and according to the noble Earl the whole thing will be unworkable. I am sorry for the noble Earl and his Bill that he should have proposed a clause which he himself says is quite unworkable. I think he will come to the conclusion upon reflection that that argument will not do. He must face the fact that if you apply a very drastic remedy to a number of persons they must be entitled to be heard, subject, of course, to a discretion of the committee where it is obviously impracticable to hear them, or where it is not feasible to do so, or where the application to be heard is frivolous. But unless you give these people some title to be heard, surely their applications are in vain.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

With all deference, it is not the clause in the Bill which is unworkable. What I said was unworkable was the procedure which would be imposed by the noble Viscount. Let me explain what the procedure in the Bill is in cases where the committee decides that before giving any advice to the Minister they shall give public notice and hold a local Inquiry. Having announced their intention to do that, obviously persons affected will be able to be heard beforehand, and the committee thus, in their discretion, will hear such persons as they think desirable in order to assist them in coming to a decision. It is a perfectly possible arrangement. What is quite impossible is to say that before any rate is increased, or before any advice to increase a rate is given to the Minister, any person who may be affected by the rate shall be entitled to be heard. If you give persons a right to be heard you must also give them a right to be informed of the fact that they will be affected by the rate, and in the clause the right of persons to be heard is limited to cases where the committee decide to hold an Inquiry into the matter. If you give a right to any individual in the country who may be affected by any railway rate to be heard before the committee, that would simply make waste paper of the whole clause, and would make it quite impossible for the committee to do any work at all.

LORD EMMOTT

Is it not the case that the words are now very much qualified? I have not the actual Amendment proposed before me. The question I should like to put is, whether there is any material difference between the Amendment proposed and the words as they now stand? The words now are that "any person may apply to be heard at such an Inquiry." If they apply to be heard the committee must consider whether they ought to be heard. The Amendment which is proposed says that if the committee, after considering whether they ought to be heard, decide that it is unnecessary that they should be heard, they need not hear them. I really cannot see that there is any material difference.

LORD PARMOOR

These difficulties about the 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 rates is a sort of bogey that is sometimes trotted out in this connection. As a matter of fact, there is not the least difficulty in dealing with these questions, as any one who has had any experience knows. At the present time persons affected are heard by the Board of Trade. I have been present at a great many inquiries of that kind, and there has never been any difficulty about it. It appears to me that persons affected, in ordinary legal language "persons interested," ought to be heard unless there is some special reason against it when their commercial or trading interests are likely to be affected. Why in an Act of this kind you should disentitle persons affected to be heard before the critical committee I cannot imagine. I am bound to say that I think that the difficulty suggested by the noble Earl about the 40,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 rates is really without substance. In actual practice these difficulties have never occurred.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My objection to the Amendment as it is now proposed is to the word "entitled." Of course, if you say that the committee shall only hear any representations which, in their discretion, they decide to hear, you leave the matter entirely in the hands of the committee, and if they do not choose to receive any of the applications they will simply put them in the waste paper basket. But that is not what the noble Viscount's Amendment says. It says that any persons affected may make representations to the committee, and, unless in their discretion the committee consider it unnecessary, shall be entitled to be heard. Persons are either entitled to be heard or are not entitled to be heard and the question whether they are to be heard or not is a matter for the committee to decide. If you say in the Act that they are entitled to be heard, then they are also entitled to receive beforehand the information which will enable them to decide whether or not they shall apply to be heard. My objection is to giving persons a right which they do not possess to-day. I could not accept the Amendment even in its present form.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It seems to me that the difference is whether there is to be a prima facie case for hearing a man when he makes his application, or whether the presumption is that he is quite as likely not to be heard as to be heard, as is the case under the Bill. If the word "entitled" is particularly offensive to the noble Earl, I should think that it might be possible to amend the Amendment by saying that "he shall be heard unless the committee decides otherwise."

VICOUNT MIDLETON

I do not think the case has been met. You cannot get out of it. As Lord Salisbury said, either these people have no right there at all, and the application means nothing, or you may say that a man who is affected is entitled to be heard. The committee have already the discretion of not publishing their proposed action if they do not wish to do so, and if you leave them also the discretion whether they should hear the man, after they have advertised that they are going probably to take action and that he may apply, really I think that it is merely putting a little more strongly the rights of the public to some consideration by the committee. The committee will have to make up their minds that they would rather not hear him, and that there is a list of witnesses that they do not think it necessary to call. I think I must press it.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Will the noble Viscount allow the Amendment to be put in the new form?

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

indicated assent.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment now is—Page 7, line 14, leave out ("apply to"), and insert ("unless in their discretion the committee consider it unnecessary, shall").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3)(c), after "district council" in the proviso, to insert "or industrial organisation." The noble Lord said: I wish to move this Amendment, if it is only to elicit from the noble Earl whether the words "persons affected" do or do not include organisations of individuals, as well as individuals themselves. I suggest that in any case it would be not only fair to the industrial interests affected, but also helpful to the Minister or the Advisory Committee if this organisation and others were allowed to be heard when such an inquiry takes place.

I may illustrate what I mean in regard to the agricultural industry, and I should like in passing to thank the noble Earl for his expressed willingness to give some representation on the Advisory Committee to the agricultural interest but, as he said truly just now, it is quite possible to put up rates and lose revenue. That, has very often happened in years gone by in respect to agricultural produce, notably milk under owners' risk rate contracts, and it is obviously desirable, where an industry as a. whole is very seriously affected. For instance, the dairy farmers' interest might be to have someone who is able to speak as an expert on behalf of the organised dairy farmers, let us say, or any other organisation of a particular industry, in order to state the case clearly to the Advisory Committee and in order fairly to represent the claim of that particular industry or interest. For these reasons I beg to move this Amendment but, of course, if the noble Earl is able to assure me that "persons affected" does include organisations of persons as well as individuals I should not feel it necessary to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 19, after ("council") insert ("or industrial organisation").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Our view was that the councils of these cities would represent industrial organisations as well as individuals. I am advised that these words are not necessary, but I shall offer no opposition.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. I feel sure these councils will not consider themselves as being fully representative of the particular interests I have in mind.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

The next amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 20, after ("council") insert ("or organization").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (4). The noble Earl said: Here, again, I was proposing to transfer a clause to another part of the Bill. Perhaps your Lordships would prefer to take the subsection, as there are Amendments to it, in its place, and I will move to transfer it to a later stage of the Bill on Report?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

As far as I am concerned, as I have an Amendment which affects this, I would rather take it at a later stage, if it does not inconvenience the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Then I will move to leave out subsection (4).

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 38, to page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 30, leave out ("rate") and insert ("local rate or assessment").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Saving for statutory harbour, dock and pier authorities.

4 Nothing in section three of this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament, including the Manchester Ship Canal, but not including any harbour, dock or pier forming part of a railway undertaking, or to the owners of any such undertaking without the consent of such owners, but if at any time during the two years after the passing of this Act the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour, or at any dock or pier of the owners, should be improved or extended, or that the method of working should be altered, the Minister may by order, for the purposes aforesaid, require the owners to execute or do, within a reasonable time, such improvement or extension or alteration in the method of working as the order may prescribe, and may for that purpose confer on the owners any such powers of acquiring land or easements or constructing works as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of that section:

Provided that if the owners of such undertaking consider that any such requirements are likely to be seriously injurious to the undertaking, or to the trade of the port, they may, within thirty days of receiving notice of such requirements from the Minister, appeal, in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales, to the Lord Chief Justice of England, or, in the case of an undertaking situate in Scotland, to the Lord President of the Court of Session, or, in the case of an undertaking situate in Ireland, to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and if it appears to such Lord Chief Justice or Lord President that a primâ facie case is made out that the requirements of the Minister would be so injurious as aforesaid he shall forthwith appoint an arbitrator to hold an immediate inquiry, and if the arbitrator reports that the carrying out of the requirements of the Minister will be so injurious as aforesaid the Minister shall revoke his requirements, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to issue a new order.

LORD ISLINGTON had an Amendment to leave out front the beginning of the clause down to "forming part of a railway undertaking, "and to insert "With the exception of any harbour, dock, or pier forming part of a railway undertaking, nothing in section three of this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock, or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament, including the Manchester Ship Canal." The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment which, no doubt, my noble friend will accept. I think it makes more clear what the intention of the Bill is.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think the beginning of Clause 4, as it stands, is a little difficult to follow, and I should be prepared either to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, or to suggest that in Clause 4 the words "but not including any harbour, dock, or pier forming part of a railway undertaking or to the owners of any such undertaking" should be put in a bracket. Either, I think, would make the clause clearer. If, however, the noble Lord prefers his own Amendment, I would ask him whether he would amend it in this way, so as to read: "except where any harbour, dock, or pier forms part of a railway undertaking," and so on.

LORD ISLINGTON

indicated assent.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 31, leave out, from the beginning of the line to ("or") in line 35, and insert ("Except where any harbour, dock, or pier forms part of a railway undertaking, nothing in section three of this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock, or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament, including the Manchester Ship Canal").—(Lord Islington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Provisions as to officers and servants.

7—(1) The following provisions shall apply with respect to officers or servants of any undertaking of which, or of any part or plant of which possession has been retained or taken under this Act (all of which officers and servants are in this Act hereinafter referred to as "existing officers and servants"):—

  1. (i) Where the Minister requires the services of any existing officer or servant, that officer or servant may be transferred to the Minister—
    1. (a) either permanently with the consent of the officer or servant; or
    2. (b) temporarily with the consent (which shall not unreasonably be withheld) of the officer or servant, and of the owners of the undertaking;
  2. (ii) No existing officer or servant so transferred, whether temporarily or permanently, shall, without his consent be, by reason of such transfer or anything done under this Act, in any 377 worse position in respect to the conditions of his service (including tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick fund or any benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice), as compared with the conditions of service obtaining with respect to him at the passing of this Act, and if any question arises as to whether the provisions of this paragraph have been complied with the question shall be referred to a standing arbitrator or board of arbitration appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this section, and if the arbitrator or board consider that those provisions have not been complied with and that the officer or servant has thereby suffered loss or injury, they shall award him such sum as they think sufficient to compensate him for such lout or injury;
  3. (iii) Where an existing officer or servant has been transferred either temporarily or permanently to the Minister under this section then so long as the Minister remains in possession of that undertaking that officer or servant may remain a full member of any pension or superannuation fund established in connection with the undertaking with all the rights to which he would be entitled had he continued in the service of the owners of the undertaking, and any contributions payable under the rules of the pension or superannuation furl or by customary practice by the owners of the undertaking may be paid by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament, and he shall be entitled to receive such reasonable allowances for temporary disturbance as the Minister with the consent of the Treasury may determine (including direct pecuniary loss sustained in consequence of the transfer):
  4. (iv) Every existing officer or servant not transferred to the Minister in pursuance of this Act shall, notwithstanding the powers conferred upon the Minister by this Act, continue to hold his office or situation under the owners of the undertaking under the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions (including all conditions regarding gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick fund, or any benefits or allowances), whether obtaining legally or by customary practice as he held it on the date of the passing of this Act, and while performing the same duties shall receive not less salary, wages, or remuneration than under existing regulations, agreements, or established customs of the service he would have been entitled to if this Act hid not been passed:
  5. (v) The Minister may direct that the office or situation of any existing officer or servant which he deems unnecessary shall be abolished:
    6. 378
  6. (vi) If by or in consequence of a direction of the Minister any existing officer or servant is, during the period of possession, required to perform duties such as are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he has, prior to the date of the passing of this Act, been required to perform, such officer or servant may relinquish his office or service:
  7. (vii) Every such officer or servant who so relinquishes his office or service as aforesaid, and every such officer or servant whose services by or in consequence of any such direction are dispensed with on the ground that his services are not required, or for any reason not being on account of any misconduct or incapacity, or whose salary, wages, or remuneration are reduced on the ground that his duties have been diminished by or in consequence of any such direction, or who' otherwise suffers any direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act (including any loss of prospective superannuation or other retiring or death allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice), shall be entitled to be paid by the Minister compensation for such pecuniary loss, to be determined by the Treasury subject to appeal to such standing arbitrator or board of arbitration as aforesaid, in accordance with the provisions contained in section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, relating to compensation to existing officers, and those provisions shall apply accordingly as if they were herein re-enacted with the necessary modifications:

Provided that in the case of any officer or servant who was appointed to his office as a specially qualified person at an age exceeding that at which public service usually begins, or of any officer or servant who suffers any loss of prospective superannuation or other retiring or death allowances as aforesaid, such addition may be made to the amount of compensation authorised under the said provisions as may seem just, having regard to the particular circumstances of such case.

(2) Any person formerly in the employment of the owners of an undertaking of which or of any part or plant of which possession is retained or taken under this Act, who on the date of the passing of this Act is, though not legally entitled thereto, in receipt of a pension or other superannuation allowance, shall continue to receive from the owners of such undertaking the same pension or allowance on the same terms and conditions as if this Act had not been passed.

(3) Any person who, at the date of the passing of this Act, was in the employment of the owners of an undertaking of which or of any part or plant of which possession is retained or taken under this Act and who, during the period of such possession, would, though not legally entitled thereto, in accordance with customary practice be granted a pension or superannuation allowance by the owners of such undertaking, shall not be in any worse posit ion in regard thereto by reason of the passing of this Act.

(4) This section shall apply to persons who are, or have been, numbers of the staff of the Railway Clearing House, or the Irish Railway Clearing House, or any railway conference, in like manner as if they were, or had been, officers or servants of an undertaking of which possession had been taken and the period of possession thereof had been the same as that of a railway undertaking, and to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund, as if it was a pension or superannuation fund established in connection with an undertaking of which possession has been taken, and as if payments and contributions heretofore made by railway companies thereto were contributions payable by the owners of the undertaking.

EARL BRASSEY moved (on behalf of Lord GAINFORD), in subsection (1), after "undertaking" where that word first occurs, to insert "including businesses of building, financing or repairing railway wagons carried on at the date of the passing of this Act."

The noble Earl said: I have been asked by my noble friend to move this Amendment on his behalf. I may explain to those of your Lordships who do not understand the term in this connection that "financing" refers to those companies who are building wagons and handing them over to railway companies on the hire-purchase system. It is clear from Clause 13 that the purchase of private wagons on a large scale is recognised. One of the main arguments for the Bill is that these private wagons will be used more effectively under central control than when privately owned. It is rather curious that the average tonnage carried by a private wagon in 1913 was 350 tons, while it was stated a short time ago that the average tonnage carried by all wagons including' private wagons is only 258 tons. I think it is clear from this that private wagons are on the whole efficiently used, and that the companies who build and repair them are giving effective assistance to the transport system. If these private wagons are taken over it is probable that central establishments will be set up by the Ministry at which they will be repaired, and the companies who have hitherto repaired them may lose their businesses. The object of the noble Lord in putting down the Amendment is to provide that these companies and their servants should receive similar compensation to the officers and servants of the railway companies who suffer loss through the action of the Ministry.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 13, after ("undertaking") insert ("including businesses of building, financing or repairing railway wagons carried on at the date of the passing of this Act").—(Earl Brassey.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

This clause makes certain provisions with respect to the officers and servants of railway panies who will lose their occupation in consequence of the operation of this Act, and the noble Lord desires to place in the same category the servants of wagon building and wagon financing companies. First with regard to wagon building or wagon repairing companies. There is no need, I think, for considering in any way the servants of such companies. I do not anticipate that the business of such companies will be in any way curtailed by the fact that existing privately-owned wagons have been taken over by the Minister; because at the present time the railway wagon building and repairing shops cannot deal with all the repairing and building work required for the needs of the companies themselves who even now have to go outside to the wagon building and repairing concerns.

When you come to wagon financing companies you have a different matter to consider. It is true that some wagon financing companies—those, in fact, that depend solely upon supplying capital to traders to enable them to buy wagons—will have to wind up their businesses. I have an Amendment on the Paper later which meets one of the points such companies have placed before us; but here it is stated that compensation should be paid to the officers or servants of such a company by virtue of the fact that the business would be wound up. I do not think we can admit ally such claim on the part of the officers and servants of these particular companies any more than you could admit the claim of any business which, in the course of developments of one kind or another, may find its business interfered with or even destroyed. There have been many times when one class of business has been superseded by another class, sometimes in consequence of the ordinary operation of inventions or the introduction of machinery, and sometimes by the operations of the Government itself. It would be as reasonable to say that the officers and servants of these companies should require special compensation as to say that the persons, for instance, who were employed by jobbing companies or hotels in the stage-coach days should have been compensated when stage coaches were superseded by railways, or any other operations of that kind. We cannot admit that the servants of these companies are in any way in the same position as the servants of the railway companies and, therefore, are unable to accept the Amendment.

EARL BRASSEY

I think the last point raised by the noble Earl was not quite on all fours with the cash of the super-session of road traffic by railways. The thing was not done by the State. It seems to me that those engaged in this private wagon industry are directly contributing to the working of our railways as the things are at present, and they are going to lose their businesses through the action of the State. I am of opinion that the men employed those businesses are entitled to as reasonable compensation as the staff employed in the wagon repairing departments of any great railway company. I would make an earnest appeal to the noble Earl to consider the matter further and to deal with it at a later stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 35, after ("undertaking") insert ("or any part or plant thereof").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (v), to insert: "Provided that the Minister shall not require the abolition of any office or situation which will, in the opinion of the owners of the undertaking, be essential to them in their conduct of the undertaking at the end of the period of possession."

The noble Lord said: I believe that this Amendment may possibly find some favour on the Front Bench opposite. The clause provides for the case of the railways which are probably going to be returned to their previous owners, and although a particular function or office or officer may not be necessary to the Minister—who by the very nature of his functions may be conducting an operation more or less of unification—still, if and when the railways are handed back, the necessity for that office may revive, and it is not desirable that it should have been in the meantime formally or otherwise abolished.

Amendment moved Page 11, line 25, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The subsection to which the noble Lord refers deals only with any existing officer or servant. If the noble Lord will alter his Amendment in such a way as to make it also apply to existing officers I should be prepared to accept it. I would ask the noble Lord if he would insert the word "such" between "any" and "office so that it shall read" the abolition of any such office," and if he will consent to the striking out of the words "or situation"? "Or situation" would apply also to servants, and I think it is inconceivable that any servants of the railway company who might be dismissed in consequence of the action of the Minister would be held to be essential to them in the conduct of the undertaking at the end of the period of possession. If the noble Lord will confine the Amendment to office and to existing officers I should be prepared to accept it. The Amendment would run— Provided that the Minister shall not require the abolition of any such office which will, in the opinion," and so on.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I must conform to the noble Earl's requirements, but I confess I do not see how he can abolish an office which does not exist.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The railway company could create an office between now and the end of the two years.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I will move the Amendment in the amended form.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Before it is put, may I ask the noble Earl if he will answer one specific point? We will take the case of the locomotive superintendent on a small railway. In a scheme for the unification of small railways you amalgamate that railway or do away with it altogether. If you abolish the office of locomotive superintendent on that line, has he compensation or has he not as the clause is amended?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

This question does not raise a matter of compensation at all. All that we are concerned with is that the Minister may direct that the office or situation of any existing officer or servant which he deems unncessary shall be abolished, provided the Minister shall not require the abolition of any such office which will, in the opinion of the owners of the undertaking, be essential to them in their conduct of the undertaking at the end of the period of possession. It is in order to ensure that no servant of the company shall be dismissed by the Minister whom the company will require when the undertaking is once more in their possession.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I take it he would be protected.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

If the Company take that view of his services.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Claims against and by the Minister in respect of exercise of powers.

8.—(1) Where at the end of the period of possession by the Government of any undertaking or of any part or plant of an undertaking the value of the undertaking on a revenue-earning basis has been reduced or enhanced as compared with the value at the commencement of such period, or where during that period the income thereof has been reduced or enhanced, after taking into account in either case—

  1. (a) any capital expenditure by the owners of the undertaking on any works brought into use in the interval; and
  2. (b) where the undertaking has not before possession was taken by the Government paid a dividend out of revenue of four per cent. on its ordinary capital the natural growth of traffic on the undertaking."
then, if and so far as such reduction or enhancement is due to the exercise by the Minister during that period upon the undertaking in question of the powers under section three of this Act (including such powers as have been hitherto exercised by the Board of Trade as mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of that section) the owners of the undertaking shall, unless such reduction or enhancement is otherwise provided for by the payments mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of that section, be entitled to be recouped, or liable to pay, the amount by which that value has been so reduced or enhanced, and if any question arises as to such amount or the liability to pay the same, or otherwise with respect to the financial relations between the Minister and any person affected by the exercise by the Minister of any of his powers under the said section, the question shall be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission having regard to all the circumstances of the case:

Provided that—

  1. (i) no claim in respect of any loss alleged to be due to any direction issued by the Minister shall be entertained if the direction was issued with the concurrence of the owners of the undertaking; and
  2. (ii) if, whilst an undertaking of which or of any part or plant of which possession has been taken remains in the possession of the Government, the State is authorised by Parliament to acquire the undertaking, nothing in this subsection restricting claims for enhancement attributable to the exercise by the Minister of such powers as aforesaid to cases where the value of the undertaking has been enhanced as compared with the value thereof at the commencement of the period of possession shall be held to affect, one way or the other, any question as to the principle on which the price to be paid on such acquisition is to be based.

(2) Without prejudice to any other form of payment or satisfaction, the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Minister, may, as or as part of the consideration for exercising any powers of control under the said section, guarantee the payment of any dividends or interest on any stock or other securities issued by the owners of an undertaking up to such amount as may be agreed, or the payment of any working expenses of the undertaking, and any sums required to fulfil any such guarantee shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(3) Wherever the Minister has expended any sum in the capital improvement of any undertaking the owners of the undertaking shall be liable to pay to the Minister the unexhausted value of such expenditure at the end of the before-mentioned period, if and so far as such expenditure is not covered by the payments to be made by the owners under the preceding provisions of this section and that value shall, in default of agreement., be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission.

(4) The owners of the undertaking may satisfy any payment due from them under this section by creating a charge in favour of the Treasury upon the undertaking to such amount and in such form and with such priority as may be agreed, or, in case of difference, may be settled by the Railway and Canal Commission, who shall have due regard to the rights and interests of all parties concerned, but the charge so created shall in no case take priority to any capital raised by loan or debenture stock issued by the owners of the undertaking.

(5) Any claim by a railway company against the Government for compensation in respect of the exercise by the Board of Trade of any powers over or in respect of the undertaking in pursuance of section sixteen of the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1831, or with the consent of the railway company, or otherwise, may be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission in like manner as if it were a claim arising under this section, and the Minister was the person liable to satisfy the claim.

(6) The Minister shall indemnify, and keep indemnified, the owners of any undertaking of which or of any part of which, or of any plant of which possession has been retained or taken against all actions, claims, and demands made in respect of loss or injury alleged to be caused by the carrying out of any directions given by the Minister under section three of this Act:

Provided that where the loss or injury is clue to the breach of any contractual obligation the Minister shall not be liable under this provision unless before carrying out the directions the owners of the undertaking have given written notice to the Minister of the existence of the obligation.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from the beginning of paragraph (b) to "the" ["the natural growth"]. The noble Lord said: I move the omission of these words, as I do not see any usefulness in the distinction which the paragraph as it stands proposes to draw. In fact I think it might, by the operation of the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius, have an unfair effect.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 23, leave out from the beginning of paragraph (b) to ("the") in line 25.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The words proposed to be left out confine the advantage of the natural growth of traffic to those companies which before possession was taken by the Government had not paid a dividend of 4 per cent. By striking out the words you will give the natural growth of the undertaking to all railway companies That is the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment; I think it; is quite reasonable, and I am prepared to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE moved, in subsection (1),at the end of paragraph (b), to insert: "including in the case of any undertaking which had not before possession was taken by the Government paid a dividend out of revenue of 4 per cent. on its ordinary capital, any traffic which has been transferred to such company during the period of possession by the Government by reason of the natural advantages of its route."

The noble Lord said: On behalf of the smaller railway companies, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. As the Amendment of Lord Stuart of Wortley has been accepted, the smaller railway companies will lose the identity which was given to them in the House of Commons under this subsection—that is to say, when it becomes a question of compensation there will be no direct instruction to the arbitrator to take into consideration the case of a small struggling, but at the same time necessary, railway. I understand that the Amendment which I move receives the assent of the larger railway companies, and I urge it upon the noble Earl in charge of the Bill because it will bring to the special notice of the arbitrator the position of the smaller companies who were not earning a 4 per cent. dividend before the Bill. It is evident from the debates in the House of Commons that it was their intention that the position of these companies should receive consideration. The words which Lord Stuart has succeeded in getting your Lordships to strike out were inserted in the House of Commons in order that that special consideration might be given by the arbitrator to the smaller companies.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 26, after ("undertaking"), insert the said words.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

Perhaps I may be permitted to say that those whom I represent have no objection to the Amendment as moved by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. I am not quite clear, from the noble Lord's speech, why he has moved it. He seems to me to be under seine misapprehension. He stated that by accepting just now an Amendment by Lord Stuart of Wortley I was taking something away from the smaller railway companies. I was not doing that. I was merely giving to the larger railway companies the same concession as was asked for in the House of Commons by the smaller railway companies. There is no advantage to the smaller companies in being distinct from the larger companies, except so far as a certain concession has been given to them. That concession remains.

Now we are asked to go further and say that if a company can prove that it had not been able to obtain the natural advantages of its route, that matter should be taken into consideration when compensation is being considered. Apart from the fact that these words would be ex- tremely difficult to define, I would point out that if the company had any special advantage in its route before it was taken over by the Minister, that of course is not interfered with by anything which may subsequently follow.

It would appear, however, that what is asked for here is compensation for special advantages of the route which were shown to exist during the period when the undertaking was worked by the Minister. If it was an advantage which did not appear before the undertaking was taken over by the Minister, then it is something for which no compensation should be paid. To say that a certain advantage which was discovered during the period when the undertaking was being worked by the Minister should entitle the undertaking to compensation when the railway is handed back, is to ask for something for which I do not think the companies for which the noble Lord speaks are really entitled to ask. For these masons I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE

I do not propose to press the Amendment now, but I may bring it up again upon Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next Amendment, standing in my name, is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 34, leave out ("payments") and insert ("compensation").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert: "Where as the result of any direction of the Minister under section 3, paragraph 1 (c) any undertaking, whether coming within the scope of that section or not, is prejudicially affected by such direction, fair and reasonable compensation shall be paid by the Minister to the owner of such undertaking, and the amount of such compensation failing agreement shall be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission having regard to all the circumstances of the case."

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in the interests of non-controlled undertakings and the non-controlled undertakings, of course, in the cases contemplated by my Amendment, are third parties, outsiders to the transaction. Your Lordships are perfectly aware that a long course of Parliamentary practice and procedure—which, whatever else may be said of it, is considered to be the justest and most incorruptible of any administration that is known—has decided that parties affected injuriously, or whose property is damaged, by the Private Bill legislation of either House for the purpose of giving powers to undertakings, have a locus standi and a right to claim compensation. Now, here we have a Minister—with Parliamentary authority it is true, but still a Minister who is nothing but a Minister—who is going to be put in the place, in a great many cases, of Parliamentary Committees who decide private Bills. My Amendment merely claims the same sort of right to compensation or payment or indemnification for injurious affection, or severance of property, or the like results and that parties should have the right to appear and claim against being injured in that sort of way.

In order that I may give an example of what might happen to the non-controlled undertakings, suppose the Minister gives some direction as regards the controlled undertakings with reference to wages, and says that they must pay more wages, or with reference to hours, it necessarily follows as a consequence that the uncontrolled undertakings may have to raise their wages and curtail their hours. In the case of the controlled undertakings they get compensation from the Government but the uncontrolled undertakings are not in the same fortunate position. It may be that the noble Earl will say that my Amendment provides nothing corresponding to the Standing Orders of Parliament for regulating the rules of locus standi or defining cases in which locus standi should be given to claimants for injurious affection, but I think I am entitled to say that that is not my fault. It is not I who am making this arbitrary proposal to substitute the uncontrolled will of a Minister for the elaborately devised procedure of private Bill legislation, and I respectfully submit., if injury is likely to be caused to third parties, that the procedure for preventing that injury should be devised by those who propose to set up the machinery by which it is likely to be caused.

Therefore, I think that where the uncontrolled undertaking is obliged, by the analogy of the action taken by the Minister, to put itself in a worse position pecuniarily than it was before, without receiving that compensation from the State which the controlled undertakings have been receiving, that case ought to be taken into consideration. I mentioned wages and hours. I should have mentioned also that fares might very well be reduced with a like consequence or that the policy of the Minister might, on a certain controlled undertaking, be to raise the rates of goods and not to raise them on passengers, in order to direct goods traffic on to one line and passengers on to another. All this might have a reflected effect on the finance of the uncontrolled undertaking with, as I venture to submit to your Lordships, very great unfairness to them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, after line 14, insert the said words.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not think the noble Lord can have appreciated the effect of the Amendment he is moving. He is asking that a right to claim compensation shall be given to any undertaking in any part of the country, whether coming within the scope of this Bill or not, if they can put; forward a claim of being prejudically affected by any direction which the Minister may give under his powers in this Bill. The noble Lord himself has given one illustration. Supposing, as the result of the control of the Minister, the wages of railway employees are increased, the noble Lord has suggested that any undertaking of the country should have a claim for compensation on the ground that the rate of labour has been increased and consequently they have to pay more for labour in their undertaking. But I will give another instance which is absolutely certain to arise. There is not a single undertaking in this country which will not be affected by an increase in rates. Does the noble Lord really suggest that, if railway rates are increased through the action of the Minister, any undertaking has a right to come forward and claim compensation because their costs have been increased by the increased railway rates. That is what the Amendment says. It is really an impossible suggestion and I do not believe your Lordships will accept it. Clause 8, dealing with the whole question of compensation, has been thoroughly considered between the Treasury, the railway companies, and the Government, and has been inserted in the Bill as an agreed clause.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

Agreed with the controlled undertakings.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Quite so. I am not willing to consider any alterations to the scale of compensation to those undertakings which will be affected. When the noble Lord says that the Government is to compensate any undertaking in the country which may claim to be affected by any action the Minister has taken he is really asking for something which I do not think your Lordships will agree to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, immediately before the proviso in subsection (6), to insert "The Minister shall also indemnify and keep indemnified the owners of any harbour, dock or pier undertaking against all actions, claims and demands made in respect of loss or injury alleged to be caused by the carrying out of any requirements contained in any Order made by the Minister under section four of this Act." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give to docks and harbours which may be acting under an Order of the Minister the same indemnity against claims as is given to undertakings which are taken possession of. If it is fair to give this indemnity in the one case; I submit it is fair to give it in the other.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Power to establish transport services.

9.—(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and work transport services by land or water, and to acquire either by agreement or compulsorily such land or easements or rights in or over land, to construct such works, and to do all such other things as may be necessary for the purpose:

Provided that—

  1. (i) no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete it has been approved by the Treasury;
    2. 391
  2. (ii) If such estimate as in the preceding paragraph provided in connection with the establishment of any such service is likely to involve a total capital expenditure exceeding half a million pounds, or the acquisition of land compulsorily, or the breaking up of any roads, the Minister shall not exercise his powers unless authorised to do so by Order in Council a draft whereof has been approved by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament, and the Order may incorporate the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvements Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and the Order may also incorporate or apply any enactments relating to the construction and maintenance of the works in question
  3. (iii) where it appears to the Minister that the establishment of any such service could properly be undertaken by the owners of ally existing undertaking, the Minister shall not himself establish the service without first giving to such owners an opportunity of establishing the service, and where such an opportunity is given to the owner of an undertaking of which possession has been retained or taken under section three of this Act and those owners prefer that the establishment of the service should be undertaken by themselves rather than by the Minister, they may require the Minister to give them directions under that section to that effect, but shall not be deemed to have thereby concurred in those directions; and
  4. (iv) the Minister shall not after two years from the passing of this Act, unless Parliament otherwise determines, commence the construction of any new works, or provide equipment for ally transport service not established before that date.

(2) The expenses of working services established by the Minister under this section, shall be paid out of the revenues derived therefrom, and the Minister shall keep such accounts of the receipts from and expenditure on the undertakings and in such form, and those accounts shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may prescribe.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (1), after "It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and" to insert "either by himself or through any other person to." The noble Earl said: I propose to insert these words to enable the Minister to work through the agency of an existing undertaking. I have already explained that where it is possible to work through an existing undertaking the Minister does not wish to work the undertaking himself. The insertion of these words are to give him power to work through the agency of other bodies.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 26, after ("and") insert ("either by himself or through any other person to").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), after "transport services by land or water," to insert "subject to a Provisional Order to be laid on the Table of the House for thirty days during the session of Parliament." The noble Lord said: This clause gives the Minister power to establish new services by land and water, and it gives such wide powers that it is conceivable, if you take into consideration the sum of money which he is enabled to spend on any one service, he may do anything in the nature of establishing competitive services to existing undertakings. Parliament has always proceeded in these matters by Provisional Order, or Private Bill legislation. If this clause is passed in its present form the Minister can start any number of services without the knowledge of Parliament and without previous enquiry to the great detriment of existing undertakings. I see no reason why Parliament should be deprived of its present rights of control over new projects of great magnitude. Vast schemes may be undertaken before Parliament, or the public, is aware of them, and before you can ascertain public opinion or consult the interests affected. The safeguard which some people find in subsection (2) is, in my opinion, not effective. The Minister can start a number of new services and only make a slight difference between each. He might start a series of companies running into many millions of pounds without any effective check, so long as they do not exceed £500,000 each.

I should be glad if the Government will give us some indication of their views on this important clause. It is the first time the Government has had the power of initiating and starting new services in opposition to existing services. They have the power of the tax payer behind them and can run any services they like. They could start a road transport service at lower fares, bearing the loss out of the Consolidated Fund, and kill private enterprise altogether. It is a dangerous clause and I hope some amendment will be made. It would meet some objection if the Government would agree that these new services should be subject to Provisional Order. It would give a little time for the scheme to be examined. I raise the point here in order that we may obtain from the Government some declaration on the clause.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 27, after ("water") insert ("subject to a Provisional Order to be laid on the Table of the House for thirty days during the session of Parliament").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not know Whether the noble Lord really means Provisional Order, because his speech rather suggested that he was speaking of an Order to lie on the Table of the House, and Provisional Order means a Bill.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

That is what I should like, if I could get it.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is quite obvious that I cannot accept the Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord is not aware of the limitations which already exist in this clause upon new services which the Minister may start. Before he can start any service, if the total cost of it will exceed £500,000, or if it involves the acquisition of land and the breaking up of roads, he has first to obtain a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament authorising him to do so. The only services, therefore, which do not come under that would be services upon the roads, or a barge service on a canal. The effect of the Amendment (if it were an Order to lie on the table of the House) would be to say that in every service, whether it is subject to those limitations or not, a Provisional Order would have to be obtained, and procedure by Bill. It would mean that the Minister would be unable to start an omnibus service on the roads; unable to start an experimental motor lorry service; unable to start a barge service upon a canal, without obtaining a Provisonal Order. I hope that your Lordships will feel that the safeguards already in the Bill are sufficient to protect the public interest, and that the Private Bill Procedure which the noble Lord proposes to apply to these very small and moderate services is really not required.

LORD EMMOTT

I do not know whether, after what the noble Earl has said, the noble Lord desires to press his Amendment. I merely rise for the, purpose of suggesting that later on there are Amendments, in the shape of new clauses, standing in the names of Lord Oranmore and Browne and of myself, which raise an alternative method of giving careful consideration to any large scheme which, in the opinion of what I might call a judicial authority, ought to be brought forward as a Bill before Parliament and not go on simply administratively under the hand of the Minister. I do not want to discuss the matter now, but the proposals which Lord Oranmore and Browne and I are making are that, where objection is raised on account of the magnitude of the measure proposed by the Minister, consideration should be given to the objections by the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place, and that they should decide, somewhat on the basis of decisions in the case of Provisional Orders in Scottish legislation, whether the matter should go on as a Bill or be dealt with by the Minister.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think the Amendments to which Lord Emmott refers deal with the acquisition of land under existing undertakings by order of the Minister, and do not apply to acquisition by the Minister himself under Clause 9.

LORD EMMOTT

The Amendment I mean applies to Clauses 9 and 3 (1) (d).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think there is something in what the noble Earl has said in answer to this Amendment, but I should like him to realise upon what extraordinary ground the Government is going. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to press his Amendment, but I hope that when we reach the Amendment of the noble Lord below the gangway it will be pressed. The noble Earl said that in any large undertaking which the Minister starts you will have the protection of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and he seemed to think he had really smashed the whole argument by that. Why, my Lords, the noble Earl seems to have wiped out of his mind all the traditional procedure which in this country has been thought necessary in order to protect the public and private rights. Of course the whole of our procedure has been this, that Parliament in its wisdom has prescribed that everything of this kind is to go before a committee, that the committee is to have witnesses and the assistance of counsel, and, acting in a judicial capacity, it is to arrive at a conclusion. The noble Earl substitutes for that a resolution of both House of Parliament. In the first place Parliament hears no evidence, it knows little about the matter, and it has no counsel to put the matter clearly before it, and only has ordinary parliamentary speakers like ourselves. Lastly, instead of deciding in a judicial spirit, when the Division comes the bells will ring, all the members will come in from the Terrace, where they have been having tea, and they will come into the House of Commons and say to the Government Whips, "Which side?" They will then vote the Resolution.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

What will they do in your Lordships' House?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think it is becoming for me to speak in too high terms of ourselves, but I think that we certainly are a more judicial body than the House of Commons, and at any rate we do not stream in from tea on the Terrace. I should think that most of your Lordships who are attending are present listening to the debate; but in the House of Commons what happens is notorious. My point is that the Resolution of the House of Commons will not be in any sense a judicial decision, but an ordinary voto, and if the Minister-Designate is interested he will see that the Government Whips are put on, and there is no doubt which way the Division will go. I want the Government to realise how utterly they are departing from the old British sense of fair play and judicial decision in promoting this Bill. As regards the particular Amendment, there is no doubt that if carried it will be so much in the teeth of the Government proposal that perhaps it would be 'impossible to expect the Government to accept it. I do not ask my noble friend to press his Amendment, but I do say that when we come to the Amendment to which Lord Emmett referred, unless the Government can make a concession there I think we shall have departed from the last shred of our regard for the good old English practice.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

May I add this point? The noble Earl in answering me talked about "comparatively small undertakings." It shows how we have lost our sense of financial proportion. Small undertakings up to half a million were not thought to be small, but rather large, when I went to Westminster twenty-eight years ago.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

There is another limitation. It must be an undertaking which does not involve the acquisition of land or the breaking up of roads.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

There is another thing which I have in mind. First of all transport services by road may be started in opposition to existing undertakings. I will assume that a new omnibus service is started in London. He can put on a service of 500 vehicles for half a million of money, and a subsidiary company can be started with another half million in another area. It gives very wide financial powers. Then there is another point. At present the Road Board has power to make a new road and take a space each side of the road of 220 yards. Does that power pass to the Minister? That is a point which requires an answer, because it affects largely the acquisition of land. Another point is that there is nobody to represent the interest of road transport at all, and therefore 'bus services or road services, or whatever they are, might be started entirely in the railway interest and might entirely conflict with private enterprise and in fact entirely kill it. I think we might have an answer from the Government on those two points.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

We are dealing here with the starting of new services, and I do not think the noble Lord suggests that the Road Board has power to put any new service on the roads. The making of a new road is another matter, and any such powers will pass to the Minister, but that will not enable him to start any new service except under Clause 9 and subject to the limitation I have mentioned.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

As I understand that this comes on later, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("or rights in or over land")

Page 15, line 32, leave out ("undertaking") and insert ("service").

Page 15, line 33, leave out ("Ministry") and insert ("Minister")

Page 15, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("is likely to involve a total capital expenditure exceeding") and insert ("exceeds").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1) (ii), to leave out "half a million" and insert "fifty thousand." The noble Lord said: I do not know how far this raises the question of privilege of the other House, but I would ask whether it is not wise to limit the power to start a new service to the extent to which that could be done by the expenditure of £50,000. For any rural service which could be started is it likely that you would want a sum exceeding £50,000? I am frightened by the sum of £500,000. I think that it would lead the Minister on to extravagance. It is a very large sum of money to give to a Minister, and to leave its expenditure by him uncontrolled. There is no protection. I do not say that the Minister would make a wasteful use of the money, but this uncontrolled expenditure is a serious thing in the state in which the country's finances now are. It is mainly on the ground of economy that I move that the sum be reduced from £500,000 to £50,000.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 39, leave out ("half a million") and insert ("fifty thousand").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am glad of the opportunity which this Amendment gives of explaining a matter that I think is not yet appreciated by your Lordships, and certainly is not appreciated outside this House. This limitation of £500,000 which is imposed on the Minister has, I think, been the cause of more misunderstanding than anything else in the Bill. It is generally assumed and argued, because a limitation of £500,000 is imposed upon the Minister, that therefore any expenditure of money up to that sum is withdrawn from Parliamentary control. That is the point which the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury dealt with on Second Reading, and I ventured to correct him then. I am not sure even now that I have made it clear that no sum of money which, the Minister may spend is withdrawn from Parliamentary control With regard to all the expenditure under Clause 9, the Minister is subject to precisely the same Parliamentary control as any other Minister—that is to say, he cannot spend any money until he has submitted his estimates to Parliament, and they have been approved by Parliament.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

He very often spends it before.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

He can spend it before if he gets the leave of the Treasury, but he is in the same position as any other Minister. We are not putting the Minister in this Bill in any better position than any other Minister from the point of view of the control of his finance. On the contrary, we are placing a limitation upon him which is not placed upon any other Minister, because we are saying that he is not even to include in his estimates, and come to Parliament for leave to spend, money exceeding £500,000 on any one service. It is as if you were to say to the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day, "You shall not spend more than three million pounds upon a battleship without getting special authorisation from the House of Commons to do so." That would not mean that you were withdrawing the control of the House of Commons over any expenditure up to that sum. It simply would mean that if he has to spend store, than that sum upon a particular ship he has to be authorised by Parliament to do so. What is stated here is that if the Minister proposes to start a new service of such magnitude that it shall involve expenditure of more than £500,000 he has to go to Parliament and obtain a Resolution from both Houses authorising him to do so. I do not know if I have now made the point clear, but I think your Lordships will understand that far from this having the effect of withdrawing Parliamentary control it gives much more Parliamentary control over this Minister than Parliament to-day possesses over any other Minister.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I frankly admit that the noble Earl was quite right to correct me when I made my first statement, which was quite inaccurate. I make that admission fully to the noble Earl, but I think he is pressing his point much too far. It is true, of course, that no Minister can spend any money which is not voted by Parliament. That is to say, if he does spend it he spends it with the possibility that the House of Commons may afterwards differ from him, and then there will have to be some arrangement made whereby at any rate that particular sum will be got from the country and he will not be allowed to spend any more afterwards on the same object. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a Minister being surcharged the amount of money he has spent without leave of Parliament. The real truth is that the power of this financial control is immensely exaggerated. The old theory of the House of Commons having control over it is by modern practice a great deal infringed. Not only does the Minister very often spend the money on the chance that it will be approved, but also a great part of the estimates—this was so in my time in the House of Commons—are not discussed in Parliament at all, but are closured in the end in a great mass. I believe there is some arrangement in the present Session under which the estimates go to a Committee, and no doubt that is a great improvement.

The other point that I want to make is this. The real distinction of this Bill and this Minister from other Bills and other Ministers is that the Government have created for the first time a new spending Department which is not a spending Department belonging to the great Public Service. Here the Government is for the first time entering into a trading system on their own account by which they are going to spend public money. That makes a great difference. If anything of the kind had been in the mind of Parliament before, each separate action of the Minister would have been the subject of a separate Parliamentary Bill. So far from the Resolution being a very special form of control, it is very much less than would have been the case in analogous cases up to now, because there would have been not only a special Resolution in Ways and Means, but there would also have been a special Bill, which would have had to pass through Parliament before the money could be spent. For that is substituted this one Resolution. It is not incorrect to say that this means a tremendous relaxation of Parliamentary control over finance, and it is a precedent which I believe your Lordships will see reason very much to regret in the future.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

May I point out that the Minister can start any service so long as its cost does not exceed £500,000, and if he is a Minister with a powerful Government. behind him he would be certain of getting Parliamentary sanction. The whole difference between the Admiralty and this Ministry is this. This is to set up a huge trading concern which is going to sell the facilities of transport. So far as it applies to railways it is reasonable, because the Government are providing the dividends to the shareholders of the railway companies on the basis of 1913, but as regards the other kind of transport service—the transport service of local omnibus companies, and similar undertakings—they have not got any security whatever, and he may absolutely kill all these undertakings. Even if I do not press this Amendment I want the House to understand that a Minister who is supported by the Government may set up services to compete with private services up to the extent of £500,000. The Bill enables him to do that practically without control, and it enables him to have £500,000 for the purposes of State trading just as if the State were going to take up any other form of service, such as steamships. If the Legislature as a whole decides that that is a wise thing to do, I have nothing more to say, but we should realise that in doing this we are allowing the Minister to set up a huge system of State trading in transport, which will inevitably kill all private enterprise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I desire to move what I think the noble Earl will agree is a mere drafting Amendment—to insert after "land" the words "or easements," easements being for many purposes of equal value.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 1, after ("land") insert ("or easements").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved to insert, as a new paragraph: (v) It shall be the duty of the Minister in respect of any service established and worked by him, or of which he has taken possession to provide all such due and reasonable facilities for the receiving and forwarding, and delivery of traffic as under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts a railway and canal company is bound to provide; and for the purpose of enforcing this duty the Railway and Canal Commission shall have power to award damages and determine all other questions relating to such facilities.

The noble Earl said: Under this Bill, as far as I can see, there is no guarantee that the Minister of Transport must give a good service to the public, and when this clause was discussed in the House of Commons it was considered one of very great importance. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment is not only a very active Member of the House of Commons but is also a lawyer, and in his speech he said they could not allow the Bill to leave the House of Commons, giving the Minister power to control the transport services by land or by water, without his having any statutory obligation to deal with the problem. I have looked through this Bill and I have been unable to discover any clause by which the Minister of Transport would have to provide an efficient service. Although I have not any fear of the efficiency and the good intentions of the Minister-designate, nevertheless we know perfectly well that the life of an official is somewhat circumscribed, and it is quite possible that in the re-adjustment of offices we might have a Minister who would not have the same experience of railways as Sir Eric Geddes.

The Bill leaves too much discretion to the Minister and not enough obligation. In a private contract you generally insist upon having some clause which will protect you, even though it may never be put into operation, and I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be willing to make this concession. In the House of Commons it had very considerable support, and ninety-one Members voted for it and only 208 against it. If this subsection is added it will in no way destroy the power of the Minister of Transport; on the contrary, it will to a certain extent compensate for what a very large number of the public feel and think, that the Government's action in taking over the whole of the transport of the country by this Bill was unnecessary.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 34, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

This Amendment gives me an opportunity of replying to one or two of the points made by the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury on the last Amendment. It enables me to point out to your Lordships what is the difference between the Government in regard to the services which will be started under this clause and any private undertaking trading for profit. The noble Marquess pointed out that for a great many years Parliament has laid down the provisions which should apply to any company which desires to start a service, whether a railway or a tramway or any other undertaking of the kind and he showed that the Government was going to be free front those conditions which Parliament has imposed upon trading companies.

The subject raised in this Amendment is another difference between the Government in its transport undertaking and, say, a railway company. If a railway company comes to Parliament and obtains statutory rights to acquire land and lay down a railway, then Parliament places upon that company an obligation to provide such due reasonable services to traders as the noble Earl wants to insert by this Amendment. But there is all the difference in the world between the services which will be undertaken by the Government under this clause and the services of a railway company to-day.

In the first place the Minister will only start a new service under Clause 9 if it has first been offered to an existing undertaking, and the existing undertaking has refused. That is to say, he will only start a service where an existing undertaking has shown that it would not be profitable for them to do it as a trading company. Secondly, a trading company, coming to Parliament and obtaining powers to start a transport service, obtains a monopoly, and it is only right and proper that, if a railway company obtains these powers to the exclusion of anybody else, Parliament should put upon them the obligation of continuing reasonable facilities. But in this case the Minister will be undertaking this service, not to the exclusion of anybody else, but in default of anybody else, and it will only be because a service is necessary—let us say, a light railway for the purpose of developing a district from an agricultural point of view, or for carrying out some housing scheme. Say the Ministry of Health approaches the Minister of Trans- port and asks for a new service in order to assist an urgent housing scheme. The Minister of Transport will then endeavour to get that service established by some existing undertaking, and if the existing undertaking says, "It will not be profitable for us to start such an undertaking," then and then only would the Minister come in and start the service. Therefore he would not be working as a company would be working which had obtained a monopoly from Parliament; he would be operating the service only in the default of any other undertaking. For those reasons I think it is desirable that the Government should resist this Amendment; and it is unreasonable to say that, when the Government is only undertaking a non-profitable service for public objects in default of any other undertaking, it is to be subject to all the obligations of providing reasonable facilities, and so forth.

Let me point out to the noble Earl that if this is inserted in the Bill the following situation might arise. The Minister might only have asked permission from Parliament to make provision for establishing, say, a tramway or light railway system. If hereafter the Railway and Canal Commission were to impose further obligations upon the Minister in the matter of reasonable facilities, as the noble Earl suggests, then the Minister might be in the position that he would be called upon by the Railway and Canal Commission to do something for which Parliament had made no provision and for which, therefore, he would have no funds. I hope I have explained to your Lordships that the difference between the conditions under which the Minister will operate such a service and the conditions under which an existing undertaking does so to-day are sufficient to justify the difference between the two which is provided for in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I do not know whether the two noble Lords who have put this Amendment on the Paper will desire to press it. I think possibly not. But the particular arguments which have been used by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, impel me to make this comment. It appears to me that all the arguments used by Lord Lytton would be very sound if the railways are being permanently taken over and nationalised. It is true that where a national service is carried on private individuals are not in a position to make representations compelling the provision of particular advantages to them. Where the Post Office does not seem to provide sufficient postal or telegraphic facilities to a particular neighbourhood, those who consider that they are not adequately served may make frantic private representations, or they may make the Member of Parliament for their constituency put pressure upon the Postmaster-General; but they have no grievance which can be sustained in a Court of law or elsewhere.

No doubt if all these services are going to be definitely national the same state of things will exist. But we are perpetually being told that this is a two-years measure. Personally I am in agreement with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; and it seems to me quite as unlikely that at the end of two years the railway position will revert to what it was before the war as I should ever have supposed that the county councils were likely to be abolished in favour of a return to government by Quarter Sessions. But still we have to take the terms of the Bill as they are. The terms of the Bill being what they are, it seems to me that if the provisions of the measure are to be regarded as in that sense transient there is surely something to be said for continuing for the time being with the Government Department the same kind of obligations which are now imposed upon the private trading concerns, of the statutory returns from which the noble Earl has given an accurate description. Therefore the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, is, I think—for the reasons I have tried to give—somewhat more reasonable in character than the noble Earl. Lord Lytton, has endeavoured to show.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I think this is an Amendment upon which the Government should be prepared to give way. I do not know whether they have been advised as to the position which might arise. The Amendment is designed to give to private and commercial users of railway and canal services set up by the Minister the same rights as those that they have in connection with the existing rail ways and canals under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts. Under proviso (iii), if an existing undertaking is taken over it will be bound to provide certain facilities and to undertake certain liabilities. The important point is this. If the Ministers establishes a totally new service he has no duties to provide any facilities and the user of the new service has no rights. Any redress, as the law stands to-day, will be an act of grace and not a matter of right. If the Minister establishes a new service either by land or water (or whatever it is) he should be in exactly the same position as with an existing undertaking. Is the Minister going to say that people can sue him only as an act of grace?

Then it is said that these services may be only temporary. Lots of services are only temporary. But if the service is temporary, why should that prevent the Minister from undertaking his proper liabilities. Sir Edward Carson, whose authority can hardly be disputed, said that if the Minister took over an existing railway he was liable to the Railway Acts, but that if he started a new railway he was not. If the Minister takes over the London and North Western Railway he has to take over their liabilities and duties, but if he starts a new railway company he has no powers and no duties, which seems to be manifestly unfair.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Some of us have had experience of what it is like to be in the hands of the Government when they have control of the railways, and unless this Amendment is passed some of us will suffer severely. When the Government were obliged to control railways they acted most unequally in certain cases. I remember the whole of one district being absolutely denuded of coal in the middle of winter for three or four weeks, yet other supplies which seemed not nearly so necessary were forwarded. If the Minister substitutes one service for another, surely he ought to be bound to give all due facilities in the new service which he does in the old. The very fact that he has got the whole control of the old service seems to me to make it incumbent upon him to put the new one in the same position. I think the noble Earl is foreseeing difficulties which are not likely to arise if the thing is fairly worked. We hold that the Minister should be in all respects the locum tenens of those whom he at present represents, and that the Department should be subject to the same pressure as has been found necessary in regard to existing railway companies. I hope that my noble friend will insist on his Amendment.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am afraid the noble Viscount did not hear the arguments I used just now, because he has stated that the Government ought to be in all respects in exactly the same position as the existing railway companies. My argument went to show that the Government is in an entirely different position from the railway companies, and that is how we justified the different treatment. I pointed out that a railway company coming to Parliament asks for a monopoly. It is obviously necessary and desirable that if you give to a trading company a monopoly to trade in a particular district you should place it under this obligation. The Government will be in a totally different position. It will not act to the exclusion of any trading company because before the Minister can start a transport service he must be satisfied that no existing undertaking is willing to do so. That places him in a totally different category. Then again he is not doing this for profit; he is undertaking a service on public grounds, it may be for the purpose of developing housing or developing an agricultural district. These services will be started only where no existing company can be found to undertake them. The fact that the Minister is in a totally different position, I think, justifies the different procedure which we ask for. I think it would be altogether unreasonable to say that the Minister who starts a non-profitable service on public grounds is to be placed in exactly the same position as a company that has obtained a monopoly right from Parliament and is working for its own profit. I am sure that if the noble Viscount had heard those arguments he would have felt there was justification for the attitude of the Government.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Surely the noble Earl does not contend that the Government are not going to create a monopoly. They will have a monopoly exactly the same as the railway company have. What I am afraid of is that the Minister will establish services on the roads and otherwise which might have been taken up by private companies and he is not to be subject to the same disabilities. I do not think it is fair.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

He cannot start them, under the words of the Bill until existing undertakings have had an opportunity to do so. It is only when they refuse that he will start them at all.

On Question, whether the proposed new paragraph shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS
Northumberland, D. Chaplin, V. Forester, L.
Hood, V. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Crewe, M.
Salisbury, M. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) O'Hagan, L.
Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Redesdale, L.
Brassey, E. Crawshaw, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Lindsay, E. Denman, L. Rotherham, L.
Malmesbury, E. [Teller.] Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) Sandys, L.
Morton, E. Sydenham, L.
Stanhope, E. Erskine, L. Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]
Wicklow, E. Farrer, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Bradford, E. Milner, V. Hylton, L. [Teller.]
Chesterfield, E. Peel, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Lee of Fareham, L.
Ludlow, L.
Eldon, E. Annesley, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Jersey, E. Bledisloe, L. Queenborough, L.
Lytton, E. Chalmers, L. Ranksborough, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L. Shandon, L.
Colebrooke, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Fairfax of Cameron, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Churchill, V. Faringdon, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Goschen, V. Gisborough, L. Wittenham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "The expenses of working services established by the Minister under this section," and to insert "The Minister or other person working a service established under this section may charge such rates, fares, tolls, and charges in connection therewith as may be prescribed by the Minister, and the expenses of working such services."

The noble Earl said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment, but it requires a word of explanation. It is not quite clear in the Bill whether the power to work also gives the power to charge. I think it is obvious that the power to charge is inherent in the power to work, but in case there should be any doubt on the subject, these words are inserted to show that the Minister shall have the power to charge as well as the power to work.

Amendment moved— Page 16, lines 35 and 36, leave out ("The expenses of working services established by the Minister under this section") and insert the proposed words.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As I understand, what the Government seek to do is to make the Minister quite independent of any check in respect of any services started by the Government. Is that so? Does my noble friend intend

that there should be no check upon the tolls, fares, rates, and so on, which the Minister establishes in respect of the particular undertakings which he initiates? I should certainly have thought that the right thing would be that these rates, fares, tolls and charges should be subject to the advice of the Committee, just as they are in the case of any other undertaking. I do not understand why the noble Earl draws a distinction between the two. Perhaps he will explain.

I might have misinterpreted his Amendment but, as I understand it, the effect would be that, whereas any change in the fares, rates and tolls in respect of undertakings controlled by the Government would have to come before the Advisory Committee, these would not have to come before the Committee. That appears to me very anomalous. Why should that distinction be drawn? It is rather an important matter because it is quite easy to see that by changes in the rates the Minister might compel other people to follow him. By changing rates on lines which he himself has started, he might, by competition, force others to accept his decision although, in normal circumstances, the matter would have had to go before the Advisory Committee. I should have thought that the proposal was not quite so simple as the Government perhaps think. If I am wrong I hope the noble Earl will interrupt me and I will sit down at once.

If I am right in saying that the effect is to withdraw from the cognisance of the Advisory Committee fares and tolls in respect of these particular transport services, I think it is an unfairness, and also I think the public will have some right to protest. Here we have an Advisory Committee about which your Lordships have taken a great deal of trouble. It is not a mere colourable Advisory Committee. It is a real Committee, representative of all the interests involved, and it does seem to me that such a body as that ought to have cognisance not merely of the fares and rates in the controlled undertakings but also in the Government-owned undertakings. If the Government would promise to reconsider it before the next; stage I would not press the matter any further, but if not I shall ask the Government to explain how they defend this discrimination.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Perhaps I had better make it quite clear why the Amendment is moved. If your Lordships will look on page 16, line n, you will see in subsection (2) that— The expenses of working services established by the Minister under this section shall be paid out of the revenue derived therefrom, but it is not clear that there will be any revenue derived therefrom. There can be no revenue unless the Minister has a right to charge rates, tolls and dues. Therefore, this is merely put in to ensure that the Minister shall be able to get revenue from the undertakings which he establishes. I did not think it necessary to explain that the rates on the services started by the Ministry would not come under the Committee who advised the Minister on the rates of existing undertakings, because the whole of my remarks on the previous Amendment were devoted to showing that the services of the Minister and the services of competing undertakings for profit are in entirely different positions. The Minister here will not be undertaking a competing service at all, but will be merely undertaking a service in default of any other, and all that this clause says is that he shall have the right to charge rates on the services so established. To say that he should also submit to a Committee, which is appointed for a totally different purpose, to advise him whether the rates he proposes are right or not, is to fail to appreciate the difference (which I endeavoured to explain on the last Amendment) between these services and those of competing railway companies for profit.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The two following Amendments are consequential.

Amendments proposed—

Page 16, line 37, after ("keep") insert ("or cause to be kept")

Page 16, line 38, leave out ("undertakings") and insert ("services").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11.

Appeal as to bridges.

11. An appeal shall lie to the Minister in respect of any restriction upon any traffic passing over or seeking to cross any bridge or culvert, and the Minister shall have power notwithstanding any provision in any other statute to make such order as he may think fit concerning the strengthening, standard of maintenance, and maintenance of any bridge or culvert, the traffic using it, or seeking to use it, and apportionment of any expenditure involved.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of Clause 11, to insert "but no Order made by the Minister under this section shall enlarge the pecuniary liability of any railway or canal company or impose any new liability upon any such company." The noble Lord said: The liabilities of railway companies as regards bridges are well established by statute and have received definition from the Courts of Law, and I think the Government must see that, unless some such words are put in, their liabilities might be unfairly extended under the operation of this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 14, to insert the said words.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

This clause was inserted in the House of Commons at the instance of those who spoke on behalf of the road interest. No opposition was expressed to the clause and it was consequently accepted by the Minister. The Amendment proposed by Lord Stuart of Wortley would completely nullify the clause so far as it affected railways and, therefore, I am in this position. I could not possibly accept an Amendment which would stultify the whole purpose of a clause which the Government accepted in the House of Commons, but as the clause was not a Government clause but merely one which was proposed independently and accepted by them, I can only leave it to the House to decide. I cannot accept the Amendment, but if the noble Lord divides upon it I shall not resist it.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord press it?

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

Yes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

"Provisions as to new routes for omnibuses.

". Section twenty of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916 (which relates to the establishment of new routes for omnibuses), shall continue in force until the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if—

  1. "(a) the following provision was substituted for subsection (2) of the section (that is to say)—
  2. "(b) the following subsection was added to the section (that is to say):—

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12:

Powers as to railway wagons.

12.—(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to purchase privately-owned railway wagons required for use on any railway on such terms and conditions as may be authorised by or ruder an Order in Council, a draft whereof has been approved by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament, and to work or lease any such wagons when so purchased, or to apportion them among the several railway undertakings in such manner, on such terms, and subject to such conditions as may be provided by or under the Order:

Provided that the Minister shall not be entitled to purchase in England and Wales or Scotland or Ireland, respectively, wagons used for the conveyance of any particular class of traffic unless he purchases all privately-owned wagons so used which belong to or are used by persons carrying on business therein and which comply with the regulations with respect to such wagons in force at the date of such purchase.

(2) Where in the case of any wagon which has been in use on or before the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, the wagon has since that date been the subject of a purchase agreement the price paid on such purchase shall not be evidence of the value of the wagon in determining the price to be paid by the Minister.

(3) Where the Minister has, in pursuance of his powers under this section, purchased any wagon, any contract then in force for the repair of the wagon shall upon the purchase be determined, unless otherwise agreed with the Minister.

(4) Where the Minister exercises his powers of purchasing wagons under this section, or of prohibiting or restricting the use of privately-owned wagons, or of limiting the number of wagons to be so used, the following provisions shall have effect:—

  1. (a) The reasonable facilities which every railway company is required to afford under section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as amended or explained by any other Act, shall where the railway wagons of traders of any class have been purchased include the provision of suitable railway wagons for the use of traders of that class:
  2. (b) Where the provision of wagons is not included in the authorised maximum rates of conveyance, a railway company may charge for the use of such wagons such sums as may be directed by the Minister under section three of this Act, and if and so far as no such directions are in force any sums not exceeding those prescribed for the use of such wagons by any Railway Rates and Charges Order applicable thereto:
  3. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act or any decision thereunder, in determining what sum may be charged under the provisions of any Railway Rates and Charges Order for the detention of wagons at the premises of any trader, regard shall be had to the requirements and reasonable usages of the trade at those premises carried on in connection with which such wagons are used.

(5) Notwithstanding any statutory or other provision to the contrary it shall be lawful for the Minister to make regulations prohibiting or restricting the use on railways of privately-owned wagons or restricting the number of wagons to be so used and prescribing the type and capacity thereof:

Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the prohibition of the use on railways of such wagons as comply with regulations for the time being in force made in pursuance of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act., 1845, or any other enactment in force at the date of time passing of this Act and as are in use, under repair, or in course of construction at that date.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4) (a), before "provision," to insert "adequate." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to ascertain what will be the exact position of traders who own wagons and use them in connection with their business after all their wagons have been taken over by the Minister and are operating for the general use of the public. I regard this particular clause with greater apprehension than any clause in the Bill. Unless some adequate safeguard is given to a company such as a mining or quarrying company that they shall have, after their wagons have been compulsorily taken by the Minister, an adequate supply of wagons to carry on their business serious injustice may result. I do not desire to press the Amendment against the views of the Government if they can assure me that, in fact, these companies or businesses (which are to-day adequately provided with wagons and have spent capital in providing them) will, after the acquisition by the Government, be adequately provided with wagons for the purposes of their business. This is particularly the case in quarrying companies and mining companies, whose business involves the carriage to long distances of commodities of considerable bulk, for upon that carriage depends the failure or success of the business.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 10, after ("the") insert ("adequate").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am glad to hear that the noble Lord does not press the Amendment, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy him as to the position. The position is this. After the Government has acquired the privately owned wagons the Bill says that the supply of wagons to those traders who previously had their own wagons shall be regarded as a reasonable facility which the company will have to fulfil. The noble Lord moves to insert before "provision" the words "adequate." The effect of that would be to restrict The Railway and Canal Commission, when they hear the case, to a mere consideration as to whether the provision was adequate or not. If the word "adequate" is not inserted what the Railway and Canal Commission will have to decide is whether the provision which the railway company has made is, or is not, reasonable in all the circumstances of the case—namely, the number of wagons which the Minister has acquired, and the allocation he has made of them. The Minister, or rather the railway company in the possession of the Minister, will be in exactly the same position as are the railway companies to-day on whose lines there are any privately-owned wagons but who are under an obligation to provide wagons. Any trader may go to the Railway and Canal Commission and ask that a reasonable provision of wagons should be made, in the same way as they can go to the railway companies which are under an obligation to provide wagons for traders.

LORD BLEDISLOE

It depends very much on the meaning to be attached to the word "reasonable." May I ask the noble Earl this? Is it conceivable, under the new régime, that a company which has owned 200 wagons for the purpose of its business may find itself with 100 wagons only allocated by the Minister as being a reasonable proportion of the number which should be allocated to them?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

That will be a question for the Railway and Canal Commission to decide. If you insert the word "adequate" you will leave out from their consideration the possibility of looking into the number of wagons which are at the disposal of the Minister to allocate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment cm the Paper, in subsection (4), at the end of paragraph (a), to insert "and it shall be the duty of the Minister or of the railway company working such wagons, as the case may be, to afford such facilities, and the power of the Railway and Canal Commission to award damages under section twelve of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and any provision amending the same, shall extend to any neglect or default in respect of such facilities."

The noble Lord said: This relates to an Amendment which received considerable support in the House of Commons, as you will see from the debate on July 7 in Hansard, column 970. It was moved by Mr. Leslie Scott, and the Solicitor-General undertook that the matter should be reconsidered in the Lords. I am told that it is considered to be an important point by certain interests affected, and perhaps the noble Earl will tell me if he thinks any words could be found acceptable which would meet the case.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I have words here which perhaps will meet the noble Lord's point. It is an important one, and the Government certainly undertook to meet it. The point is this. These privately-owned wagons will have been acquired by the Minister. The Bill says he may allocate these wagons in such a way that they shall be used by the various railway companies. It is obvious that the Minister must allocate them, unless he is to destroy them or throw them into the sea. He does not require wagons except for the purpose of their being used. And if the railway companies are to fulfil the obligation which is placed upon them in the Bill, it is necessary that the Minister shall allocate them in such a way as to enable them to carry out their obligations. I propose, instead of his Amendment, to carry out his intention by moving the insertion of the following words: "It shall be the duty of the Minister so to exercise his power of working or disposing of the wagons purchased by him as to enable railway companies to fulfil their obligations under the provision as fully as may be practicable." I hope the noble Lord will accept those words.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

It is impossible for me to grasp how far they go, but I will accept them provisionally and shall be able to consider them on Report.

Amendment moved— Clause 12, page 18, line 12, after ("clause") insert ("and it shall be the duty of the Minister so to exercise his power of working or disposing of the wagons purchased by him as to enable railway companies to fulfil their obligations under the provision as fully as may be practicable").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 18, line 32, leave out ("restricting") and insert ("limiting")

Page 18, line 37, after ("1845") insert ("the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1843").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Amendments moved—

Page 19, line 8, leave out from ("securities") to ("which") in line 17

Page 19, line 20, at end insert ("the interest on any such securities as aforesaid shall—

  1. "(a) in the case of securities issued for the purchase of railway wagons be charged an the revenues derived from the wagons so acquired after payment thereout of working expenses, and, if and so far as such revenues are insufficient, on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof; and
  2. "(b) in the case of other securities be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to insert as a new subsection— (2) Where the whole or any part of the purchase money for the interest in railway wagons belonging to a wagon finance company is discharged by the issue to the company of such securities as aforesaid, and the company in consequence of the exercise by the Minister of his powers under this Act of purchasing railway wagons is wound up voluntarily, the liquidator may present to the court having jurisdiction to wind up the company a scheme for the discharge in whole or in part of the liabilities of the company to the holders of debentures or debenture stock of the company by means of the transfer to them of an amount of the securities so issued to the company, and if the court sanctions the scheme those liabilities may be discharged accordingly. For the purpose of this subsection 'wagon finance company' means a company whose principal business is the advance of money to colliery companies and other persons for the purpose of the acquisition by them of railway wagons. The noble Earl said: There are a number of wagon finance companies whose business will probably cease when the privately-owned wagons are taken over by the Ministry. It has been pointed out to us on behalf of these companies that in winding up their business they will be placed in a great difficulty if they are paid in stock, as is provided under the Bill, and have to realise that stock in order to pay off their debenture holders. This Amendment is therefore proposed in order to enable the companies to pay off their debenture holders, in the event of their going into liquidation, without the necessity of realising their stock.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 20, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

These are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 19, line 21 leave out ("where any order is") and insert ("an order")

Page 19, line 23, leave out ("where any") and insert ("an")

Page 19, line 25, leave out from ("railway") to ("shall") in line 27.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

Clause 16:

Power to make advances for certain purposes.

16.—(1) The Minister may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make advances out of the moneys provided by Parliament to any authority, company or person, either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in another, and upon such terms and conditions as he thinks fit for any of the following purposes:—

  1. (a)The construction, improvement or maintenance of railways, light railways, or tramways:
  2. (b) The construction, improvement or maintenance of roads, bridges, or ferries:
  3. (c) The construction, improvement or maintenance of harbours, docks or piers:
  4. (d) The construction, improvement or maintenance of canals or inland navigations:
  5. (e) The promotion and improvement of transport services by land or water:
And the power of the Treasury on the recommendation of the Development Commissioners to make advances for any of the purposes aforesaid shall cease and determine, except as respects advances for the construction, improvement, or maintenance of harbours in connection with the improvement and development of fisheries, in which case the Development Commissioners shall consult with the Minister before reporting on any application referred to them:

Provided that the Minister shall not make an advance exceeding one million pounds at any one time for the purpose of any work, unless specially authorised to do so by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(2) For the purpose of advances for the construction, improvement, or maintenance of roads the Minister may, after consultation with the local authorities affected, classify roads in such manner as he thinks fit, and may by agreement with the local authority defray half the salary and establishment charges of the engineer or surveyor to a local authority responsible for the maintenance of such roads, subject to the condition that the appointment, retention, and dismissal of such engineer or surveyor, and the amount of such establishment charges, shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in the proviso at the end of subsection (1), to leave out "one million," and insert "one hundred thousand." The noble Lord said: This Amendment proposes to limit the power of the Minister to advance for certain purposes the sum of £1,000,000, and to substitute for that figure £100,000. Not only do I put this forward on its merits, but I do so also in order to protest once more against the tremendous financial responsibility which, if this Bill passes unaltered, we are incurring. With all the many merits that the Minister-designate may have, he is not, so far as my experience went in France, particularly keen on economy. Nobody denies that he carried out a certain amount of very useful work there, but economy was not supposed then to be his strong point.

A further important point arises on this. On the previous clause which we were discussing before dinner, I proposed to limit the Minister's power to spending £50,000. Your Lordships will see that he cannot spend more than £500,000 in establishing any particular transport service by land or water. But that applies to a service established by himself. When it is a matter of advancing money to other people for certain other forms of construction, he is allowed to advance up to £1,000,000. I am deeply concerned about subsections (b) and (e) in Clause 16, and I invite the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to tell me whether subsection (e), with the powers under this particular clause to advance £1,000,000 to any person promoting a service by land or water, does not allow the Minister to advance £1,000,000 for that purpose?

On the other hand it will be seen that in Clause 9 the Minister is tied down by a proviso stating that "if such estimate as in the preceding paragraph provided in connection with the establishment of any such service is likely to involve a total capital expenditure exceeding half a million pounds," the Minister shall not exercise his powers unless authorised to do so by Order in Council. If we go back to this Clause we find that he can advance £1,000,000 to a company. In other words, a private company may be started to which he advances £1;000,000, whereas he is tied to £500,000 if he is working the undertaking himself. It seems to me those two things are rather conflicting. There may be some reason for it.

On the general question of this clause, I do not know where the money is to come from for all these enormous powers. The Minister will have power to buy up all the private wagons, and that will cost £70,000,000. If he is going to be allowed to advance £1,000,000 for all kinds of purposes to a private company it opens up a vista of unlimited extravagance—I do not say by the present Minister-designate but by other Ministers who may possibly follow. There may be other Ministers who are very keen on nationalising everything. They may advance million after million for this purpose, and, as far as I can make out, the Government and Parliament will have no control over it. I may of course be wrong, and there may be a distinction between this Clause and Clause 9, but on careful examination I cannot see the distinction, except that in the one case he proposes to lend the money and in the other case to do it himself.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 22, leave out ("one million") and insert ("one hundred thousand").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

What we are concerned with in this Clause is the power given to the Minister to advance money to existing undertakings to do any of the things contained in subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). These advances are made by the Government to existing undertakings. It has nothing to do with the services started by the Minister himself. It is, of course, a very difficult thing to argue on a particular figure, or to justify the exact sum of £1,000,000 in preference to anything else. But the reason why the sum is larger in this case is that railway companies, or any other undertaking, would only come to the Minister and ask for his assistance for the construction for some really large works, and if the limitation in the Amendment were inserted it would practically mean that the Minister would have to obtain a Resolution from the House of Commons in nearly every case. It would only be to start large works or to provide large amounts of rolling stock that railway or other transport companies would require the assistance of the Minister in the way he has suggested; and, of course, the remarks I made with regard to the limitation of £500,000 apply equally here. The Minister cannot advance any money without the approval of the Treasury and of Par- liament for the sum inserted in his Estimates. Some point was made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the previous clause to the effect that a Minister might forestall the approval of his Estimates by Parliament; but I think the noble Marquess will agree that this is done only with the consent of the Treasury in the first instance. Certainly in the Department with which I have been connected no forestalment has ever taken place without the approval of the Treasury.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think that the Treasury exercise much control now.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

That has not been my experience. The position, however, is that before any advances are made by the Minister he has to obtain Treasury approval and place the sum in his Estimates which have to go before Parliament. The noble Lord says that there is some inconsistency between our figure of £500,000 for the service which the Minister himself may start and the limit here. This is a matter which was specially considered by the House of Commons, and the view they took—I think it is a sound one—that it was desirable to put a greater limitation upon the Minister in respect of services which he himself was going to start and which, as has been pointed out in this debate, is a new departure; that it was desirable to put a stricter limit upon those services than in the case of advances made to existing companies. When we were dealing with existing companies the Government made out the case that it was reasonable that advances should be made to the limit of £1,000,000, which limit was considered satisfactory by the House of Commons and accepted by them. It is impossible to argue the merit of any particular figure, but the limit of £1,000,000 is in our opinion necessary in view of the kind of demands that will be made by the existing undertakings for advances from the Minister. If we are restricted by the smaller limit which the noble Lord proposes to insert it would practically mean that no advances could ever be made, even though submitted in Estimates and approved by Parliament, without a special Resolution of the House of Commons authorising it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have no wish to detain your Lordships, but I should like to be allowed to point out to the noble Earl that when he says that this clause is confined to existing undertakings I am not; sure that; I know where he finds the word "existing." I may have overlooked it, but as I see it all that it says is that the Minister "may make advances to any authority, company, or person." Those are very wide words. Then the noble Earl says that there is a great distinction to be made between the kind of beneficiary (if I may use such a phrase) under Clause 16 and the kind of beneficiary under Clause 9. He said that under Clause 9 it was right to be more rigid. But I think he has forgotten that he himself has inserted an Amendment in Clause 9 which allows the Minister to start in the transport service not only by himself but through any other person.

Observe how the two clauses then work together. The Minister desiring to start a new line of steamers in connection with a railway which he has taken possession of—that would be one of these transport services under Clause 9—would do it through some other person—namely, the railway company. Having got this enormous new work in operation he would proceed to advance them £1,000,000 under Clause 16; indeed, I think he would probably be able to advance them £1,500,000 without cheek of the kind which is contemplated in the Bill. That would be £500,000 under Clause 9 and £1.000,000 more under Clause 16. If, therefore, you take the two clauses together it will be seen what immense liberty the Minister has. In point of fact, as far as I can see—though I may be quite wrong—the whole of the financial facilities which are granted under Clause 16 will be available for any new transport work or service under Clause 9. Taking the two together the facilities will be quite complete.

In those circumstances I cannot refrain from having a moment of wonder why Clause 9 should require a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament for £500,000, and Clause 16 should require a Resolution of only one House of Parliament for double that amount. The noble Earl says this has been very carefully considered in the House of Commons. I should have said it bore all the marks of a compromise arrived at in some haste. I do not think it is very easy to defend the provisions of these clauses. It is not very material to my purpose to make a distinction between the two in this respect; I only want to mark the want of care with which this Bill has been sent up to your Lordships' House. It is for the Government to make their Bill four-square and shipshape. The point of substance is the drawing of a distinction between Clause 9 and Clause 16. I think it would be perfectly easy to work both the clauses together.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I confess the point raised by the noble Marquess is new to me. It has never occurred to me that advantage could be taken of the wording of this clause to enable the Minister to make advances to himself.

THE MANQUESS OF SALISBURY

No.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I mean, working through some other person. I do not believe for a moment that such a thing is possible. I am quite convinced that it was never intended, and I do not believe that the words would give that power. The effect of the Amendment which I inserted in an earlier clause is to enable the Minister, having started a service, to work it through some other body or persons. The noble Marquess suggests that, having done that, he may still make advances up to £1,000,000 through that person to enable him to run the service which he has himself started, and by that means to transfer the benefits of this Clause 16 to the undertaking which he has started under Clause 9. That certainly has never been intended. I will inquire into the matter between now and Report to see whether it is in fact possible, and whether words can be inserted to deal with that point.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I quite realise that an advance of £1,000,000, say, for making a new railway or for the adaptation of a shipping line in connection with a railway may not be too large a sum. I would, however, like to point out that when the Minister has let a private individual make the line, he runs it and it becomes part of the system already taken over. It is therefore virtually getting a service established which he then takes over.

There are two points in this subsection, in paragraphs (b) and (e). I cannot conceive that he would advance to a person other than a county council money for time construction, improvement or maintenance of roads, bridges or ferries. These are matters only concerned with the local authorities. If the noble Lord will put in something in the case of roads, bridges and ferries to the effect that advances should be to the local authority that would meet my point there. As to the "promotion and improvement of transport services by land or water" I do not know whether it is intended, for example, that the Minister can advance £1,000,000 to the London General Omnibus Company to build more motor cars. If so, would be become a shareholder? In what way would be advance it? Would he take debentures of the company or shares? I do not understand how he could do it unless he took possession of the undertaking. The money, I assume, would be advanced by the Treasury. These are questions of considerable importance and perhaps the noble Earl will give us an idea of his views upon them.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I think the noble Earl admits that the construction which my noble friend has put on the clause is a very serious one, and I would like to ask him what is meant by a Resolution of the House of Commons in this case. We are all familiar with a Financial Resolution of the House of Commons which is passed previous to the carrying of a particular measure involving finance. Apparently, this is not a Resolution of that character. Unless I am mistaken, this Resolution is a means, or may be used as a means, of avoiding any Bill on this subject coming through to this House at all. Is that not so? The noble Earl will perhaps clear up the point. In the ordinary sense it is true that our power to deal with money Bills has been greatly clipped, but we can discuss them. A Resolution on which no Bill is going to be founded, however, will be passed by the House of Commons and the matter cannot be discussed here, where there is a large number of people with special information. That is one point.

The other point is this. The noble Lord will notice that the whole language of Clause 16 is much looser than the language of Clause 9. In Clause 9 the Minister is to establish and work certain services under certain definite provisos. In Clause 16 he is enabled to advance £1,000,000 "upon such terms and conditions as he thinks fit for any of the following purposes "—which are set out. This is to be done and made good by a Resolution of the House of Commons. It really is an absolute novelty and I do not think it has been in any Bill before. I rather hope that when we reach the Report stage the noble Earl will look into it and see whether he is not establishing a procedure rather foreign to that which he thinks he is establishing.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think I can remove the difficulty at once if your Lordships will look at Clause 9 you will see that the Minister is to be authorised by Order in Council. That Order in Council, of course, has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and there a large new question of policy is involved. What we are concerned with here is simply a Financial Resolution. The noble Viscount thinks that it may be utilised to prevent a Bill to provide the money from coming to this House at all. That will not take place. Your Lordships at this moment have no opportunity of discussing the Estimates of any one of the spending Departments of the Government. You have an opportunity of criticising any one of them when the Finance Bill come before your Lordships, and the only way in which any spending Department can obtain this money is by an amount provided for in the Finance Bill. That, of course, conies before your Lordships and can be criticised. The question of authorising the Minister to spend public money is a matter which concerns the House of Commons, and therefore a Resolution to authorise the amount is provided by the House of Commons. It does not take away from your Lordships any right of criticism which you would possess if this clause were not inserted.

The point I have undertaken to consider is whether there really is any ground for fearing that the words of the Bill as they stand, read in conjunction with the Amendment which I inserted at an earlier stage, would enable the Minister to utilise this clause for the purpose of advancing money to his own undertaking, worked by a deputy. I need not point out that in that case his action would be criticised by the Treasury and by the House of Commons. It would have to go before the Treasury; he would have to justify it, and I cannot believe that in the circumstances the Treasury would agree. I admit it is a new point and I have undertaken to look into it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

On the undertaking given by the noble Earl, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

moved, in subsection (2), after "in such a manner as," to insert "subject to the approval of the Roads Committee hereinafter referred to." The noble Lord said: This is an important question from a highway point of view, and its importance may not have occurred to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Grants given to these roads will, in future, depend on classification. It is erroneous to think that no classification exists now. The Road Board has for some time been engaged in classification. If you are going to pay about 50 per cent. of the expenses of main roads, and 25 per cent. on secondary roads, classification will be very important to localities and great pressure will be brought to bear on the Minister to classify as many roads as possible in the first classification, and not in the second. Great counties like Lancashire and Yorkshire will desire that all their main roads shall be classified as first class. In Lancashire alone there are seventy members of Parliament, and it is obvious that the Minister must be exposed to a good deal of political pressure. In my opinion, and I speak from many years experience on the Road Board, some impartial tribunal is desirable to settle classification; a tribunal not subject to political pressure. If you have a Minister not protected by some impartial tribunal he will be subject to this political pressure. I suggest this is one of the subjects which should be referred to the Roads Committee. I want the Roads Committee to have a say, and to be consulted, before roads are classified. If the noble Earl agrees that it would be desirable for the Roads Committee to be consulted I should like to make it a statutory obligation that the Minister, before classifying roads, should take the advice of the Roads Committee. He would then be able to shelter himself behind it in the case of political pressure.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 28, after ("as") insert ("(subject to the approval of the Roads Committee hereinafter referred to)").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I have some difficulty in discussing this Amendment without going into the further Amendment of the noble Lord's with regard the powers of the Roads Committee, which arises in the subsequent clause. I cannot accept this Amendment for the reasons which I stated early in the discussion this afternoon. The Government is not prepared to put any of these Committees into the position of being executive bodies. The responsibility for the Minister's action we hold must remain with the Minister in this case as in the other cases, and therefore I could not agree that the Minister may not carry out the classification of the roads without the approval of the Roads Committee. I think it is obvious, as the noble Lord has pointed Out, that such classification must be undertaken in consultation with the Roads Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Will you say that?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Certainly, I have no objection to that.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

If the noble Lord gives me the word "consultation"—

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I have no objection to accepting the Amendment in a form which would make it an obligation upon the Minister to consult the Roads Committee, so long as "approval" is withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I shall be quite prepared to accept the word "consultation" instead of "approval," although it is not so strong a word.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I suggest that the words to be inserted should be "Roads Committee hereinafter referred to and the," and should go in line 27. The clause will then read "after consultation with the Roads Committee hereinafter referred to and the local authorities affected."

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I accept that.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Will the noble Earl tell us what is the advantage of classifying the roads, unless you are going to do something afterwards. In order that the noble Earl may tell us what is the policy of the Government I will formally move to omit the word "classify." So far as the Bill is concerned, it is merely a paper arrangement.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 27, leave out ("classify").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think the noble Lord opposite can probably give a fuller answer to the noble Marquess than I can. I understand that this matter of classifying roads has been one of the duties of the Road Board for many years. I speak subject to the noble Lord's correction, but I think he will agree that the classification of roads is a very important preliminary to any future road policy. The roads will be placed under this classification in various categories of first-class, second-class and so forth. This policy of classifying roads has been promised for a very long time. It was pressed for, I think, originally in 1914, and a promise was given at that time that it would be introduced into the Budget of that year. That was interrupted by the war and the matter has hung over. Everybody interested in roads has for many years pressed that there should be a complete classification of roads so that any road policy may be based upon the classification so provided. It is not in itself a policy, but it is a necessary preliminary to any proper treatment of roads by the Ministry.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am quite aware of what the noble Earl has said; indeed, I tried to classify the roads myself in an abortive legislative project many years ago. But the noble Earl went on to say that something was to happen when the classification was complete. I presume that he is going to give a different measure of assistance to roads according to their classification. All I wanted to know was, What is the policy of the Government? Are they going to give more money to class I than to class II, and if so can the noble Earl tell us to what extent he is going to help the roads? The reason I put this question to the noble Earl is, that in an earlier debate some days ago the noble Lord who sits opposite, Lord Harris, said that he had taken the line he had because he valued so much the road policy of the Government. I do not know what that policy is. There has been no statement of it in your Lordships' House. If the noble Earl will say that the classification will result in a relief to the rates that will be popular with the road authorities, but if he is not going to relieve the rates this will be no good to them.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is quite true that the reason for classification is because upon that classification the grants given by the Government will be differentiated. There will be given to the first-class roads 75 per cent. of the grant. We have to get a standard upon which the grants towards maintenance will be contributed.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

We anticipated on the Road Board getting £3,000,000 to £3,500,000 from the carriage taxes and the motor spirit duties, and that we understand is to be restored to the Ministry of Communications. It would have been restored to the Road Board and would have been distributed not for improvement but in future towards maintenance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to

Clause 17:

Accounts, statistics and returns.

17. For the period of two years after the passing of this Act it shall be the duty of the owners of any railway, light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, or pier undertaking, and the authority or person liable to maintain any road or bridge, to furnish to the Minister, in such manner and form as he may direct, such accounts, statistics, and returns as he may require for the purpose of his powers and duties under this Act.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after "any road or bridge," to insert "maintained out of public moneys or rates." The noble Lord said: This is a point upon which I desire to ask a question of the Government, because it affects a great many more people than would be at first thought. As far as I am aware, in all the definitions of Acts of Parliament there has never been any exact definition of the word "road." Many of us have miles of roads on the land that we own. A road may be a farm road, and I understand a road may be a road through a wood. A road may certainly not be a gravel road which carries any form of traffic. I think that what the Government intend is that this word "road" should only mean roads maintained out of public moneys, and roads over which the public have a right of access. There may be other rights of way in other places, but in other rights of way the onus of repair does not lay very often on the owner of the road. It might operate very strongly against private owners who at present allow the public to use their roads. They might say they were going to be subject to some future liability, and they might try to stop the right of way. I think the Government really mean that they want a return of roads made out of public moneys, not of private roads on estates and of farm reads.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 39, after ("bridge") insert ("maintained out of public moneys or rates").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I quite agree that this requires explanation. We are now dealing with statistics which the Minister may ask for with regard to these various undertakings, and the noble Lord says that he imagines he only wishes to obtain these statistics in regard to public highways. In the main that is so. But there are a certain number of roads which are public highways, but nevertheless are maintained by private individuals, from whom it will be necessary to obtain statistics, and perhaps it will be convenient if I just gave a few instances of the kind of roads and bridges about which we want the statistical information which would be cut out by the noble Lord's Amendment.

The first are roads leading to docks or industrial sites as, for instance, roads now in the possession of the Trafford Park Company or the Manchester Ship Canal Company; secondly, extensive roads which are public highways but privately owned. The Middlesbro' owners have many miles of public road on Tees-side. That is with regard to roads. Then with regard to bridges. There are two important bridges over the Tyne, privately owned, for use of road traffic. The High Level Bridge owned by the North Eastern Railway, and the Redheugh Bridge owned by a limited liability company. They form most important links between the densely populated districts on the north and south banks of the Tyne.

Lastly—and this is the best instance of all—there are small bridges privately owned, forming important links in main road connections. Selby Bridge is an example. That is a small, narrow bridge which is the main outlet of traffic to the North, and upon that bridge at the present moment, there is a heavy toll. It may be a question for the Minister to consider whether that toll should be continued or removed, and, if removed, what compensation should be paid. In order to judge of that, as well as in the other cases I have mentioned, it is very desirable that we should have statistical information which is now in possession of the owners of the roads or bridges concerned. If they are not obliged to give that information to him, he would have to place watchers upon the bridges or the roads to obtain it for himself—statistics as to the amount of use which was made of them, perhaps over many weeks or many months.

LORD FARRER

I hope the noble Earl will be able to give us a little more definition of a road under this clause. I am sere your Lordships must know that there are many roads over private estates—rationetenurœ and others. As far as I can make out, it would enable the Minister in charge to direct persons to state what is and what is not a private road or a public way. All over the south of England there are heaps of cases where persons are allowed to go along these roads and have been for ages, but there is no definition of whether there is a right or not. I think our English highway law is much better in that respect than the French law which this copies, and I hope we shall be able to make it perfectly clear before the Report stage that it does not apply to those roads which are doubtful—that is to say, that the Minister has not the power to call upon a private owner to say what is or what is not a right of way.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

May I suggest a compromise to the noble Earl Will he be willing to accept some qualifying adjective like "metalled" road, or "over which there is a public right of way"? As it stands it really is extraordinarily indefinite. Many farm lanes are roads in the sense that they are roads to a farm, but it would be almost impossible to give particulars of every kind of private road. There must be some kind of definition.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I will certainly consider the matter. As far as I can see at the moment, I do not think it is possible to produce a definition which would include the roads and bridges which, as I have suggested, it is necessary to include for our purposes, without at the same time making it applicable to private roads generally. As Lord Farrer has pointed out, it is true that in all parts of the country there are private roads. It is not at all the intention of the Minister to call upon the owners of those private roads to supply him with this kind of statistical information; he requires that information only about roads where any action on his part might be required. If it is possible to introduce words which would at any rate exclude small farm roads, I will consider the matter and bring it up again at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:

Provisions as to the Railway and Canal Commission.

18. The provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment, relating to the procedure for the determination of questions by the Commission under that Act, including the provisions relating to appeals, shall apply to the determination of questions referred to the Commission under this Act, as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to this Act:

Provided that—

  1. (a) the Commission may, in any case in which they think it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more assessors, specially qualified, and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors;
  2. (b) the Commission may hold a local inquiry for the purposes of this section by any one of their members, or by any officer of the Commission or other person whom they may direct to hold the same, and the said provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, except the provisions relating to appeals, shall, so far as applicable, apply to such inquiries, and any officer or person directed to hold an inquiry shall have power to administer oaths and shall report the result of the inquiry to the Commission;
  3. (c) the discretion of the Commission with respect to costs shall not be limited in the manner provided by section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of several traders who think this is adverse to them when they are pressing questions of arbitration.

Amendment moved— Page 21, lines 27 to 30, leave out paragraph (c)—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The effect of this Amendment would be to remove the discretion given in the Bill to the Railway and Canal Commission in the matter of awarding costs. Under the law as it is to-day the Railway and Canal Commission cannot award costs unless in their opinion the application is frivolous or vexatious. That provision was inserted for the protection of small traders in their negotiations with the railway companies. Under the Bill we are very largely extending the character of the cases with which the Railway and Canal Commission will have to deal. Most of the cases under this Bill would be between the Government and the railway companies. There would be no occasion there for protecting small traders, and we think in view of this extension and of the fact that the Railway and Canal Commission will have to deal with large questions between big undertakings that the ordinary procedure with regard to the allowing of costs should be retained. We therefore propose to give to the Railway and Canal Commission the same option as is given in most legal cases in a. Court of law of awarding costs if in their opinion it is desirable to do so, and not to restrict them, as to-day they are restricted, to giving costs only in cases which they regard as frivolous and vexatious.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

Roads advisory committee.

20.—(1) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by the exercise of the powers and the performance of his duties under this Act in relation to roads and bridges and vehicles and traffic thereon, a committee (hereinafter referred to as the roads committee) shall be appointed.

(2) The roads committee shall consist of not less than ten members, of whom five shall be representative of highway authorities, appointed after consultation with such authorities, and five shall be representative of the users of road traffic, appointed after consultation with the interests concerned, together with a chairman and secretary.

(3) The chairman and the secretary of the roads committee shall be appointed by the Minister.

(4) The roads committee may make regulations as to their procedure and method of voting, and may at their discretion consider anti report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement, or maintenance of roads or bridges or the regulation of traffic thereon.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), after "in relation to roads and," to insert "ferries and." The noble Lord said: With regard to this, I only suggest as a matter of drafting that the word "ferries" should come in. Throughout the Bill ferries are included. I do not know whether the Government have any particular reason for excluding ferries here. They are of road concern, and as we have got it in the rest of the Bill I suggest the word could be inserted here with advantage.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 15, after the first ("and") insert ("ferries and").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is not a mere matter of drafting, and the word "ferries" has not been excluded by inadvertence. It has been excluded expressly, because we contend that ferries are not matters about which the Roads Committee will have expert knowledge. Ferries are questions of much more expert engineering. There may be cases, for instance, of ferries over the river Mersey—a very large engineering and mechanical problem upon which the Roads Committee would not be qualified to deal. If you were to insert "ferries" here it might put upon the Minister the obligation of referring all questions connected with ferries to the Roads Committee. In most cases there will be other officials in his Department who will be much better qualified to advise him from an engineering point of view on questions regarding ferries than would be the Roads Committee.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

withdraw my Amendment. I was thinking of ordinary ferries such as we have in Scotland.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out "ten" and insert "twenty." The noble Lord said: I suggest to the Government that "not less than ten" is rather a low figure. If there are to be five representatives of highway authorities and five representatives of users of roads appointed, it seems to me that you have not got room in the number ten to include all those interested, especially as I have suggested that you should have a representative of labour. The noble Earl may say, with justice, that not less than ten would enable you to go up to any amount. If he thinks we can have more than ten in that way I should be prepared not to press my Amendment. As regards the whole of this clause, I have got the clause in another form on the Paper for the noble Earl to consider, and I will not move this at this point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), before "road traffic," to insert "horse and mechanical." The noble Lord said: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe to move this Amendment for him. I think it is only fair that you should have a representative of horse as well as of mechanical traffic. I do not know whether the noble Earl will accept this.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 21, after the second ("of") insert ("horse and mechanical").—(Lord Montagu o Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I agree to that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new subsections:

"(3) The Minister shall refer to the Roads Committee all matters relating to roads, bridges, and ferries, and to the powers and duties transferred from the Road Beard.

"(4) Any moneys or loans raised or charged or derived from Imperial or local taxation allocated by Parliament for the purpose of works in connection with roads and bridges and ferries shall be administered by the Roads Committee.

"(5) The Roads Committee may be specially represented in the Houses of Parliament by one of its members being a member of either House, or failing any particular member being a member of one of the Houses of Parliament, by any member of either Houses of Parliament selected by the Government after consultation with the Roads Committee."

The noble Lord said: Now we come to what is to me as the representative of the road interest, the most important clause in the Bill. After a good deal of discussion in the House of Commons and a great many consultations, this Roads Committee was granted by the Minister-designate and was incorporated in the Bill. From our point of view this Committee is one—I will not insult it by saving it is mere camouflage— which I am sure would not be strong enough to do what I think the Government wants it to do and would not be regarded as competent by the interests it is supposed to represent. I have the authority of Mr. Joynson-Hicks, who negotiated, to say that, while he obtained all he could at the moment from the Government, he is by no means satisfied, and I understand that the interests With which he is identified—which is not necessarily the interests with which I am identified—are not satisfied either.

What we would like this Roads Committee to be is a Committee as far as possible analogous to the Road Board, but more representative of the interests involved. The fault of the Road Board has always been that it has consisted of too few members, not altogether representative in their corporate capacity, and that its work has been largely carried out by a Chairman, upon whose conduct I do not wish to reflect to-night but, to say the least of it, he has been rather autocratic in his management. It may be that circumstances have caused him to be autocratic. If the Committee is to be of assistance to the Government, and I hope it will be, there should be a representative of road transport who will try to make this part of the Bill a success. I think that the Committee should be given more powers. I suggest, first of all, that the Minister should refer to the Roads Committee all matters relating to roads and bridges—if the noble Lord objects to ferries, I do not push ferries—and to the powers and duties transferred from the Road Board.

I do not know who is going to act on the Committee but there may be people on it who are acquainted with highway administration and road transport. As I have told your Lordships before, there is not there one single person that we know of who is connected in any way with that very important branch of our national life, road transport. I think there is not one of your Lordships who will not admit that there should be some representative of road transport. I am not thinking of the luxurious car, but of every kind of vehicle from the bicycle to the lorry. They have no representation so far. There is the Cyclists' Union, 200,000 motor cyclists, and I think by now 200,000 owners of motor cars, as well as 50,000 or 60,000 lorries which have no representation. In subsection (4) it is suggested that the monies, to which we have already alluded as coming from the produce of the motor spirit and carriage tax, should be administered by this Roads Committee, of course under the superintendence of the Minister.

The next subsection deals with a question which arose some four or five years ago in the case of Sir Charles Rose, who was a member of the Road Board and was asked on one occasion to reply for that Board in the House of Commons, but the Speaker held that he could not reply because he was not a paid servant of the Crown. Occasionally Lord St Davids and myself have replied in this House for the Road Board, and I suggest that it might be convenient to have a member of the Roads Committee who happened to be a member of this House to answer occasionally here. He might be a person with a certain amount of technical knowledge and he might be of assistance to the Government. I hope the noble Lord will assist me in strengthening the Committee. I can assure him that it has not been an easy task to defend road interests in this House. They are growing interests. We are on the eve of great developments in road transport. Since I spoke on the Second Reading I have seen a report on the adaptation of gas suction plant to road transport which makes it probable that a large number of motor lorries will be worked much more economically in the future. The price comes out so cheap that I anticipate an enormous increase in road transport. I think this interest ought to be distinctly represented on this Committee, and if the noble Lord could make a statement on Clause 20 it might facilitate the progress of the debate.

Amendment moved— page 22, line 23, at end of subsection (2), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I should like to remind your Lordships of the history of this clause. As your Lordships know, there was a good deal of opposition to the Bill during the Committee stage in the House of Commons from those who represented road interests in that House. When the Bill came down from Committee to be considered on Report in the House of Commons this clause was put forward by those who championed the interests of roads, and it was intimated to the Government that, so far as their position was concerned, they would be satisfied if this clause put forward by them was accepted. I know the noble Lord says he is not bound by any arrangement come to by those who represent roads in another place. That is quite true. Roads are not a body like railway companies for whom any one person can claim to speak. I only think it necessary your Lordships should understand that this clause was accepted by the Government in the form in which it was suggested to us by those who speak for road interests in the house of Commons.

I come to consider the terms of the Amendment itself. It really seems to me to be one of the most astonishing proposals I have ever considered. The noble Lord proposes to turn this Advisory Committee, which has been set up for the purpose of advising the Minister as to the performance of his duties with regard to roads, into a small independent Government, which shall administer public funds although not responsible to Parliament; have its own spokesman in Parliament, independent of the Minister; and report to the Minister once a year. That is not an Advisory Committee at all. It would set up a small Government for the purpose of dealing with matters of road administration. I think I might call it a, regular "Soviet" which the noble Lord is asking us to accept in place of the Advisory Committee now in the Bill. I cannot hold out any hope at all of being able to accept the Amendment in this form.

With regard to the first new subsection, "the Minister shall refer to the Roads Committee," that is a matter with which we have already dealt, and I have undertaken to consult with the noble Lord between now and Report as to the insertion of words which will place on the Minister a statutory obligation to set up a Roads Department to whom these matters connected with roads shall be referred. If he is not satisfied with the words we shall submit he will of course retain his right to bring up the matter again on Report stage. With regard to the subsequent subsections of the Amendment I repeat that any Amendment which your Lordships may suggest as to the representation of interests on this Committee we shall be prepared to consider. This would not only make the Committee executive, but it is a proposal to set up a Committee which would act in all respects in the administration of funds and representation to Parliament, altogether independent of the Minister.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I admit that I framed these Amendments with my friends on the assumption that the Minister and the Government were anxious that at any rate a portion of the power of the Road Board should pass to this committee. Otherwise it is not a real committee. It is nominated by the Minister, and it might be in future a creature of the Minister. The Minister, supposing a particular person were selected by outside bodies to sit upon this committee, might refuse to have him. It is not like the Port of London Authority where members are elected by particular interests. The Minister appoints the committee and can refuse the appoint went of any particular person, and therefore in the last resort the committee becomes the creature of the Minister. I do not think the Government can expect that such a committee will command much confidence. In fact I have heard a great deal of criticism of the committee, and the Government if they are to re-establish confidence in the country with regard to their road policy; should disabuse people's minds of the growing conviction that interests concerned are not represented. I must tell them quite frankly that the committee as constituted does not command the confidence of the Road interests.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsections: () Not less than one member of the Roads Committee shall be representative of labour interests concerned with road transport. () The Roads Committee shall present to the Minister not less than once a year a Report of their proceedings, and this Report shall be laid before Parliament. () The Roads Committee shall elect their own chairman and appoint their own secretary.

The noble Lord said: As the noble Earl; said he was prepared to consider the composition of the committee, I hope I may get some satisfaction from him. I suggest as a start that not less than one member of the Roads Committee should be representative of labour interests concerned with road transport. That would be advisable in the interests of the working of the measure, because everybody must wish to take into our confidence the great labour interest, and to ask them to work with us in this matter. The transport interest in regard to labour is now very large, and I am informed that something like 300,000 men are engaged in driving motor lorries.

The next recommendation is that the Roads Committee shall present a report of their proceedings not less than once a year. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. The Roads Board laid an Annual Report before Parliament, and I cannot conceive that there can be any objection to that course. The Roads Committee can present their Report to the Minister, who will lay it before Parliament. Then, with regard to the Roads Committee, I suggest that they should select their own chairman and appoint their own secretary. Not only is the Minister going to appoint the committee, but he has power to refuse the appointment as chairman of any member selected by the committee. Of those three unnumbered sections I think that the most important is the second. I think that is a reasonable request to make.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 30, after subsection (4), insert the proposed new subsections.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I should like to be sure that I understand accurately the meaning of the first of the noble Lord's three Amendments. Is it that out of the tell members, five of whom are to be representative of highway authorities, and five representative of users of road traffic, one shall be deemed to be representative of labour interest?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Not less than ten; it is not tied down to ten.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

But out of that number there is to be a representative of labour interests? I have no objection at all to a representative of labour interest being put upon the committee. So far as that part of the noble Lord's Amendment is concerned I accept in principle that there should be a labour representative. With regard to the second subsection, for reasons which I have already mentioned I cannot accept it because it would completely subvert the whole departmental management of the Ministry. Here it is suggested that this committee with which the Minister will confer continuously all through the year, and with which he will be in daily consultation, is to make an annual report of their proceedings. That is simply to say that one section of a Department is to make an annual report to the head of the Department and that the report is to be published as a Parliamentary Paper. That is wholly inconsistent with the principles of the management of a Department. It has no precedent in any other Government Department and it must be obvious that the Government cannot accept it. With regard to the final point of the noble Lord, as I understand, at present the Chairman and secretary are to be additional to the general members.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Not less than ten.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Therefore the clause would read that the Committee would have to consist of not less than eleven members. Ten would be appointed as provided for in subsection (2). The Secretary would not be a member of the Committee. I am not prepared to accept the position that the five representatives of the highway authorities and the five representatives of users should without consultation with the Ministry elect an outside chairman, but if the noble Lord wishes to put it that the Committee should elect a Chairman from among its members then I think I can meet him on that point.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

That is what I intend.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl has been extremely conciliatory. I want to be clear what he has consented to. I understand that he has consented to one member being a representative of labour. That would involve making the number eleven instead of ten.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Not less than eleven.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That would have to be put right on Report. Then the noble Earl demurs to the second paragraph about an annual report, but he accepts the third point on the understanding that the Chairman is elected by the Committee from amongst their own number. Is that so?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think that is a reasonable arrangement, and I advise my noble friend to accept it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I am prepared to accept it, but I should press on Report for some definition of annual report. Can the noble Earl give me any information as to whether the report on the roads will be annually produced? Originally we used to have the report from the Local Government Board, then we had it from the Road Board for ten years, and it has really been of immense value to local authorities, and in the International Road Congresses for the purposes of scientific investigation. Will the noble Earl promise, as a Parliamentary undertaking, that the Minister of Transport will produce an annual report on roads? It is of the utmost value from every point of view, national and international.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The noble Lord would not expect me to give an undertaking which would bind the Minister, without having consulted him on the matter. I could not say on my own responsibility what the Minister would say. I will let the noble Lord have a reply before Report. Let me make it quite clear upon the remaining points. I agree that there shall be a representative of Labour on the Committee. I also agree that the chairman of the Committee should be elected by the Committee front its own numbers, but I do not accept the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands, because that refers to the appointment of their own secretary.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I will withdraw now, and draft a further clause for the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21:

Advisory committees.

21.(1) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with the exercise and performance of his powers and duties, the Minister shall set up a panel of experts, and of impartial persons of wide commercial and trading experience appointed from nominees, after consultation with the various undertakings and interests concerned, of the various classes of undertakings affected by this Act, and of labour, trading interests, local authorities, and such other interests as he may deem desirable.

(2) Before exercising any of the powers under subsection (1) (b) of section three of this Act, to the exercise of which the owners of the undertaking concerned object or directing the establishment of new, transport services by land or water, the Minister shall refer the matter to a committee selected by him front the said panel.

(3) The advisory panel or any committee to whom any matter is referred under this section shall, before reporting or advising, if they see fit, give public notice and permit any person affected or likely to be affected to place their views before them either orally or in writing.

(4) Any member of the advisory panel, or any committee thereof, or of any other committee established under this Act, for giving advice and assistance to the Minister, shall be considered to be acting entirely in a confidential capacity.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to delete the words "to the exercise of which the owners of the undertaking concerned, object." The noble Lord said: Certain traders and associations wish to exclude those words, in order that, before exercising the powers, it should be referred to the Committee whether or not they object, and there should be a report on the whole situation, even though the owners of the undertaking may not object.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 2, leave out from ("Act") to ("or") in line 3.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The clause as it stands says that before exercising any of the powers under subsection (1)—that is, the powers of taking over a new service to the exercise of which the owners of the undertaking object—the Minister will refer the matter to the Committee. The effect of the Amendment will be that the Minister would be obliged to refer to the Committee before taking over an undertaking the owners of which would be willing to be taken over. I think that would be very unreasonable. The necessity of referring the matter to the Committee is where the owners of the undertaking object to being taken over, and that is a matter which should go before the Committee for further consideration, but obviously, if the owners of the undertaking are quite prepared for these powers to be exercised, there would be no reason for going to the Committee at all.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Does it also apply to the establishment of new transport services?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The words which the noble Lord is proposing to leave out do not apply to that. They only apply to exercising the powers under subsection (1) (b), to the exercise of which the owners of the undertaking concerned object.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not dispute the contention which the noble Earl has put forward, but I want to enter a caveat that I do not think that this Advisory Committee is a very satisfactory body. They are a panel selected by the Minister from nominees made by himself; they have no element of independence about them; and I think it is possible that we shall have to revert to this point again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 23, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("directing the establishment of") and insert ("establishing").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: I do not know what the intention of this subsection is. If it is meant that no member who sits on the Road Board, supposing he happens to be a member of this House, can possibly address the House on any question which has arisen with regard to the Road Board—

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is not the Road Board at all.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is all committees under the Act, not merely the Road Board.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Yes; but I was speaking with regard to this particular committee. It is obvious that there must be occasions on which there will be public discussion. Is it intended that anything with which any member of the committee has had to do he must abstain from discussing in public, that he is, in fact, regarded as a member of the Department and must not take part in any discussion in Parliament or elsewhere? When you come to a committee of ten persons, and the other committees under the Act, you are covering a large number of people. I should have thought that this was an unusual thing to put in an Act of Parliament, and. hardly necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 23, lines 12 to 15, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Let us first of all be clear as to what we are discussing. There is no question here of a Roads Committee merely. The necessity of keeping the proceedings of these committees confidential is entirely in the interests of the traders themselves. There will be a number of questions inquired into where it will be necessary to have all the cards on the table, which would be impossible if the matter were to be investigated in a Court of law. When these committees are making their investigations we want to know exactly what the position of the business and trade of a particular trader might be. He would be jealous of competition unless he could feel that he was disclosing facts to persons who would not make use of the information; and unless you retain this subsection and ensure that the proceedings will be of a private and confidential character, we shall not get the information from these traders, which they would certainly be reluctant to give if they thought any use would be afterwards made of them.

It is generally thought this was put in to screen the Minister from publicity. That is not so. It is in order to enable the information obtained by these Committees to be of a really valuable kind, and to ensure protection for those who come before the Committee and give information which is to them of great importance, and which they would not desire to have brought to the notice of their competitors in trade.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is said that it is not intended to screen the Minister. I think the noble Earl forgets the Minister really intended a much more severe proposal; he intended that everything which passed in these Committees should be under the Official Secrets Act.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It was for the same reason.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

In other words, he proposed to lay down a criminal prosecution for anyone who revealed anything which passed in these Committees. It may not have been the intention of the Minister, but anyone would assume that he did mean to protect the proceedings of the Ministry from anything like revelation to the public.

The only way to make the administration of this Ministry sweet is to have it in public. We want the full light and air of public opinion to be upon the Ministry and its working. The noble Earl says, "What an astonishing thing to have the proceeding of these Committees in public. How can we arrange, say, the rates and fares and tolls of an undertaking if it is not confidential?" Are the Private Bills Committees of your Lordships' House Confidential? Is that what the noble Lord has learnt in the course of his Parliamentary career? Every single one of these things which we are providing for in this Bill is debated before Public Committees of both Houses of Parliament. That is the true protection of all individuals and companies whose rights are involved in these proceedings.

These Advisory Coinmittees—and the noble Earl was perfectly right in reminding your Lordships that these subsections apply to all the Advisory Committees under this Bill, not merely to the Roads Committee—have been inserted at the instance of the House of Commons in order to act as a quid pro quo for the loss of the protection of Parliament which is taken away under this Bill. All the things we have hitherto relied upon to protect private rights in all these matters are abolished by the Bill. The House of Commons said, "At any rate give us Advisory Committees which can be referred to." "Yes," says the noble Earl, "but let them debate in secret." The great mass of these things will pass under the immediate superintendence of the Minister. What guarantee have we that all sorts of sinister and underhand things will not creep in—things which, if not corrupt, are tending in that direction. Those are the great evils of modern times against which we have to protect ourselves.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Lord Salisbury says that this is sinister and underhand and tending to corruption.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I said it might become so. I did not say it was.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Lord Lytton said in specific terms that this was put in for the protection of the trader and not to shield the Minister. The Minister has nothing to be shielded from; it is the trader who requires protection. I have had a good deal of experience on this point. The group of traders who would correspond to the Advisory Committee who must be largely concerned in these matters have to inquire into the control of business of the great bulk of traders in that particular department of public business. One trader is most reluctant that his rivals, or even his potential rivals, should see his figures—most reluctant. Not merely are traders reluctant that the figures should be examined but they are desperately afraid lest their particular methods of trading, built up by their own particular firm, should become public property, and where, owing to the stress of war, the Government have been forced to take over obligations which hitherto had been adequately conducted by the ordinary private firms, traders combine in saying this—"Take over the business, work the business as the needs of the nation demand, but at least protect us and do not allow our rivals to see our figures and examine our methods and machinery." I have had very much experience on this particular point and I lay that down to your Lordships as axiomatic.

Lord Salisbury wants public opinion on the Ministry. I do not mind that in the very least, but as the Amendment goes, this is public opinion on the private trading figures of private individuals and private firms; that is the point. This is public opinion on industry. It means that a particular firm has got to lay the whole of its cards on the table before this Advisory Committee which, ex hypothesi, will include persons who are either themselves, from their experience or through their positions, connected with similar or perhaps with rival firms. This committee, again, will consist of representatives of labour, and I do not know who else. A committee of that sort differs entirely from a committee of your Lordships' House upstairs or a Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons. There, an industry which comes forward, according to my experience, in nine cases out of ten, is able, if it so desires, to prevent the disclosure of its private trading figures. Where it is forced to disclose them is where it brings an action or a measure against the interests of somebody else, but where it is the attacked, or the party to be absorbed, it certainly would not have to lay documents, figures and trading methods, as will be the case before this Advisory Committee.

Further, Lord Salisbury says, "Let us go back to the old English idea of publicity." By all means as regards public affairs, but it has never been a British principle that in business matters private firms should court publicity, and I do not see that in this case there is any adequate ground for saying that everything that passes before these bodies is in fact to be made public.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

No doubt the noble Earl's remarks are applicable to traders, but they do not apply to the Roads Committee at all. May I point this out? Suppose, for the sake of argument some great question of road policy

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved, after subsection (4), to insert as a new subsection:—"(5) Every report to the Minister of the advisory panel, or any committee thereof, or of any other committee estab- is being discussed and the Ministry and the Committee differ, is it intended that any member of this House is thereby debarred front raising the question here? I can hardly think that is the intention of the Government. The Roads Committee is not concerned with private interests at all and I suggest that if the Government carry the clause as it is it should be understood that the Roads Committee is not in the same position. They would of course, regard as confidential, as any honourable man would, anything which is under discussion as a subject of delicate negotiation. It cannot be intended to apply these drastic restrictions to members of a Committee which will really be in the same position as members of the Highway Board.

EARL BRASSEY

In spite of what has been said by the noble Earl opposite I fully agree with the noble Marquess and I hope the noble Viscount will press his Amendment to a Division.

On Question, whether subsection (4) shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.) Goschen, V. Hylton, L. [Teller.]
Bradford, E. Hood, V. Lee of Fareham, L.
Chesterfield, E. Peel, V. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Jersey, E. Queenborough, L.
Lytton, E. Annesley, L. Ranksborough, L.
Malmesbury, E. Clinton, L. Shandon, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Colebrooke, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Churchill, V. Faringdon, L. Wittenham, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton) Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)
Chalmers, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Brassey, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) O'Hagan, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Denman, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) Sandys, L.
Grey, E. Saye and Sele, L.
Selborne, E. Erskine, L. Southwark, L.
Stanhope, E. [Teller.] Fairfax of Cameron, L. Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]
Wicklow, E. Forester, L.

lished under this Act, shall, if the Committee so direct, be laid before Parliament."

The noble Viscount said:—It seems to me too clear that if a committee is to be of any advantage at all to advise on roads, where necessary it should be allowed to report to Parliament the advice which it gives. If it is not it would be inconsistent with the Committee as adopted by your Lordships to-night, which is to be an independent committee. If, on the other hand, we are to go back to a simple Advisory Committee appointed by the Minister, that is a purely departmental concern, and I trust the Bill will not pass in those terms.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 11, after subsection (4) insert the following new subsection: (5) Every report to the Minister of the advisory panel, or any committee thereof, or of any other committee established under this Act, shall, if the Committee so direct, be laid before Parliament."—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The Government cannot accept the Amendment. To say that any committee set up under this Bill is to make a report to Parliament upon the matters upon which it has advised the Minister would be wholly inconsistent with the view which I have held all through that these committees are to be Advisory Committees, appointed for the purpose of advising the Minister. Of course, if noble Lords think the committees are set up to control and hamper the Minister, then it is obvious that; they will be encourage to publish broadcast their opinions. That is not the view which the Government hold.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Considering the lateness of the hour and the fact that your Lordships divided a few moments ago, I would rather not press this to a Division now, but I frankly tell the noble Earl that I shall renew this matter on the Report stage, and advise your Lordships then to take a Division upon it, because I regard the point of view adopted by the Government with regard to these committees as being destructive of the position which they have taken up as to the status of the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ERSKINE moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:—"(5) The Minister, after receiving the advice of a report from any committee established under this Act, shall not take action in conflict with such advice or report without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament." The noble Lord said:—I beg to move this Amendment, and I hope the Government will give it favourable consideration.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 15, after subsection (4) insert the following new subsection: (5) The Minister, after receiving the advice of a report from any committee established under this Act, shall not take action in conflict with such advice or report without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament."—(Lord Erskine.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am not surprised that the noble Lord has nothing to say in defence of his Amendment. It is really the strangest Amendment that I can possibly imagine, to suggest that a Committee shall have power, if the Minister does not accept its advice, to force the Minister to go to Parliament and get a Resolution before he can take any action.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think the matter is so easily set aside as the noble Earl supposes. Why should it be so very astonishing that if the Committee report against the action of the Minister the conflict of opinion should be settled by Parliament? In the course of this discussion we have to assume that the old authority of Parliament, is to be eliminated and the noble Earl is positively astonished that an appeal should be made to Parliament in a matter of this kind. I do not think it is at all surprising. I do not consider that it is obviously an unwise proposal when there is a profound difference of opinion with the Minister that the matter should be submitted to Parliament. On the contrary it seems to me reasonable. The truth is that the Government are afraid to submit things to the public. They are afraid of Parliament. They are afraid of the light of public opinion, that is the real secret. I do not know whether my noble friend will press this, but I cannot see that it is absurd.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Marquess has pushed his indictment rather far. If the noble Marquess will forgive my saying so it is not a question of whether we are afraid of public opinion or afraid of Parliament. We can survive, like all other Governments, only so long as we are able to command the necessary support from Parliament. At any moment that support may be withdrawn from us. This particular proposal hardly supports the foundation which the noble Marquess has attempted to erect upon it. What is this proposal? It is that the Minister, after receiving the advice and the report from any parliamentary committee established under this Act—and there are three Committees—shall not take action contrary to such advise without a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I would ask the noble Marquess and others who may have been attracted by this Amendment to think what that means. There are three Committees set up under this Bill. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there may be ten reports in a week, especially in the early stages of carrying out this Bill, and if those reports are not in harmony with the view the Minister has taken he—a responsible Minister—cannot act on his own view unless he obtains a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It might easily be that your Lordships in this House and the House of Commons would be asked seven or eight times in a week to pass Resolutions in order to determine the domestic differences which had arisen between the Minister and a Committee. Take as an illustration the case of the Army Council. The Army Council occupies in relation to the Secretary of State for War a position which is not wholly incomparable to that which is set up under this Bill. Conceive if the rule had been laid down that whenever the Secretary of State for War found himself unable to agree with the view taken by the Army Council, whom he quite properly consults, that it is not possible to act upon the conclusion he has formed unless he obtains a vote from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Surely we must treat this Minister, who is sometimes spoken of it seems to me in a tone of undue suspicion, not, indeed, in a more favourable position, not, indeed, place him upon a pedestal upon which no other Minister is placed, but let us treat him as favourably as other Ministers. Do not because we are creating a new Minister treat him with greater suspicion than we do every other Minister. Do not let us commit ourselves to what I venture to say with the greatest possible respect would really be a constitutional absurdity—namely, that wherever there is a domestic difference between the Minister and the Committee that is given to him for consultation he cannot act over their head like every other Minister can act over the head of his Committee unless he gets a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Though I had not prepared to support the Amendment brought forward by my noble friend, I think there is a great deal in it. When I was asked to support it I came to the conclusion that something of this kind was needed. Could we have on Report some words like these—"Should any Committee established under this Act take action in conflict with the Minister it shall present to Parliament the reasons for its decision." In case of such a difference the Committee might surely make a report to Parliament on the grounds of the difference with the Minister. There might be many important cases in which it might be highly desirable for Parliament to know what the reasons for difference are.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Perhaps it would be convenient if we were to adjourn at this point. The Amendments down for inserting new clauses after Clause 21 raise very important questions which, I think, should be discussed when we are all rather fresher than we are at this moment. Moreover, I have every hope that I may be able to meet at ally rate the more essential points of these later Amendments, and I have asked Lord Emmott to confer with me with a view, if possible, to bringing up an agreed clause.

House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.