MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BILL.

HL Deb 11 August 1919 vol 36 cc661-758

FORMERLY

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS

BILL.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2:

Powers and duties.

2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Minister in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to, or conferred or imposed upon him. by or in pursuance of this Act, to take steps to carry me the purposes aforesaid, and there shall, as from such date or dates as His Majesty in Council may by Order determine, be transferred to the Minister all powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to—

1. (a) railways;
2. (b) light railways;
3. (c) tramways;
4. (d) canals, waterways, and inland navigations;
5. (e) roads, bridges and ferries, and vehicles and traffic thereon;
6. (f) harbours, docks and piers;

including any powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to any railway, light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, harbour, dock, pier, or other undertaking concerned with any of the matters aforesaid, and any powers of any Government Department with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of any commissioners, conservancy board or other body having jurisdiction with respect to any such matters as aforesaid, and any powers of any Government department with respect to the making, confirming, issuing, granting, or giving (as the case may be) of by-laws, regulations, orders, licences, approvals, or consents relating to any of the matters hereinbefore mentioned:

Provided that—

1. (i) His Majesty is Council may by Order except from such transfer any particular powers or duties, or provide for the exercise or performance of any power or duty so excepted by the Minister concurrently or in consultation with or at the instance of the Government Department concerned, or by the Government Department concerned concurrently or in consultation with the Minister, or provide for the re-transfer to any such Department of any powers and duties transferred to the Minister by this section; and
2. (ii) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister any powers or duties of the Admiralty exerciseable in or in relation to ports declared under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865, to be dockyard ports, but His Majesty in Connell may by Order transfer to the Admiralty, instead of to the Minister, any of the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to dockyard ports, or with respect to the appointment of members of any commissioners, conservancy board, or other body having jurisdiction in the whole or any part of a dockyard port; and
3. (iii) Nothing in this section shall transfer to the Minister the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission, but His Majesty in Council may, by order, transfer those powers to a Secretary of State instead of to the Minister.

(2) His Majesty in Council may by Order make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to any transfer of powers or duties[...]y or under this section, including provisions for the transfer of any property rights and liabilities held, enjoyed, or incurred by any Government Department in connection with any powers or duties transferred, and may make such adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers or duties as may be necessary to make exerciseable by the Minister and his officers or by the Admiralty and their officers, as the case may be, the powers and duties so transferred: Provided always that nothing herein contained shall enable the powers so transferred to be increased.

(3) In connection with the transfer of powers and duties to the Minister, Admiralty, or Secretary of State, by or under this Act, the provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of Clause 2, to insert the following new subsection— (4) There shall be established a separate department of the Sinister to be called the Roads Department, to assist the Minister in all matters in relation to roads and bridges and the vehicles and traffic thereon. The noble Lord said: Before I discuss the merits of the Amendment, may I ask the noble Earl whether in his reply he will make to the House some statement (notice of which I have given him privately) as to what the Government propose to do in reference to the representation of road transport interests as distinct from road making interests in the machinery of the Bill. This is a point on which the interests with which I am identified think very strongly, and we hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some information on the matter.

The Amendment which I move is simply to make the Roads Department, which has been promised by the Minister of Transport in another place, a statutory provision. I think it desirable the House should realise that the roads are in a singularly forlorn state at the moment. The Road Board has been rendered absolutely incapable of doing anything, and the Local Government Board has disappeared. I consider it essential that the Roads Department, as defined by this Amendment, should be established by law. I understand that there is no difference of principle on this point; there may be some difference of opinion as to the exact words defining this Department.

I have tried to make the Amendment as uncontentious as possible, and the House will notice that I have omitted anything which would tend to establish the Roads Department in a position of superiority to the Minister or challenge his position in any way. It is merely to assist the Minister in all matters relating to roads and bridges and vehicles and traffic. I hope that the noble Earl will accept the Amendment, which is conceived in a friendly spirit, and formally by law establish the Roads Department which has already been conceded by the Government.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 15, at end insert the following new subsection: (4) There shall be established a separate department of the Ministry to be called the Roads Department, to assist the Minister in all matters in relation to roads and bridges and the vehicles and traffic thereon."—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON)

I quite appreciate that this Amendment has been proposed by the noble Lord in order to meet an undertaking which was given by the Government in this House and in another place that a special Department to deal with roads would be established in the Ministry. Therefore when I first saw the Amendment I naturally approached it with the idea that I should be able to accept it. But I feel sure your Lordships will understand that, when it is decided for the first time (and this is an unusual practice) to put into a Bill the statutory obligation as to how a Minister shall conduct the affairs of his Department, it is obviously necessary that the wording should be very critically examined to see that the Minister is not binding himself to do something which it was not his intention to do, which he never undertook in Parliament to do, and which would, in fact, hamper him in the administrative work of his Department.

As the Amendment stands, the words "there shall be established a separate Department of the Ministry to be called the Roads Department, to assist the Minister in all matters in relation to roads and bridges and the vehicles and traffic thereon" would go considerably beyond what the Minister has actually undertaken to do. What he has stated, and what he is prepared to do in the Bill, is to establish in the Ministry a separate Department to which will be referred all matters connected with roads, but if it is stated that the same Department shall have all matters relating to bridges, vehicles, and traffic upon the roads, then it would involve the obligation to refer matters to this Department which did not properly belong to them.

The noble Lord has pointed out that whereas we have been fortunate enough in securing an expert in matters of road construction, Sir Henry Maybury is not qualified to deal with many questions that involve road traffic. Equally there may be matters connected with bridges which are not really matters of roads so far as the surface is concerned, engineering matters, which would not in the ordinary course of the administration of the Department be referred to this Roads Department. The insertion of these words would necessitate that all questions of design, construction, specification of vehicles, or engineering questions regarding bridges, and a number of traffic problems which are really connected with the whole policy of transport of the country and not solely matters of roads, would have to go to this special Department.

I have said that the Minister has undertaken that there shall be a special Roads Department, and on the Committee stage, in response to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I undertook, if necessary, to put that in the Bill. The words which I propose to meet that obligation, and beyond which I am not prepared to go, are as follow— There shall be attached to the Ministry a separate department charged with dealing in the ordinary course of departmental business with road construction, improvement, maintenance and development. That will carry out what the Minister has undertaken to do; but to accept the words of the noble Lord would necessitate an obligation on the part of the Minister to refer to this department things which do not really belong to it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We have reason to be grateful to the noble Earl for his concession in this matter. I quite follow his argument as regards vehicles and traffic thereon, but I am a little surprised that he draws a distinction between roads and bridges—for this reason, that as he is aware bridges, like roads, are subject to the highway authorities under all local government throughout the country.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The Amendment contains these words: "to assist the Minister in all matters in relation to roads and bridges." Otherwise I agree with the noble Marquess.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am quite prepared to accept the words which the noble Earl has proposed, only I should have preferred that he included with the roads "bridges," because it seems to me that the ordinary dealings under local government with these matters never distinguished roads and bridges. I should have thought that "vehicles and traffic thereon" do widen the matter, and if the noble Earl would add "bridges" to roads I should counsel my noble friend to accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

With the leave of the House I will reply to this point. I do not think it is possible to introduce "bridges" into the words which I read out, which are "to deal with road construction, improvement, maintenance and development." I am not prepared to add "to deal with the construction, improvement, maintenance and development of roads and bridges," because I think that would involve, as I said just now, referring to a Department which might not have the technical engineering knowledge necessary to advise the Minister with regard to bridge construction, or even bridge maintenance, and it would be, I think, a mistake to refer to a Department a question when that Department did not contain a technical expert qualified to advise on the point. Therefore I am afraid I cannot put "bridges" in the same place as "roads."

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEL

Every county has a Committee of Highways and Bridges.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

But not, I think, railway bridges, which are included too.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I see. That is the difficulty.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I can only speak again by leave of the House. I accept what the noble Earl has given me, although it does not satisfy me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 15, at the end insert the following new subsection: There shall be attached to the Ministry a separate department charged with dealing in the ordinary course of departmental business with road construction, improvement, maintenance and development."—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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, 667 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 three months' notice in writing, take possession, in the name or on behalf of His Majesty, of the whole or any part of any other statutory railway undertaking or of any light railway or tramway undertaking (other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority), or of any canal or inland navigation, undertaking, and subject as hereinafter mentioned of any harbour, clock or pier undertaking, or of any plant belonging to any such undertaking as aforesaid 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. There shall be paid to any company whose railway undertaking or light railway or tramway or any part thereof may be taken possession of in pursuance of this section, such full compensation for any loss or injury they may have sustained by the exercise of the powers of the Minister under this section as may be agreed upon between the Minister and the said company, or, in case of difference, may be settled by arbitration in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845:
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 connection with the undertaking;
3. (iii) as to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking or any part thereof 668 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 is 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 the last foregoing paragraph 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, 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 Act, 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 Minister 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 a local authority, or of a harbour dock or pier undertaking, but the Minister may authorise the acquisition of an easement 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 669 any agreement or statutory provisions limiting the amount of such charges or increases therein, 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 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.
6. (f) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the rights of a consignor or consignee of goods or minerals, any trader or class of traders, or any part 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 undue preference or undue disadvantage or allowances or rebates in relation to the provision of station accommodation or terminal services shall not be damned 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.

(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 any special statutory provision or agreement, is entitled to the benefit of any special rate, fare, toll, due, 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 anti 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 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.

(b) Before directing any revision of any rates, fares, tolls, dues, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice, 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 contacts and the fairness and adequacy of the method 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, unless in their discretion the committee consider it unnecessary, shall 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 councillor industrial organisation shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or organisation or any persons represented by them may be affected by any proposed revision as aforesaid.

(d) The committee stall 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 mean 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) 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 any 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.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt from any local rate or assessment any undertaking to which this section applies.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (1), to omit from paragraph (b) the whole of the second sentence commencing "There shall be paid." The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment in order to give the House an opportunity of reconsidering a decision to which it came in Committee. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that at a late hour on July 31, when the House was in Committee on this Bill, Lord Stuart of Wortley moved an Amendment for the insertion of the words which I now propose to omit. I do so because I feel that the insertion of those words was approved by this House under a misapprehension, for which I take some measure of blame myself, in that I did not fully explain the matter to your Lordships on that occasion. I do not see the noble Lord present, but I feel sure that after listening to the explanation which I now give he would realise not only that the words inserted are unnecessary, but that if the Bill were sent back to the House of Commons with these words in it, we should really put ourselves in a rather ridiculous position and render ourselves liable to criticism as a serious revising Chamber.

The noble Lord (Lord Stuart of Wortley) moved these words in order, as he said, to secure that any undertaking at present not controlled and not taken over shall, should it be controlled and taken possession of, receive at least as fair treatment, as the result of the process, as has been received by the undertakings which have been taken over." In other words, the noble Lord wanted to ensure that any undertaking which the Minister took possession of under this Bill should receive the same consideration as the owners of undertakings of which the Minister is now in possession, I did point out, I admit rather shortly, that such undertakings were already covered by Clause 8 of the Bill, but I think the noble Lord did not appreciate that fact, because he said, replying to my speech, that Clause 8 does not apply to this case at all. I want to point out that he was under a misapprehension, because if you turn to Clause 8 you will find that that clause refers to every undertaking, whether the Minister is in possession of it at this moment or whether it is taken possession of under the powers of this Bill. It refers to every undertaking of which the Minister is in possession at the end of the period of possession, because the clause begins with these words: "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, the compensation clause in the Bill will apply.

The result is that at this moment there are two compensation clauses in the Bill. One, which has been very carefully considered by all the authorities concerned, and frequently discussed between the representatives of these undertakings, the Treasury, and the Minister, was filially inserted in the Bill as an agreed clause; and the principle of that compensation clause is this, that if at the end of the period of possession any undertaking has benefitted by the powers exercised by the Minister and its value has been enhanced, it shall pay for that enhancement. On the other hand, if in any sense it has suffered any injury by the operation of the Minister, then it shall receive compensation. Those words apply equally to the undertakings which the Minister will take possesssion of under this Bill, and to which alone the words that I now propose to leave out refer. That is the main compensation clause in the Bill, which has been agreed by everybody. There is in the Bill another compensation clause which deals only with part of the undertakings to which the main compensation clause refers, and provides a different procedure, which is by no means so complete, and leaves out altogether any question of an enhancement which may be the result of the operations of the next two years.

I therefore propose, in the interests of the credit of your Lordships' House, that these words should be deleted before the Bill is sent back to the House of Commons, because I cannot help thinking that we should look ridiculous—I do not think that is too strong a word to use—if we sent back to the House of Commons a Bill containing two compensation clauses, one of which bad been inserted here without any consideration at all at a late hour one evening to deal with cases which are already covered by the clause which is at present in the Bill. For these reasons I move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("taken") to the end of line 18.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not in any sense responsible for this Amendment, although I was, like the noble Earl opposite, present when it was inserted in Committee, and if the noble Earl assures your Lordships that the railways which had been taken possession of before the passing of the Act and the railways which will be taken possession of under this clause will be by Clause 8 placed in precisely the same position the one as the other, and that no compensation will accrue to the older class that is not equally available for the newer class, then I admit he has gone a long way to make out his case.

I understood from my noble friend who sat behind me—your Lordships will remember that the period of the evening was rather far advanced, and that none of us were quite so fresh as we had been—that the compensation in this case applied to a different element from the other, namely, the element of the loss which might accrue to the company whilst the railways were in the possession of the Government. Clause 8 applies to their condition at the end when they are given up, and I think that my noble friend urged that whilst undertakings were in the possession of the Government there might be a loss, and that that loss was not covered by Clause 8. If my noble friend says any loss which would fall upon the companies during the period of possession is covered by some compensation clause in the Bill—if not in Clause 8 then elsewhere—I should have nothing more to say. If, on the other hand, it is the fact that there might be a loss accruing to the company during the period of compensation in the case of this newer class of railways then I am not quite sure that my noble friend, if he were present, would be entirely satisfied. I do not know whether the noble Earl appreciates the distinction, and whether I have made the matter clear, for this was not my own point.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As far as ray view is concerned, I can support the assurance which was given by the noble Earl.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24 leave out ("any") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (1) (c) (iii) to insert "provided that any company, person or authority affected by the discontinuance of the working of any undertaking or part thereof or the closing of any station, may appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission who may make such order thereon as they think fit, and have power to award damages."

The noble Lord said: I put the case which this Amendment deals with to the noble Earl in Committee. At the present moment every railway company is bound to give reasonable facilities for traffic, and that obligation is, I understand, entirely abolished under this Bill. The Minister now is not bound to give facilities, and I think the public should understand that this is so (if I am correct in my understanding of the matter). This Amendment is designed to protect remote places from any unfair shutting up of stations or lines of communication, and to give an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission who can make orders thereon. There is nothing new in this Amendment, which is merely a continuation of the present law. It seems to me that a Minister—I do not say that the present Minister would do it—who came in with a passion for economy—a passion which I should like to see encouraged when reasonable—would shut up branch lines and little stations which are very important to localities, and those localities would have no redress. At present it does not pay to deliver a letter to remote villages, or to people remote from the roads, but it is part of the duty of the Post Office to undertake such deliveries whether they pay or not. Similarly, railway companies should have consideration for localities whether or not those localities are to them paying propositions. It may be of great importance to the locality to have its railway communication preserved.

Stations have been shut up within the last ten years owing to the growth of motor omnibus and tramway traffic, but in those cases there has always been, I understand, an appeal possible to the Railway and Canal Commission. That I understand is now swept away, and the Minister will be able to take away reasonable facilities from any part of England, Scotland and Ireland, and there will be no appeal against his decision. I do not say that he would be right or wrong in doing these things; all I ask for is that there should be an appeal from his decision to the Railway and Canal Commission. I think that is a reasonable request to make, and I make it on behalf of the general public and from that point of view only.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, at End insert the said proviso.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. I understood the noble Lord to say that it maintains the law as it stands, but my belief is that it introduces a wholly new principle, and that there is no claim at the present time for damages in the case of a railway desiring to shut up a station or to reduce the service. There may be an appeal to the Railway Commission—that I do not know—but there is no right in the Railway Commission to award damages. This clause was probably framed with the idea that wherever there is a grievance there should be a remedy and I am afraid that there may possibly be a grievance in these cases, but at present there is no remedy if the service is reduced for good reasons. I do not see why the reduction of a railway service should necessitate compensation to everybody who happens to live in the district. That would be a wholly wrong principle to introduce. Moreover, it does not say to whom damages are to be given, nor by whom the damages are to be paid, and speaking generally I think the drafting of the Amendment is loose, and it would be inexpedient to accept it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I could leave out the words from "Commission" to the end.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

As the noble Lord knows, this is a subject which has been continually debated throughout the history of this Bill, and it was quite clear in another place, and I had hoped that I had succeeded in making clear to your Lordships on the Committee stage, that the Minister could not accept the position, if you give him definite statutory powers, which you do under Clause 3, in the public interest to do certain things, that you should give an appeal from his action to a judicial tribunal like the Railway and Canal Commission. I think I did go a long way, at any rate, to convince your Lordships that we could not accept an Amendment which included an appeal on the question of reasonable facilities. Your Lordships accepted the Amendment with those words deleted.

But it is quite true that the noble Lord, in moving his Amendment in Committee, pointed out that there might be cases in which the Minister, acting as he thought in the public interest, might close some branch line, or do away with some station which might be the only means of communication that an out-of-the-way locality possessed. And he argued, I think quite rightly, that it would be a very hard and unreasonable thing to do. I was impressed by that argument. I forget whether I actually undertook to consider the matter but, at any rate, I mentally undertook to look into it.

My answer is this. The Minister fully agrees that to take away the only means of communication which a district might have would be a most unreasonable thing, and therefore would certainly not be done. If, however, it was done inadvertently, or if it was not noticed at the time that any action was taken that such was the consequence of it, then the remedy is not to the Railway and Canal Commission but to Parliament; and that remedy is in the hands of anybody concerned—in the first instance by an appeal to the "Minister through deputations from the locality, through correspondence, through airing the question in the Press, through Questions in Parliament, or the various means with which the noble Lord is quite familiar by which a thing can be brought to the notice of the Government.

Clearly this is not a question which, if the Minister had acted hardly, would involve the fate of the Government, but if it became known in Parliament and in public that the Minister had acted unreasonably and hardly then it would involve the fate of his own reputation, and that is a matter about which every man is sensitive. The proper remedy, therefore, for any inadvertent justice is by the ordinary channels of publicity to which I have referred. There is no other way in which that possibility can be guarded against without at the same time introducing such words that, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh has pointed out, would really prevent the Minister from doing things which he has been given authority in this Bill to do, and which would also certainly, in the case of the Amendment now before your Lordships, go beyond the present practice and institute a claim for damages which does not exist at the present time. For those reasons I hope the noble Lord will understand that I have sympathy with the Amendment, but I am sorry I cannot accept these words.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Though I am not satisfied that the public are protected, I will withdraw the Amendment after what the noble Earl has said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next is merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 20, leave out ("the provision of").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to leave out the whole of subsection (3). The noble Earl said: This subsection deals with the constitution of the Rates Committee. I move its omission merely as a matter of drafting. Your Lordships will remember that I proposed to do this in the Committee stage, and it was then suggested that it would be more convenient to the House if I did it at a later stage. I propose to leave out this subsection now, and later on in the Bill I shall move to re-insert it in precisely the form in which it is now in the Bill. Then it will be possible to deal with Amendments to the subsection which are now on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 4, to page 8, line 17, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Lytton.)

VISCOUNT MIDDLETON

I do not see the slightest objection to that course being taken, but I hope the noble Earl will understand that in these circumstances I should like to move to his new Amendment the Amendment which I put down to my own old Amendment.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

That will come later on.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, at the end of Clause 3, to insert the following new subsection— (6) For the purposes of this Act possession so taken or retained as aforesaid shall confer on the Minister such rights of control and direction as may be necessary for the exercise of his powers under this Act, but shall not confer on him any rights of ownership.

The noble Earl said: This is really only a matter of drafting. I propose to remove from the end of the Bill, where they are now found, the words which define possession under this Act, and to insert them at this point.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 28, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Lytton).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:

Saving for statutory harbour, dock and pier authorities.

4. 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, 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 assessments 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 prima 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.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, after "purpose" ["for that purpose confer on the owners"], to insert "by Order." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will notice that further down on the Order Paper I have a series of Amendments as a result of the discussion I have had with my noble friend Lord Emmett, reproducing certain procedure to govern the Orders and Orders in Council under this Bill. I propose to insert after "purpose" the words, "by Order," so that the Clause will read: "and may for that purpose by Order confer on the owners any such powers of acquiring land or easements or constructing works." The object of this Amendment is to bring the acquisition of land or the construction of works by a dock company, acting under the direction or order of the Minister, under the same procedure which I am proposing later on to apply to the acquisition of lands or the construction of works, under Clause 9 or Clause 3 of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 3, after ("purpose") insert ("by order").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 5, after ("section") insert ("and the provisions of this Act relating to orders made under that paragraph shall apply to orders conferring such powers as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment 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"):— (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;

(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 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 hoard 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 loss or injury: (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 or any part or plant thereof 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 fund 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): (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 had not been passed: (v) The Minister may direct that the office or situation of any existing officer or servant which he deems unnecessary shall be abolished: Provided that 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: (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: (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 ease.

(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 ate 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 dallied 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 position in regard thereto by reason of the passing of this Act.

(4) This section shall apply to persons who are, or have been, members 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.

LORD ISLINGTON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "Provided further that the expression in subsection (1) of section 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, the Acts and Rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service' shall mean the Acts and Rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888."

The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this Amendment by representatives of the municipal and local government associations and also the Railway Clerks' Association, all of which organisations may be affected under the operation of this Bill, and the members of which are seriously concerned at the Clause as it now stands. The question of assessment for compensation to Officers who have to retire because their offices are abolished has undergone considerable discussion in another place. An Amendment similar to the one which I have placed on the Paper was proposed in the House of Commons by Mr. Tyson Wilson, but was ruled out of order by the Deputy-Speaker on the Report Stage as being one of the class of Amendments that would increase the money charges of the Bill as it had been approved by the Committee. I make this admission quite frankly, because it may be considered by your Lordships that an Amendment of this character stands beyond the province of your Lordships' House, and that owing to what has taken place in the House of Commons it would not be proper for your Lordships to deal with it. I hope, however, if your Lordships will give me your kind indulgence for a few moments, to be able to show by a brief statement that there are reasonable and substantial grounds for what may appear to be exceeding in this instance the strict procedure of your Lordships' House, and for asking you to accept this Amendment so as to enable the House of Commons to give the matter further consideration—an opportunity of which, I am given to understand, a not inconsiderable number of that House would gladly avail themselves.

The question dealing with compensation is a very complicated one, and I am satisfied, from a close examination of what has taken place in the other House and from correspondence that has taken place with the Minister in charge of the Bill, that Members of the House of Commons came to the decision at which they arrived somewhat under a misapprehension of what effect this clause as it now stands would have on those whom it concerns. Under Section 120 of the Local Government Act of 1888, officers and servants whose offices were abolished were entitled to compensation calculated on the basis of one-sixtieth of their annual salary, multiplied by the years of service, plus another number of years; with a maximum limit in all of two-thirds of the final amount of salary. Thus a man under that Act in receipt of, say, £600 a year, who had put in fifteen years service, would first receive fifteen-sixtieths plus seven-sixtieths, making twenty-two-sixtieths, of the salary, or £220 a year. This machinery was generally adopted in all Acts involving the dismissal of men owing to administrative changes and through no fault of their own. It continued until the year 1909 when a new Civil Service Act was passed which reduced the scale on which compensation was awarded from one-sixtieth to one-eightieth of the salary of the servant concerned, and at the same time withdrew the allowance of the added years.

So that under the new practice a man, drawing the same salary—£600 a year—and with fifteen years service, instead of getting £220 a year compensation would get only £112 10s. That is a serious reduction; nearly one-half of his former compensatory annuity. Such strong exception was taken to this new practice that in the year 1913, when a Morley Corporation Bill was before Parliament, a clause was inserted in that Bill similar to the original clause of the Act of 1888 and offering the advantages I have already described. Again, in the year 1918—because during the intervening years there were no Bills of this character owing to the war—that scale was re-affirmed in the Representation of the People Act. In both those eases, therefore, Parliament insisted on there being inserted a clause which is identical to the Amendment that I now ask the Government to accept. We have, consequently, two standard precedents—the precedents of 1913 and of 1918; and unless this Amendment is inserted here those precedents will be set aside and we shall revert to the anomalies, I venture to think the most unjust position, existing prior to 1913.

Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to recount what has taken place in regard to this matter before it came to your Lordships' attention. The subject was raised in a Standing Committee of the House of Commons in the month of May, when Sir Eric Geddes stated that the effect of the compensation clause would be similar to that of the clause in the 1888 Act. A few days subsequent to that the Financial Secretary of the Treasury had a Question put to him in the House on this subject, and his reply was that persons entering the service before 1909 would come under the 1859 Act—which is the same as the 1888 Act—and receive one-sixtieth for each year of service, whereas persons entering since 1909 would be awarded a compensatory annuity under the 1909 Act—namely, one-eightieth; but that in neither of these cases would they be entitled to additional years on account of abolition. Later, during the Report stage in the other House, the case was raised, but it was ruled out of order on account of its being in connection with a money charge. Since then Mr. Tyson Wilson has been in correspondence with Sir Eric Geddes, and Sir Eric Geddes has admitted that he was imperfectly informed, and that therefore his original statement was not entirely in accordance with the facts of the case; but he added that a lump sum is paid in addition to the annuity. Now, I am informed by those who are fully conversant with this subject that this is not correct, and that a lump sum cannot be awarded under the 1909 Act. The lump sum, I am told, is paid only on retirement at superannuation age, and cannot be paid on retirement because of the abolition of office.

Finally, it is suggested by those who desire to resist this Amendment that it is unlikely that anyone recruited after 1909 will come under the operation of this Bill and be retired, whilst all engaged before then will come under the more favourable operation of the 1888 Act. I understand, however, that this view is strongly disputed by those who are conversant with the subject; and I believe that some organisations have gone so far as to take counsel's advice on it. If this view is in dispute, and if it is contended that there is any risk of subsequent litigation, that should be precluded once and for all by making the matter clear and consistent and by adopting or really re-affirming, the precedents to which I have already alluded. It is both unjust and impolitic to have two sets of compensatory annuities, one infinitely worse than the other, for public servants compulsorily retired in precisely the same circumstances.

What is just in the case of an overseer retired under the Representation of the People Act is surely equally just for a public servant retired to comply with the prospective conditions of a Transport Act. It is hardly the way to commence our national economy by cheeseparing and reducing by half the award to servants whose annuity at the best is a very modest one. Therefore I ask the Government and your Lordships to accept this Amendment, and so enable the House of Commons to reconsider it in the light of the facts that have subsequently emerged. I feel sure that many Members in the House of Commons would welcome such an opportunity, if your Lordships would afford it by accepting this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 12, after line 29, insert ("Provided further that, the expression in subsection (1) of section 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, 'the Acts and Rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service' shall mean the Acts and Rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888").—(Lord Islington.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

This is a very technical matter, into which I do not propose to enter in detail. I think that, generally speaking, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has given a correct description of the differences between the two methods of compensation to persons retired from the Civil Service which operate to-day. I rather gathered, however, from the end of my noble friend's speech that he was under the impression that we were setting up some new procedure here which would differ from the procedure which was adopted under the Representation of the People Act. What in fact is the case is that we are here following the general practice, and that the precedent which he quoted of the Representation of the People Act was an exception from the general practice. Therefore, whatever your Lordships do this afternoon—whether you accept this Amendment or not—

LORD ISLINGTON

This goes back since 1909.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes—there are to-day, and will continue to be, two methods of compensation in practice. Under the Bill the compensation payable to railway officers who lose their places in consequence of action taken by the Minister is regulated in accordance with the Acts and rules relating to compensation payable to members of the Civil Service on abolition of office at the present time in force. The Amendment of the noble Lord would substitute for the rules and regulations at present in force the Acts and rules in force in 1888.

I will not again go into an examination of the difference between these two methods of compensation. They exist to-day. The real difference between the two—I think my noble friend will agree with me about this—is the question of the added years. Generally speaking the two systems are considered to be actuarially approximately equivalent. There is this difference, that the procedure which my noble friend wishes to insert gives in addition in certain circumstances a claim for added years. That is really the only substantial difference between the scheme in the Bill and the scheme which my noble friend proposes. With regard to that, I can only tell your Lordships that the Treasury have for many years set their face most emphatically against allowing added years on abolition of office. Consequently the Treasury would object most strongly to the acceptance of this Amendment. It is really a purely financial matter. I have no doubt whatever that it would be declared by Mr. Speaker in the House of Commons to raise a question of privilege. As your Lordships know, the Commons may waive that or not as they please, but in view of the strong hostility which the Treasury would evince towards the Amendment I think it ex-extremely unlikely that the House of Commons would consent to waive their objection on a matter of privilege.

I doubt, therefore, whether in view of the attitude which the Treasury takes to this matter my noble friend would be wise in pressing his Amendment or your Lordships in accepting it. From the point of view of the promoters of this Bill it really is immaterial whether this Amendment is carried or not; but on other grounds, there being very strong objection taken to it, I should recommend your Lordships not to press the Amendment at this stage.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have listened to the noble Earl with some disappointment. He says this is a highly technical matter. I can only say in answer that the basis of his defence of the Bill as it stands is almost entirely on technical grounds—the Treasury rules, and so on. I think in a time like this, with a wholly new procedure such as this, what we ought to look at is what is fair and not what is defended on purely technical grounds. I do not express any opinion upon the question of privilege. I should greatly doubt whether it is a question of privilege. The noble Earl did not state that he had ascertained it would be so regarded; he only said he thought it would be. I think on the merits it is perfectly worth trying.

Look at the position of these officials under the former system. I do not go so far back as 1888, but under the system which enured in the year 1909, when the Port of London Act was passed, compensation was given upon the same basis as that upon which it would be given if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Islington, was accepted. It was only in the following year that the alteration was made in the Civil Service conditions. Even since that, as I understand, in the case of the Representation of the People Act of last year, the same terms were given as were given on a former occasion. If you broke the technical rule last year, why is it to be regarded as the laws of the Medes and Persians this year? Why should not we look at it as a matter of fairness? If when the London Docks were taken over the officials dismissed from office received compensation, it is not fair to put the railway officials—whether they are railway or dock officials—in a a worse position than the Port of London people were put in in 1908.

There is one point in addition to that. No one can forget that since 1908—within the last year or two—the value of money has greatly depreciated. That is one of the things which penalises those who have small fixed incomes more than any other class. Therefore it does seem to me that on all grounds of fairness it would be reasonable to give the officials taken over under this Act the same position as was given to those taken over under the Port of London Act in 1908.

LORD EMMOTT

I feel great sympathy with the views which have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Islington and by the noble Lord opposite in regard to this matter. I feel bound, however, to say one word about the question of this Amendment in reference to its being a privilege Amendment. I think it is quite clear that if the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons ruled the Amendment out of order because it was not covered by the financial resolution, we may take it for granted that when this Amendment goes back to the other House—if it does go back—it will and must be treated as an Amendment which is a breach of privilege. That being the case, I only want to say that if your Lordships do accept this Amendment—I am not very familiar with these technicalities—I hope the reasons given will show that we regard it as a privilege Amendment and send it down so that the House may have a chance of reconsidering the matter. I do not want our motives to be misunderstood, and I do not wish other Amendments to be prejudiced in sending down this one.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am afraid there is no doubt that the noble Lord who has just spoken is correct in regarding this Amendment as a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. I think it cannot be disputed that it varies a charge, and therefore comes under that head. It is, of course, conceivable that the House of Commons might desire to alter their previous decision, and that therefore it might be not an offensive breach of privilege for us to enable them to deal with the matter, which otherwise they could not do. Whether or not it is to be supposed that such is the desire of another place, I agree that it would be well, even if this particular Amendment is not inserted, at any rate to make some change in the clause which would enable the House of Commons to deal with it. But we are all averse, I am certain, from assailing the privileges of another place in a needless way and, therefore, one would be glad to know whether it is likely that this proposed Amendment, or something similar to it, will be welcomed in another place, if there is any question of inserting it here. If not, I cannot help feeling that your Lordships would be making a mistake in touching the matter at all.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I venture to suggest to your Lordships that, unless the noble Earl were in a position to say that the Government would recom- mend the House of Commons to waive its privileges, there would be very little chance of this Amendment being agreed to in another place, simply because of privilege. I do not know whether the noble Earl would be in a position to say that.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am afraid not.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should imagine that the noble Earl could not say that. But it is conceivable—and I say this in order to facilitate business—that between now and Third Reading the noble Earl might get into communication with the Leader of the House of Commons and, even if the Government were not in favour of the Amendment, obtain an assurance that the Minister in another place would leave it to the House to decide whether the privilege should be waived or not. Probably that would be sufficient; but, unless, by putting this off till the Third Reading, that would be a possibility, it would not be worth doing.

I feel certain that if we pass the Amendment as it stands, without any kind of explanation as the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, would wish to have conveyed to the House of Commons, it would simply be ruled out as a breach of privilege; because, although it is a very reasonable proposal on the face of it, it is a very flagrant breach of privilege. I think Lord Emmott was speaking under the impression that we should send reasons with our Amendments to the Commons. On reflection, he will remember that that only happens when there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses, so that there would be no means of conveying the explanation excep through the Government. I do not know whether my noble friend will encourage the noble Lord opposite to postpone this to the Third Reading in order to obtain that assurance.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I can now inform your Lordships that, as at present advised, the Government will not recommend the waiving of privilege to the House of Commons, and unless, therefore, they are persuaded by arguments used in the House of Commons to do so, there is no chance that the Government will support the Amendment in the House of Commons. I think I made that clear when I spoke on the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD ISLINGTON

If your Lordships will allow me I should like to say a word or two more. I realise the technical difficulty but there is a good deal in this Amendment beyond technique. I am given positively to understand that many Members came to a decision in the House of Commons under an inaccurate knowledge of the facts of the case—the facts which I have ventured to give your Lordships in my earlier observations. I do sincerely hope the opportunity will be given to the House of Commons to reconsider this matter, because it is rather a flagrant injustice which will produce a most serious anomaly and, undoubtedly, will cause a great deal of discontent among a large and most deserving body of public servants. That being the case I hope your Lordships will support the Amendment and so enable the House of Commons once more to give it consideration.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The Amendments on this clause ire drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 21, after ("taken") insert ("and the owners of any harbour, dock or pier undertaking")

Page 15, line 24, leave out from ("Act") to ("any") in line 28, and insert ("or as the case may be").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9:

Power to establish transport services.

9.—(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and either by himself or through any other person to work transport services by land or water, and to acquire either by agreement or compulsorily such land or easements 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 service shall be established by the Minister until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete it has been approved by the Treasury;
2. (ii) if such estimate as in the preceding paragraph provided in connection with the establishment of any such service exceeds half a million pounds, or the acquisition of land or easements 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, 691 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 any 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 any transport service not established before that date.

(2) 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 shall be paid out of the revenues derived therefrom, and the Minister shall keep or cause to be kept such accounts of the receipts from and expenditure on the services and in such form, and those accounts shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may prescribe.

LORD SYDENHAM moved to insert the following new proviso: (i) No new transport undertaking shall be established by the Minister unless he has satisfied himself that such undertaking can be maintained on an economic basis."

The noble Lord said: This is a Bill which confers very large powers on a single Minister, subject to very little, if any, control. My Amendment is a humble attempt to embody with those powers the idea of an obligation to the public. Clause 9, as it stands, enables a Minister to start new transport services of any kind on land or water and also to employ compulsion whenever he chooses. That, to my mind, is one of the most dangerous powers in what I regard as a dangerous Bill. I propose to safeguard those powers by adding this proviso.

I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment. It is a matter of plain fact that Government Departments can never manage any business in such a way as to make it pay its way. The cases of Slough and Chepstow are typical of many others in which they have shown that they are unfit to carry on business, and to-day we have terrible fresh revelations of the same weakness on the part of Government Departments. Under Clause 9 the Minister may set up any number of Government businesses all over the country and many of them may become permanent charges on the taxpayer. I imagine that the objections to the Amendment are mainly three. In the first place, it may be said that it may prevent the Minister from setting up a business which, although not paying at once, might become exceedingly profitable afterwards. My answer is that it would not have that effect, because I use the word "maintained." which enables the Minister to take a long view and to consider whether an undertaking would pay in several years time.

In the second place, it might be urged that it would be desirable to establish a non-paying business if that would enable some other business to become at once profitable. The answer is that if that service was in the hands of the Minister he would, of course, lump together their total financial conditions; therefore, in considering the total financial effect, this proviso would not restrain him in any way. On the other hand, if the service belongs to somebody else and not to the Minister, it is not the Minister's business to enable somebody else's service to become paying. Lastly, it might be claimed that the Amendment is superfluous, because it is in the nature of an admonition to a Minister who could not possibly need anything of the kind. My reply is that the whole Bill is framed to suit the genius of a particular Minister who is really an expert and has actual experience of railways, but in a few months he might be replaced by somebody else who has no experience and who might do all these things which might become a burden on the public for everymore.

I think an Amendment of this kind was proposed in another place and defeated. It is my firm belief that, if there had been a free vote on that occasion, the Bill would have come to your Lordships' House in a very different form from that in which it reaches us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has really discovered at last that our financial position is precarious, if not desperate, and I think that perhaps now the Government might be inclined to regard with favour an Amendment which can do no possible harm and which might operate towards national economy in the future.

Amendment moved—

Page 15, line 1, at end insert the following now proviso: (i) No new transport undertaking shall be established by the Minister unless he has satisfied himself that such undertaking can be maintained on an economic basis."—(Lord Sydenham.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I should like to support the noble Lord's Amendment. I think we have had ample experience in the past of public bodies, such as borough councils, and corporations of great cities, starting undertakings for the benefit of their cities not really on an economic basis. That is all very well if you have the cash to spare. In this Bill large financial powers are given to the Minister and he may be tempted, quite naturally, to embark on a great many schemes which will eventually prove to be a failure. There can be no harm whatever in inserting an Amendment of this nature which will give an idea to the Minister that he must not start any of these new undertakings unless there is a reasonable chance of their being able to pay. We cannot afford to sink millions in new transport facilities unless there is economic justification for it.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am afraid I do not see my way, so far as the discussion has gone, to supporting this Amendment. In the first place, I did not quite follow the point that Lord Sydenham made about the possible advantage of starting a branch undertaking which might not itself pay as a single subject but which might be of service in connection with the main enterprise. I understood the noble Lord to say that in such a case the Department would be entitled to lump together the total profits, and though there was a loss on the new undertaking, this would be compensated for by a gain on the whole. But would that be a possible step to take? A new undertaking, say a branch line, is a new undertaking, and it does not seem to sue that it would be possible to lump the receipts and the possible losses in with the total earnings of a great railway, of which it might be a feeder, if the phrase "new transport undertaking" had the meaning which would naturally be given to it.

It appears to me that there is a far stronger objection to the proposal of the noble Lord, although in general respects we must all sympathise with the purpose he has in mind—namely, that there should be no institution of a number of enterprises which are bound to be run at a loss over a long period. The objection is this. You ought not, in my judgment, to make it imperative that a new undertaking of this kind should immediately pay, or indeed pay over a considerable period of years. You can always make it pay by charging rates accordingly, and it appears to me that an injunction of this kind would simply mean that, where the new railway line, new canal, or new transport service of some kind is to be instituted by the Minister, the rates to be charged in respect of that particular undertaking will have to be so high as to earn a reasonable rate of interest on the undertaking. That would be an obvious disadvantage both to all the traders who use the line (I have in my mind particularly the agricultural community), and it clearly would be of no advantage to the consumer. On the whole, therefore, I think that this Amendment ought not to be pressed, although, as I have said, I entirely appreciate the general object which the noble Lord has in view.

LORD FARRER

The noble Earl has said that a transport undertaking, if it is to pay, must put up its rates to an enormous level. Some of the undertakings with which I have been connected have found that if they put up their rates to a high level it defeats their own object. Might it not be better to have a proper accounting in these cases so that we may know where we stand in spending public money. I recollect that in April, 1905, I had the advantage of going to Egypt to Lord Cromer, who desired to have a report on the railways there. There had been a perfectly enormous attempt to introduce grand new schemes—which engineers are so fond of—and I recollect one instance which shows the importance of looking beforehand at any project. It was stated that £1,000,000 would be saved at once by a system of gravitation for all trucks. When we got there we found that those in charge had entirely forgotten (Egypt being a perfectly flat country) to put brakes on the rolling stock, and £500,000 had to be spent in providing brakes. Egypt being an exceedingly flat country the large heap which they made had sunk into the sea, with the result that gravitation was of no use. That is an instance of the danger of these large sums of public money being spent without previous consideration. I believe this House has no power of amending the finance, but I think Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has an Amendment which cuts down the actual amount which is to be allowed. I suppose we shall not be able to discuss that Amendment on account of "breach of privilege," but I hope the Government will assure us that these questions of expenditure will come into the Public Accounts before we are committed to them.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Before the noble Earl replies, may I make one suggestion. There are clearly two schools of thought on this question. What Lord Sydenham desires is not to prevent the Minister doing whatever is necessary, unless it is likely to be unprofitable. It is quite possible for the Minister to determine that a portion of the country might, and should, be better served with transport facilities. In a financial state in which we could afford to throw away tens of millions it would be right and proper for the Minister to consider in bow many districts he could develop traffic, but the point we desire to make is that for the present he should entirely reserve himself for those operations which are either in themselves profitable or will conduce to the more profitable working of the undertakings of which he has taken control; anything which will have the effect of rendering more effective the working of lines which are under his control.

I ask the noble Earl to consider whether my noble friend's Amendment could not be adopted with the addition of the words at the end "or will cause more profitable working of undertakings under his control." If those words are adopted it will give wide discretion to the Minister, and at the same time preserve us against attempts, which have been made in almost every department of the public service which is spending largely at present, to run ideals at great cost, over which the taxpayer can have no possible control through Parliament after they have been begun. I do not want to revive past controversies, but every day fresh questions come up in which it is shown that a particular office has pursued an ideal to such a degree that large sums have been lost, and now to put upon this Minister merely an embargo that he must either promote an enterprise which is profitable in itself or which is likely to make other enterprises which he has taken over more profitable, is I think perfectly fair, and I hope the noble Earl will consider it.

EARL BRASSEY

I hope that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will press it to a Division, because I think it is exceedingly important to place on the Minister the responsibility of only advising the construction of those new works which he is satisfied can be maintained on an economic basis. I sincerely trust that the noble Lord will accept the addition of the words just suggested by Lord Midleton. The object of constructing branch lines, for instance, is with a view of acting as feeders to a main line. Those branch lines may not pay at all when taken by themselves, but when taken in conjunction with the benefit which they confer upon the main line they may be very well justified. I therefore sincerely trust that the proposed Amendment will be accepted.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Like the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and others who have spoken, I sympathise with the objects which the noble Lord has in moving this Amendment. I do not suppose there is any member of this House who wishes to see the Government embark upon large schemes of trading with public moneys, and carrying on trading at a loss at the expense of the taxpayers; but, my Lords, I think the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has not appreciated the limitations which are in the Bill, and which are placed upon the Minister in the exercise of his powers under Clause 9, because he spoke about the Minister having power to go all over the country and start services of great magnitude in all directions, and almost every other speaker in this short debate has referred to the matter as if the Minister had unlimited powers to start large scheme of transport in all parts of the country; and to spend enormous sums of money—the noble Viscount who spoke just now spoke of tens of millions—without any check at all.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I beg the noble Earl's pardon. What I said was that if the country generally was in a position to spend tens of millions on betterments of every description the Minister would be entitled to embark upon schemes which, although not remunerative in themselves, would confer benefit upon the whole country, but I said that the country not being in that position this expenditure should be kept within limits.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I accept the correction, but I think the general observation was that the Minister had very wide powers of spending money. I would first of all call Lord Sydenham's attention to two limitations. First of all no scheme which involves expenditure on the whole programme of more than half a million, and no scheme which involves the breaking up of roads or the acquisition of land, can be undertaken without affirmative Resolutions in both Houses of Parliament authorising the Minister so to do. In effect that means that the only transport service which the Minister can start without coming to Parliament to get authority is, as I pointed out in Committee, a service by roads or canals. Any railway service or light railway service, or tramway service, must necessarily involve the breaking up of roads, and therefore could not be done until the Minister was authorised by Resolution of both Houses.

There is a further limitation which is pertinent to the Amendment which we are discussing, and that is that the Minister is not to undertake any new service himself without first giving to the owners of existing undertakings an opportunity of establishing the service. That is really a pertinent factor in the consideration of this Amendment, because if a new service which the Minister is proposing to undertake is of a profitable or remunerative character, it is I think clear that the existing undertaking would themselves be willing to start such a service, especially in view of the powers of financial assistance to them which is given to the Minister under the Bill. Therefore it comes to this, that almost the only undertakings which will be started under this clause by the Minister will be services that no other commercial undertaking is in a position or willing to start, and they will in fact in almost every case be undertakings which could not be described as maintained on an economic basis, if you are to have regard solely to the service itself.

The real purpose for which Clause 9 is inserted in the Bill is to enable the Minister to start services on a small scale for the assistance of other Government schemes, or other schemes in the interest of the public; that is to say, for the improvement of agriculture in a district, or for the improvement of some housing scheme at the request of a local authority. It may very well be that the Minister would, under the powers of Clause 9, and failing any existing company, wish to establish a small branch railway line, or he may wish to build a light railway, for the purpose of facilitating a housing scheme. It may very well be that that small light railway or branch railway may not be maintained, in the noble Lord's words, on an "economic basis," if we are to regard that undertaking alone, but on the other hand it may be quite justifiable for the Minister to come to Parliament—and he would have to do that—and ask for a resolution authorising him to start this branch line or light railway, although by itself it will not be a paying undertaking, if by so doing he is going to save money or facilitate the work of another Government Department, or a local authority, under a scheme which is greatly to the public interest.

Therefore, my Lords, if this Amendment were carried, even with the addition of the words suggested by the noble Viscount, it would entirely prevent the Minister from starting the very kind of service which he would be most likely to start under Clause 9. Therefore I would ask your Lordships once more not to regard this clause as giving power to the Minister to enter the lists of transport service in competition with existing undertakings on a large scale. As I pointed out in Committee, when dealing with another Amendment, the whole raison d'ètre of Clause 9 is not to enable the Minister to start services in competition with other services, but in default and only when existing undertakings for various reasons may be unwilling or unable to start the service themselves. I feel sure that if your Lordships realise that limitation you will see that it would be unreasonable to place this limitation upon the action of the Minister under Clause 9. I hope also that the explanation which I have given to your Lordships may remove some of the fears which were expressed in the speeches of those who supported the Amendment.

LORD SYDENHAM

I do not think the noble Earl has quite met all my arguments, or has explained away completely the dangers that may arise under the free licence which this clause gives. The noble Earl points out quite properly that the services must not exceed £500,000, but there is nothing to prevent the Minister starting a large number of services to cost £240,000 each. The kind of service I imagine that he would set up would be large motor services in many parts of the country. I think we know at the Air Ministry that it cost £1,400 a year to keep a motor going. If the motor services throughout the country are on that scale we shall have large losses. Are we really in such a financial position that we can afford to do the many things in the way of transport which we should like to do, and which even may be necessary? We are not in a position to do these things, however good they may seem, and the only justification for doing them is that they

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (1) (i), to leave out "has" and insert "accompanied by details of the scheme for the establishment of the service." The noble Marquess said: There is a small drafting error in the Amendment as it appears on the Paper. Tought not to

should be put on a paying basis. On these terms only would I allow the Minister to proceed. I accept the addition suggested by Lord Midleton.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

May I ask if Lord Midleton's Amendment is being put?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I propose as a matter of convenience to put Lord Midleton's Amendment afterwards.

LORD SYDENHAM

I accept Lord Midleton's addition.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It will be for the House to accept it.

On Question, whether the proposed new proviso be here inserted—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21; Not-contents, 34.

CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Hood, V.	Farrer, L.
Ancaster, E.		Forester, L.
Brassey, E. [Teller.]	Avebury, L.	MacDonnell, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Blyth, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Verulam, E.	Chalmers, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
	CunlifEe, L.	Southwark, L.
Chaplin, V.	Emmott, L.	Sydenham, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Glenarthur, L.
Ailsa, M.	Ashbourne, L.	Hylton, L. [Teller.]
Crewe, M.	Balfour, L.	Islington, L.
	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Bradford, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Lee of Fareham, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Newlands, L.
Jersey, E.	Denman, L.	Queenborough, L.
Lytton, E.	Dynevor, L.	Ranksborough, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Ebury, L.	Shandon, L.
Churchill, V.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Finlay, V.		Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Peel, V.	Erskine, L.	Wittenham, L.

strike out the word "has" which I have done. I am in hopes that the Government will accept this Amendment, the reasons for which I can state in two or three sentences. This first proviso on the top of page 16 of the Bill contains one of the safeguards upon which the Government in argument very much relied. The safeguard is that the estimate of the capital expenditure required must be approved by the Treasury before the work can be entered upon. That has a certain value, and the noble Earl will remember that he corrected me in Committee, when in a moment of rashness I criticised the action of the Treasury, by saying that he had found the Treasury very effective in his own official experience. I hope it may be so. At any rate, it is the best that we can have under the form in which the Government have drawn the Bill.

It is something that the Treasury have as the Government propose, got to approve of the estimate of the capital expenditure, but what I am very anxious is that it should not be merely a financial criticism. Your Lordships will see that all that they are called upon to criticise is the estimate of the capital expenditure, and that is what I may call a purely financial matter—merely, that is to say, the amount of the money, as indicated by the fact that in the next paragraph of the proviso it is laid down that a different procedure will arise if the estimate is below or above half a million. So that a fair reading of the two paragraphs together is that the criticism of the Treasury is mainly required in order to see whether, upon an accurate estimate of the financial obligations involved, it will be below or above this figure of half a million—a mere accountant's exercise of the control of the Treasury.

I submit to your Lordships, and with great confidence to the Government, that that is not quite sufficient. What we want is that the Treasury should see that at any rate it is good business which is being done. I will not go into all the intricacies of the discussion which took place upon the last Amendment; probably the noble Earl is aware that I felt the force of the reasoning that he then submitted to your Lordships. But this is not a case of a specific limit laid down in an Act of Parliament as to what is economic and what is not economic. This is a question of whether you ought to give a real discretion to the Treasury or only an accountant's discretion; whether you are to ask the Treasury really to criticise the extravagance—I will not say of the Minister-designate—but of his successor, or whether it is to be merely an accountant's criticism. If the words stand as they are in the Bill I am very much afraid that the Treasury will consider it has sufficiently fulfilled its duty when it has come to a conclusion as to what the real figure ought to be. As soon as they have settled that it is just over half a million, or just under half a million, they will have performed their office, and, so far as they are concerned, the complete safeguard will have been achieved. So I say that we must introduce some words to show that the Treasury are to have regard, not merely to the amount of the money, but to the character of the scheme.

No doubt your Lordships may, with your great experience, criticise the words which I propose, but I think they are probably adequate. I have made them as moderate as I can. At first I thought of putting in a specification, but it was submitted to me that that was too detailed. So I have merely put in words that would leave it entirely to the Treasury, and they would be entitled to look not merely into the actual figure, but to whether the scheme was on the whole in the broadest sense of the word, taking all the limitations which the noble Earl suggested in his remarks on the previous Amendment—whether it was good business which the Minister was proposing.

I do think that since last week, when we discussed this in Committee, we stand really in a different position because we are faced by the tremendous declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the financial position of the country. If your Lordships insert this Amendment and the Bill goes back to another place I do not think the Government will think it their duty for a moment to criticise any reasonable checks on the financial side of the Bill which your Lordships think it right to insert. I am sure that no reasonable question of privilege arises on this Amendment. It does not affect the actual burden on the taxpayer, but it does affect the precautions on the financial side, and in the face of this very solemn, indeed most alarming, declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think the whole country will be glad that your Lordships should emphasise as much as you can the financial checks which there ought to be in this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 4, after ("it") insert ("accompained by details of the scheme for the establishment of the service").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Before the noble Marquess got up to move his Amendment, I was under the impression that I should be prepared to accept it. Since listening to his speech I am in a little doubt, and therefore before I can say definitely there is one point which I wish to clear up. Let me first of all state what I believed the Amendment to be aimed at. It was this, that when the Treasury is approached with an estimate of the capital expenditure I understood that the noble Marquess wished that the details of the scheme should be at the same time submitted to the Treasury, in order that before they approve or disapprove of the estimate they might really know what the extent of this scheme was. In that form I should have been prepared, and still am prepared, to accept the Amendment.

It seemed to me, however, from the speech of the noble Marquess that if he desired to give to the Treasury some responsibility for the details of the scheme the Treasury are wholly unable to criticise technical matters, such as the design of a locomotive, or the condition of a station, or the particulr construction of a bridge. These technical matters of all sorts in the scheme are obviously not matters upon which the Treasury is competent to express an opinion. If the word "have" had been left in the Amendment as the noble Marquess proposed in the form in which it appeared on the Paper, I could not have accepted it, because that would have made the approval of the Treasury dependent upon the details of the scheme. I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is now moved, on the understanding that this will mean that the Treasury shall have before them all the details of the scheme and, with these details before them, their approval shall be given to the estimate of the capital expenditure.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It is clear, of course, that the construction to be placed upon the words, if and when they appear in the Act of Parliament, will not depend upon what the noble Marquess has in his mind, but what a Court of law says they mean, if any dispute arises. I confess I had taken the same view of the meaning of the words that the noble Earl opposite did. It did not occur to me that the noblé Marquess intended that the Treasury should criticise the detailed merits of the scheme, because obviously they have not the technical advice at their disposal which would enable them so to do; but it surely is desirable that they should have the details, as ordinarily understood, of the scheme, in order that they may form the same impression of it that a Committee, or indeed that the House, would on proposals as explained in a Private Bill—not, of course, subject to the kind of examination which a Private Bill gets, but with a general idea of what it is intended to do. I hope, that the noble Earl will accept the noble Marquess's Amendment, because this, I think, is the construction which in the ordinary way will be placed upon it by those who read it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("if") to ("of") in line 7, and insert ("in the case")

Page 16, line 8, after ("service") insert ("such estimate as aforesaid") and after ("or") insert ("if the establishment of any such service involves").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in proviso (ii), after "or the breaking up of," to insert "or the establishment of any light railway or new transport services along." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Committee stage I moved an Amendment similar to this and, if I recollect rightly, the noble Earl said he would consider it, or at any rate if he did not do that he gave me hopes that he might do so. Anyhow, his Amendment adds another class of undertaking to the undertakings in regard to which the Minister cannot exercise his powers unless he is authorised to do so by Order in Council. The Minister can now spend up to £500,000 simply by his own Act. It is said that he can break up roads, and so on. Besides the breaking up of roads—which is very important—the County Councils Association and other road authorities consider that the Minister can lay a light railway or tramway along what is called the waste of the highway, which would be a serious prejudice to the use of the highway by horse traffic. I understand that the local authorities are rather concerned on this point, and they think that some Amendment such as I have suggested should be put in. I think my proposition is a reasonable one, and I shall be glad if the noble Earl can see his way to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 10, after ("of") insert ("or the establishment of any light railway or new transport services along").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think the noble Lord is under a complete misapprehension if he thinks I gave any undertaking.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

No, I did not mean that.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Very well. With regard to the establishment of a light railway, I am informed that it would be impossible to establish such a light railway without breaking up a road. The noble Lord says that in his opinion it is a possible thing to do.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

It has been done.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am advised to the contrary, that it would necessarily involve the breaking up of the road.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

On the waste.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

At any rate, the establishment of no light railway is contemplated which could be laid without breaking up a road. But when we come to the words "or new transport services along," to those words I have the most emphatic objection; because they would rule out, as I explained to-day and also in Committee, the only kind of services which are immediately necessary and which the Minister is likely to start, as these words would compel the Minister to get an affirmative Resolution from Parliament before he could start even an experimental motor-lorry service along a road. He could put no vehicle upon an existing road as a new transport service without getting an affirmative Resolution from both Houses of Parliament—a service which would involve no interference with property, no acquisition of land, no breaking up of roads, and no large expenditure of money; and to say that he is not to do that without getting an affirmative resolution from both Houses of Parliament is, I think, a suggestion which is rather extreme and one which I sincerely hope your Lordships will not accept.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

By permission of the House may I ask the noble Earl whether I understand that in the case of the breaking up of any great main road—say the Great North Road—the Minister would have to come to Parliament before he had to do that?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 11, after ("powers") insert ("of establishing the service'').—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL GREY had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (2), after "under this section may," to insert "subject to reference to the committee established under section three of this Act."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My noble friend Lord Grey asked me, in his temporary absence, to move this Amendment for him, but I am in a condition of some embarassment. I understand that the Government are not averse to the main Amendment of my noble friend. This Amendment is consequential on the main Amendment, but, owing to the Government having succeeded in inducing your Lordships to postpone that part of Clause 3 to a later time, this consequential Amendment comes in before the main Amendment, and therefore will have to be slightly altered. Instead of saying "subject to reference to the committee established under section three of this Act," it will be "subject to reference to the committee established under this Act." I understand that the Government are going to accept an amendment of some kind designed to meet the point of my noble friend, and I presume they will accept those words which are necessary to protect them. I will not detain your Lordships, and I will not press it.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 2, after ("may") insert ("subject to reference to the committee established under this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

May I ask the noble Marquess to move it in this form, "after reference to the Advisory Committee on rates hereafter to be established"?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, 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, 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.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after "any expenditure involved but," to insert "except where the Minister after consultation with the roads committee considers it essential in the public interest."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is rather an important Amendment. I had better give the House a short history of how Clause 11 came to be put in the Bill. I have a summary of what happened in the House of Commons. Mr. Joynson Hicks, who was acting for certain road interests there, moved the clause more or less as it stands. There was a short debate upon it and the Government accepted the Amendment, which was added to the Bill. The Amendment was really to give the Minister power to decide who should be responsible for the reconstruction and improvement of bridges and who should pay for the cost. I understand there is rather a doubt in the law at the present moment as to whose business it is to effect the repairs. It has been a moot point in the Highway Law for some years, I know, who shall be responsible for these bridges and for what sort of weights they shall be constructed to carry. I know that those who represent the special interests of railways in this House will oppose me on this occasion. By the Amendment of Lord Stuart of Wortley the other day the effect of this clause is nullified. Of course, you cannot repair a bridge without expenditure, and that Amendment says it should not involve expenditure on the part of the railway. It therefore follows that the clause is entirely done away with. I therefore move this Amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 23, after ("but") insert ("except where the Minister after consultation with the roads committee considers it essential in the public interest").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The Amendment is an attempt to fasten upon the railway companies a liability which the highest Court of the Realm has decided does not rest upon them. The clause was not in the Bill when it was first introduced. The noble Lord has alluded to what passed in the other House. I understand that this clause made its appearance there during the dinner hour. It was not in the Bill originally suggested, and the Government accepted it because they could not help themselves under the circumstances in which they were placed. The whole case was argued again at the Committee stage of the Bill in this House. If this Amendment is accepted it directly nullifies what was done upon that occasion. This Amendment is really identical in principle and in fact with that which was moved by the noble Lord in the Committee stage and rejected. The present Amendment is even more objectionable, for the reason that it creates a liability which is absolutely unlimited by any definition and is measured by the uncontrolled discretion of the Minister of Transport for the time being. This is not a time when you can put unlimited obligations upon the railway companies to strengthen the bridges for new classes of traffic which were not in existence when the bridges were first constructed. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. My noble friend said that this was a moot question. I do not think there is any mootness about it; it is perfectly well established in law, and many who have to do with county councils will know that railway companies are not liable for this extra expenditure. I think under a Bill of this kind it would be a great misfortune, although it might be to our own personal interest to alter the clause, to do it by a side issue as is proposed.

VISCOUNT CHURCHILL

On behalf of the railway companies, I most strongly endorse what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It imposes upon railways a most unfair new liability, the principle of which has been decided as unfair in the recent cases of the Sharpness Docks versus the Worcester Corporation, and the Attorney-General versus the Great Northern Railway. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will reject the Amendment.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I ought perhaps, to say one word on this Amendment. The Government is placed in rather a peculiar position with regard to it, because on the Report stage in the House of Commons an Amendment was moved to insert the clause with which we are now dealing. No opposition was expressed to the insertion of the clause, although, as has been pointed out, it introduces a change in the existing law. However, as no opposition was expressed from any quarter in the House to the insertion of the clause the Government could not do otherwise than accept it.

When we came to Committee in your Lordships' House an Amendment was moved, I think by Lord Stuart of Wortley, to render this clause inoperative in so far as the railway companies were concerned; in other words, to relieve the railway companies of any financial obligation which might arise from the operation of Clause 11. Again, no opposition was expressed in any quarter of your Lordships' House to that Amendment. Consequently, though I said on that occasion I could not accept the Amendment, the Government took no part in the matter and the Amendment was inserted. Now Lord Montagu proposes to move an. Amendment to that Amendment, which would again make the Amendment inserted in Committee inoperative, and would once more leave a possibility of a charge being put upon the railway companies. So far as the Government are concerned it is impossible for us, having accepted an Amendment in the other House, to accept Amendments here which would alter that decision. The Government are quite neutral in the matter and I leave the decision entirely in your Lordships' hands. We shall take no part officially in the Division, but leave your Lordships to decide the matter.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 12:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The Amendment on this clause is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 4, leave out ("Ways and Communications") and insert ("Transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13:

Powers as to railway wagons.

13.—(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 under 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, en 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:— (a) The reasonable facilities which every railway company is required to afford tinder section two of the Railway and Canal Act Traffic, 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, and it shall be the duty of the Minister so to exercise his powers of working or disposing of the wagons purchased by him as to enable the railway companies to fulfil their obligations under this provision as fully as may be practicable: (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: (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 limiting 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, the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, or any other enactment in force at the date of the passing of this Act and as are in use, under repair, or in course of construction at that date.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I have a drafting Amendment on this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 24, leave out ("at those premises") and after ("on") insert ("at those premises").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENMAN (on behalf of LORD GAINFORD) moved, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection— (6) Fair and reasonable compensation shall be paid by the Minister to persons who by reason or in consequence of any order or regulation made in pursuance of this Act, shall be debarred from continuing the business of building, financing, or repairing railway wagons as carried on by them at the date of the passing of this Act, the amount of such compensation (failing agreement) to be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission in the manner provided by this Act.

The noble Lord said: By the leave of the House, I desire to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Gainford, who is unavoidably absent. This subsection would provide compensation for building and repairing companies—that is to say, those dealing with privately-owned wagons—who are very anxious about what will happen to them under the Bill. I believe it to be a fact, as has been stated more than once in debate in this House, that these privately-owned wagons carry, on an average, more freight in the course of a year than the company-owned wagons. I also believe it to be the case that certain companies have not shown themselves in the past to be well-disposed towards these privately-owned wagons. The Ministry are taking over the powers of the companies and some at all events of their officers will be railway men, and these firms are naturally somewhat anxious as to what the attitude of the Ministry on this question will be.

If you will glance at subsection (4) you will see how wide the powers of the Ministry will be with regard to these privately-owned wagons. They have the power to purchase them, to prohibit or restrict their use, and to limit the number of wagons to be so used. Therefore, you will see that these firms—in some cases their sole business is the building and repairing of these wagons—have very serious grounds for concern. We already have a precedent for the repairing of wagons of a somewhat different type in the depot at Cippenham. I happen to be a member of the Select Committee and to know something about it. I know something of the inclination of the Government for centralisation and their predilection for schemes on rather a large scale, and I put it to your Lordships—Is it not possible, even probable, that the Government, carried away by what they regard as the success of the Cippenham scheme, may set up a great central depôt for the repairing of these railway wagons?

If that were to be so, what then would happen to these unfortunate firms? I will quote to your Lordships one concrete case and one only. There is a company called the North Central Wagon Company, near Cardiff, with a paid-up capital of £150,000 and a total capital of about £600,000. This firm has been working for the last sixty years and the sole business is that of building and repairing wagons. During the war when, as your Lordships are aware, so many of the company-owned wagons were sent to France, they were doing really invaluable work in the repairing of these privately-owned wagons, a great many of which were used for national purposes. I submit with great respect that it would be a grave injustice if these firms were not only to have their businesses impaired but were entirely to lose them as the result of this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 37, after subsection (5), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Denman.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

If I understand it aright, the purpose of this Amendment is to provide compensation for persons who, by reason or in consequence of any Order or Regulation, shall be debarred from continuing the business of building, financing, or repairing railway wagons. This, again, is a point which was dealt with in Committee. I pointed out to your Lordships on that occasion that there was no reason to suppose, so far as the building or repairing of railway wagons was concerned, that the business of any existing companies would be interfered with at all. I pointed out that the wagon-building or repairing shops of the railway companies are not to-day able to deal with all their needs and in some cases they have to go outside to those companies to which this Amendment would refer. Therefore, there is no reason whatever to suppose that because the privately-owned wagons have been taken over by the Minister, any existing wagon building or repairing companies would in any way suffer. The work is not likely to be diminished, still less to cease. There is, consequently, no ground whatever for suggesting that compensation should be paid to persons connected with those companies.

I also pointed out, with regard to wagon-financing companies, that probably many companies to-day engaged solely in the business of financing private traders in obtaining railway wagons, would, tinder the operations of this Bill, lose their business, and I moved an Amendment in Committee to enable companies so affected to wind up their business and pay off their shareholders. This is a point which was brought to the notice of the Government by the owners of these companies and when that difficulty was placed before us, it was met by an Amendment which I moved in Committee. Therefore, the only question left on this Amendment is whether, as a matter of general policy, persons who lose their business from the operation of this Bill should receive compensation out of public funds. It has constantly happened, as I pointed out in the Committee stage, that in the ordinary course of affairs one business has to give place to another, and the suggestion that because the privately-owned railway wagons are taken over by the Minister in the public interest those who hitherto made their livelihood out of financing private traders in building wagons should receive compensation, is really not tenable for a moment. That is an operation which will take place in the public interests. We do not admit for a moment that there is any obligation what ever to pay compensation to persons interested in railway finance companies because by reason of the wagons having been obtained they will no longer be able to finance private individuals. That is all that the noble Lord's Amendment amounts to. I regret I cannot accept it for the reasons I have given. We cannot recognize an obligation on the part of the Government to pay compensation out of public funds to these persons.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17:

Power to make advances for certain purposes.

17.—(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 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 Roads Committee hereinafter referred to and 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 survey or, 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" ["one million pounds"] and insert "half a". The noble Lord said: The noble Earl will remember that on the Committee stage there was a doubt whether the Minister could advance £1,000,000 to private companies, which he can do under this clause, and at the same time, as part of the same undertaking, advance £500,000 himself as well. I suggest we might have the same limit in each and that £500,000 should be the maximum amount he could advance to any one concern. In the case of a big railway undertaking he will very likely have to spend many millions of pounds. Then he will have to come to Parliament, but in these days of financial stress and difficulty to suggest that he should be able to spend £1,000,000 without any check at all, or very little check and no Parliamentary check, is going too far. I did not divide your Lordships' House on this point the other evening because I did not realise how far the House might have agreed with me, but afterwards many noble Lords wished that I had pressed the Amendment. As it stands I only propose that the Minister shall be able to spend £500,000 as a subsidy to the service he is going to help, other than that which he undertakes himself, and that he should have power to spend £500,000 on the service he undertakes himself. It seems to me that is quite adequate for all the purposes he is likely to want it.

There are a certain number of financial checks in the Bill, and the noble Earl has told us how the Minister will have to go through various filters, if I may call them, which would prevent him spending money except after a considerable amount of difficulty. He would have Treasury control in some matters, and other control in other matters. He will have to submit estimates, but it seems to me that £500,000 is quite sufficient for him to advance to concerns other than those he finances himself. It would give him power to spend a £1,000,000 on one undertaking. If he establishes a road service, or a light railway, he could spend £500,000 on establishing the service, and under another name could loan to the service another £500,000: I think he could spend £500,000 on any number of services so long as each one did not exceed £500,000.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

If it did not involve the breaking up of roads or the acquisition of land.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I appeal to the House on the ground of economy, the need which is now more evident than ever for economy, and the importance of limiting every spending department in the State as far as possible, to support the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 37, leave out ("one") and insert ("half a").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment has argued that there is some analogy between the figure of £500,000 which is inserted in Clause 9 governing new services and the £1,000,000 which is the limit here up to which the Minister may advance money to existing undertakings, always be it remembered with Treasury approval and out of money provided by Parliament. The noble Lord again fell into the error of saying that the Minister could advance money up to £1,000,000 without any check at all. I realty hesitate to repeat what I said, but it seems necessary, that the check here is not in place of existing checks but in addition to the checks which at present exist on every other Minister in regard to money authoriseed by Parliament.

I submit there is really no analogy whatever between the two circumstances, and I feel quite confident that when I have pointed out the case you will understand that there is justification for the difference in the two sums. In Clause 9 you are dealing with new services which are to be started by the Minister himself. That involves a new policy, and necessarily a policy of a speculative character. It is impossible for the Minister to do more than produce an estimate of what he believes will be the cost and the consequences of the scheme which he places in his estimate before the Treasury. Here we are dealing with something quite different. We are dealing here with advances of money to existing undertakings upon terms which will give the Treasury complete control not only over the amount to be advanced but over the security on which the money is advanced and the rate of interest which the undertaking will pay. Unless the Treasury is satisfied as to the security offered, and the rate of interest which is to be paid, they will not, of course, authorise the advance of any money at all. Therefore, to say that the two things are analogous is really confusing matters which are totally different.

The same fear was expressed in the House of Commons. There too it was suggested there was an analogy between these two sums. It was pointed out that we are dealing here with advances to existing undertakings, where the Treasury have complete control and where they must be satisfied as to the interest to be paid, and the security upon which the money shall be advanced. That is quite a different proposition from authorising the Minister to spend money for which there is no security, and upon which there is no return except such return as the Minister may hope to get from the service be undertakes. I hope your. Lordships will see that they are two different things and that there is justification for the difference in the two amounts.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I do not desire to argue the question of the amount proposed, so much as to draw attention to a phrase which has fallen from the noble Earl. He drew a distinction between the powers under Clause 9, and the powers under this clause, Clause 17. He said that Whereas Clause 9 applies to new undertakings to be promoted by the Department itself, this clause applies to existing undertakings. I see nothing about existing undertakings in Clause 17. The clause says the Minister may make advances out of money provided by Parliament for the construction, improvement, or maintenance of railways, light railways, or tramways"—construction of railways," not necessarily by any existing railway company. Similarly, construction of roads, harbours, docks, canals, and the promotion and improvement of transport services by land or water. I can quite understand that during the period while these services and existing railways and canals, are in the hands of the Transport Ministry, it may be necessary to make advances to them, but that power by no means exhausts the capacities of the Minister under the clause as it stands, and it would appear, therefore, that larger safeguards might conceivably be demanded than those which the noble Earl seems to think necessary as applicable to existing departments. I hope the noble Earl will clear up that difficulty, which I confess has arisen in my own mind.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

With the leave of your Lordships I should like to answer the noble Marquess. He is afraid, I think, that the Minister may make advances out of moneys provided by Parliament to any person in the country for the objects which follow. That is quite true, so far as the words of the Bill go, but then no person without statutory powers of running railways, tramways, roads, bridges, ferries, harbours, docks, piers, or canals, could receive the advances which the Minister is entitled to make. If he is authorised, as he is in this clause, subject to the approval of the Treasury and upon such terms and conditions as he thinks fit, to advance money for these objects, he can only advance them to such persons as would be able with the money so advanced to carry out those objects, and I think I am right in saying that only existing local authorities with, regard to roads, and existing statutory undertakings with regard to railways, tramways, docks, piers, or canals, could utilise sums so advanced. Therefore I think I am correct in saying that in fact this limits the Minister to advances to existing local authorities in respect of the roads, or bodies having statutory powers to do any of the matters mentioned in Clause 17.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

After the explanation of the noble Earl I cannot say I am altogether satisfied, but I will not trouble the House to divide.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "Provided further that the Minister shall not make an advance under this section for the establishment of a new transport service by land or water." The noble Marquess said: I do not know whether this Amendment is accepted.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

No, I do not accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

A very few words are necessary to explain the meaning of the Amendment. In Committee, on Clause 9, the Government inserted a provision which enabled the Minister to act not by himself only but through another person in making new transport services. This Clause 17 gives power to the Minister to make advances out of moneys provided by Parliament to any "person." Therefore it is quite clear that if you read the two clauses together the Minister could under Clause 17 make advances to the person who had made the new transport services under Clause 9. So that you can conceive this happening, that the Minister might through another person construct a new transport service, spending a very little money on it at the outset, perhaps £100,000, and then as soon as it was going he could use Clause 17 to advance perhaps £1,000,000 without any special Resolution of the House of Commons, in order to assist his own new transport service under Clause 9.

I cannot think that that was the intention of the Government, and in fact the noble Earl has told us that it was not. I am not, of course, specially attached to the words of my Amendment and if it is thought desirable I will alter them, but I think your Lordships will agree that some kind of Amendment is required. In Committee the noble Earl said that the point was new to him—at any rate he was unable to answer it. He may have some good reason, some well founded reason, which will show that in this particular case my reading of the two clauses together is not correct. If that be so I shall not persist in my Amendment, but if it turns out that I am right, and that the Minister could devote' sums under Clause 17—either £1,000,000 without the consent of the House of Commons or snore than £1,000,000 with it—on a new transport service established by himself through another person under Clause 9, it would be a very objectionable practice, because we should have then entered upon a course by which very large sums of money could be expended by the Minister in promoting new transport services. He would be able, acting not through a company but through a "person," who might be little more than a colourable imitation of himself, to construct a very large network of transport services, all financed by the taxpayer. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 39, at end insert: Provided further that the Minister shall not make an advance under this section for the establishment of a new transport service by land or water.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

When I said just now, in reply to the noble Marquess, that I was not prepared to accept his Amendment, it was merely because I hope and indeed feel convinced that I shall be able to convince him that these words are unnecessary. What I think he is afraid of is this: That the Minister having started a service under Clause 9, which is just short of £500,000 and which therefore he could do without requiring a special resolution from Parliament, will then under the words which were inserted in Committee authorise some other person to work this service for him, and then under Clause 17 make an advance out of public funds to that person and in that way really be making advances to himself.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl, if he will allow me to interrupt him, will understand that the protections under Clause 9 are much greater than under Clause 17. I mean to say that under Clause 9 there is the protection of your Lordships' House—we have to be consulted—and under Clause 17 there would be none.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I quite appreciate that point. In Committee I told the noble Marquess that I did not believe for a moment that such a thing was possible, and that it was not the intention of the Government. I find on looking into the matter further that I was quite correct, and that there is in fact no such power in the Bill. If your Lordships turn to Clause 9 you will see that the opening words are as follows: "It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and either by himself or through any other person to work transport services by land or water:" In other words, the only power given to the Minister is to delegate the power of working an undertaking to some other party, but the power to work would not include any of the powers which are contained in Clause 16—namely, construction, improvement, or maintenance of any of the matters referred to in the subsections of Clause 17. In Clause 17 the Minister can only make advances to persons for the purposes stated. A person who, on the instructions of the Minister, is working one of the undertakings established under Clause 9 would not have any of the powers for the execution of which the Minister is authorised to advance the moneys under Clause 17. Therefore the fear which the noble Marquess expressed in Committee and again just now is groundless, because the case which he wishes to prevent could not possibly arise. The position is completely governed by the words in Clause 9 which limits to "working" the powers which the Minister may delegate in respect of any new services.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

May I ask the noble Earl if he has considered whether the provision of transport service by land and water is as a matter of fact excluded from the power under Clause 9? I should think that that particular subsection (e) runs some risk of falling under Clause 9.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I read the words myself in the sense which I have just explained to your Lordships, and I am informed that it is correct to say that the words in Clause 9 would not give power to anybody to do more than work a transport service, and in his capacity as an agent working the service for the Minister he could not either "promote" or "improve"—even if supplied with funds by the Minister—a transport service by land or water.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am much obliged to the noble Earl.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will not press the Amendment now, but will try and reflect upon the words of wisdom of the noble Earl between this and the next stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new sub-section— (3) For the purposes of advances for the improvement or maintenance of roads and bridges the Minister may authorise the council of any county to contract with the council of any urban or rural district within the area of such county council for the improvement or maintenance by such county council of any roads or bridges, the expenses of which are borne by such urban or rural district council, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed between them respectively.

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I put down in Committee stage. I do not know whether the noble Earl said he would consider it, but I do not think he actually rejected it. It is an Amendment which has been put down at the instance of a good many people interested in town planning who are anxious to give local authorities and county councils the power to improve the maintenance of roads. At present, though a district council can contract with the county council to keep up roads, the county council cannot contract with the district council to take over their roads, and it is really in the interests of good government and in no way hostile to the principle of the Bill that I move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 11, at end insert the proposed new subsection.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think I told the noble Lord in Committee that I had no objection to his Amendment, but that I did not consider it was in order in this Bill. In any case I told the noble Lord that I would consult the Ministry of Health, who seemed to me to be concerned in this change, and they have informed me that in their opinion this is not the proper place or occasion to make an alteration in the general law; in fact, they consider that the proposal of the noble Lord would not come within the title of the Bill, and that it might be so ruled when it gets to another place. I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press the Amendment, though I can assure him that I have every sympathy with his object.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18:

Accounts, statistics, and returns.

18. 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, duck, 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 tins Act.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment on Clause 18, after "the" ["the authority or person liable"], to insert "public or local" and leave out "or person." The noble Lord said: The next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl refers, I think, to the same subject. In the Bill as drafted it seems as if the requisition could be served on the owner of any number of private roads on farm lands, and I suggest that what should be done is that the owner should be able to give a return to persons or authorities who have control of public highways. I do not propose this Amendment as I assume the Amendment of the noble Earl will be moved.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to leave out "road" ["any road or bridge"] and insert "public highway." The noble Earl said: I propose this Amendment to meet the case put by noble Lords in Committee. There is not, I think, at the present moment a definition of road, but there is a definition of public highway, and although that would not exclude all privately-owned roads it would in fact rule out those about which fears were expressed in Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 16, leave out ("road") and insert ("public highway'').—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause—

Rates advisory committee.

"—(1) 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, tolls, dues, and other charges or special services, a committee shall be appointed consisting of 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.

"(2) Before directing any revision of any rates, fares, tolls, dues, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice, 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.

"(3) 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, unless in their discretion the committee consider it unnecessary, shall 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, the council of any city, borough, burgh, county, or district shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or any persons represented by them may be affected by any such proposed revision as aforesaid.

"(4) 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.

"(5) 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.

"(6) 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."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment merely transfers from an earlier portion of the Bill, from which they were omitted this afternoon, the words which constitute the rates clause. Your Lordships will see that I have moved to translate the words in their entirety as they stand in the Bill to-day but that must not, of course, be taken to mean that I accept the Amendment which your Lordships inserted in the constitution of the rates committee at an earlier stage. I merely move this Amendment as a matter of drafting. I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that I have introduced in the last paragraph but three—that is to say, the fourth paragraph from the end of the Amendment—the word "burgh" between borough and county. This is purely a matter of drafting, and is because the word borough as spelt in the Bill is not recognised in Scotland, and the spelling in this case is necessary to make it applicable to that country.

Amendment moved— After Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD ISLINGTON

Before this Amendment is put I would like, in the absence of my noble friend Viscount Midleton, to ask to add at the end of subclause (1) the Amendment which stands in his name, and which, under the former drafting of the Bill came under Clause 3. My noble friend Lord Lytton will remember that when he informed your Lordships that that clause was to be postponed and was to become a new clause the noble Viscount rose from his place and asked that his Amendment should be considered with the clause. The Amendment reads as follows, coming at the end of subclause (1), to insert: "together with, if deemed advisable, one additional member who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him." This complies with the very strong feeling expressed by the noble Earl himself, speaking upon this Amendment in Committee, that it would be necessary on this advisory committee for the Minister to have the option from time to time to appoint an advisor ad hoc for the purpose under consideration, and it is with a view to meeting the noble. Earl's own pronounced desire in this connection that the Amendment has been put down. I ask the noble Earl whether he will be good enough to accept it. It will require an alteration to the beginning of Clause 2.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Does the noble Earl accept this addition to the clause?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Grey, which has not been moved. I should like to say a word about it. It is an Amendment to what was then Clause 3, page 7, line 19—after "services," insert "or prescribing any rates, tolls, or charges in connection with a new transport service established under section 9 of this Act." The object of the noble Earl, as was made clear on the Committee stage, was to ensure that the same control, or rather the same powers of advice, should be given to the Rates Committee in respect of rates charged by the Minister on new services set up under Clause 9 as they have in the Bill with regard to rates on existing services.

I am unable to accept the Amendment which is on the Paper, but I should be prepared to move at this place myself an Amendment which will meet the same point in somewhat different words. The noble Lord by the Amendment on the Paper would in fact be giving discretion to the Rates Committee in matters which they would not deal with in the case of existing services. In the case of existing services the maximum limits are fixed by Parliament, but within those maximum limits there are innumerable variations, which take place from day to day upon every railway. There are as many as from 30,000 to 40,000 changes a month on one railway alone. The noble Earl's Amendment, as he had it on the Paper, would, if it had been moved, have referred all those daily variations, which are matters for a rates clerk (a highly technical expert) to deal with, to the Rates Committee. I am prepared, however, to move at this stage the following Amendment—after "adopted" at the end of sub-paragraph (2) of the new clause to insert the following words: "before prescribing the limits of rates, tolls, or charges in connection with a new transport service established under section 9 of this Act, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Committee for their advice." That will carry out the purpose which Lord Grey had, and will give to the Committee the same discretion with regard to the rates of services under Clause 9 as they have to-day with regard to the services of existing undertakings.

Amendment moved— In new clause, after subsection (2), to insert ("Before prescribing the limits of rates, tolls, or charges in connection with a new transport service established under section 9 of this Act the Minister shall refer the matter to the Committee for their advice").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21:

Roads advisory committee.

21. (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, 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 horse and mechanical 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 and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement, or maintenance of roads or bridges or the regulation of traffic thereon.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I beg to move a series of Amendments on this clause for the purpose of carrying out the undertaking which I gave to Lord Montagu with regard to the position of the Roads Committee. I think it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I shortly gave the effect of the Amendments taken as a whole although I am now only moving the first Amendment. The first Amendment is to make the Committee consist of not less than eleven, instead of not less than ten members. The second amendment would ensure that one of the representatives should be a representative of Labour appointed after consultation with the interests concerned. I think that is the same Amendment as the noble Lord himself has on the Paper. And finally I propose that the Committee shall elect from among their number their own Chairman, instead of, as the matter now stands in the Bill, the Chairman being appointed by the Minister. Those, I think, were all three points which I undertook to meet the noble Lord upon.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 34, leave out ("ten") and insert ("eleven").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I would like to ask the noble Earl whether he can give me some answer to what I referred to at the beginning of the debate about the Government's intentions as regards road transport interests, as distinct from road-making interests. Even with eleven members, including one Labour member, that would leave only five for the representation of all the transportation interests. In this Bill there is a Department which the noble Earl and the Minister have agreed to now, set aside to deal with roads, but there is no special Department to deal with road transport interests. The House will realise that there are very important matters now in the charge of the Local Government Board which are handed over to the Minister. I do not doubt for a moment that if the Minister exercised his great powers in connection with those transferred matters he would take counsel with the people concerned. But I must plead for these large road transport interests Under the Bill at the present moment there is no safeguard. We are a minority on the Roads Committee, we have no separate Department and among the eminent gentlemen who compose, so far as we have seen, the list of those who represent the Minister there is not one who has had any intimate acquaintance with road transport.

Road transport is a very important matter nowadays, and it is going to become more important. I may say for myself— and I am sure for many of my friends—that, when the Bill is passed, we shall make it a success. As far as we are concerned we want to assist the Minister to improve transport. I personally shall do anything I can. At the present moment we are absolutely the "under-dog" in this matter, and we have no guarantees whatever that our interests will be particularly represented to the Minister. He will be full of railway matters, and he will have great burdens put upon him in trying to make railways pay. We are afraid that owing to the stress of improved services he will be compelled to subordinate road transport interests to railway transport interests. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will take this opportunity of saying how the Government intend to deal with road transport as distinct from road making.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am very glad to respond to the appeal of the noble Lord. I think his fear is really based upon the view, which he has frequently expressed, that the Transport Ministry will in fact be a Railway Ministry. I have endeavoured on many occasions—I hope with some success—to induce your Lordships to believe that that will not be the case, and. that this is a Ministry which will deal with transport questions as a whole. And, although it is undoubtedly true that railway matters bulk very largely in transport policy, still I do not think there is any ground whatever for the fear that road matters will be, as the noble Earl expressed it just now, the "under dog," or that they will be neglected or subordinated to railway matters, still less prejudiced by competition with railways. I would point out to the noble Lord that even as the Bill stands to-day road traffic users interests—for which I understand he speaks—have more representation than they have at the present time. That is to say, they will under this Bill have more voice in road matters than they have to-day. I speak subject to the correction of the noble Lord, who is a member of the Road Board, but I think I am right in saying that the matters with which the Road Board deal are those connected with the construction, but not, I think, the maintenance of roads.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Improvement of roads.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

We have in the place of the members of the Road Board the five representatives of the highway authorities who are interested in the surface of the roads, and there are to be on this committee five persons directly representing road users, and one Labour Member who the noble Lord thinks will not represent the interests of road users, though I think his interests will probably be those of the users of the roads. Under this Bill we have ensured that we shall have the best expert advice in the actual construction and maintenance of roads, and, so far as it is possible within the four corners of this Bill, we have provided that great attention should be given to the surfaces of the roads. We have further provided that the Minister should be advised by a committee which shall contain certainly five and probably six people looking after the interests of the road users. But I will go beyond that and assure the noble Lord that the Minister certainly intends—when matters arise (as they must) connected with the use of the powers that are now transferred to him with regard to the construction of motor vehicles and the approval of by-laws for speed limits upon the roads, and matters of that sort—that he should receive the advice and assistance of those who are most expert and best qualified to speak on the matter. It is true that at the present moment he has not announced his intention of appointing any particular gentleman who may be considered an expert in these matters, but I can assure the noble Lord that it is, of course, his wish to obtain the best expert advice that he can upon these questions.

I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes me to answer the specific question of which he gave me private notice—namely, Could I say that, in using the powers given to the Minister under this clause of approving the nominees of the highway authorities, the Minister would in fact accept the nominees of those authorities, or would he insist upon their accepting his nominees? I think the answer to the noble Lord's inquiry is obvious. The machinery set up in the clause is that the members of the Roads Committee shall be appointed by the committee in consultation with those authorities. It is obvious, therefore, that the Minister will neither insist upon the local authorities accepting his nominees nor would he for a moment refuse to accept any nominees of the local authorities. I presume that what he will do will be to ask them to put up a choice from which he may make a selection, and, having made his selection, he will do his best to assure himself that the persons he has chosen will be agreeable to the local authorities who have put up their names. The noble Lord can rely upon it that the powers given under this clause will be carried out in the most amicable spirit with the best desire to come to a working understanding with the local authorities, and to ensure for the Minister the best advice he can obtain.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next two Amendments are purely drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 23, line 39, leave out ("together with a chairman and secretary") and insert ("and one shall be a representative of labour appointed after consultation with the interests concerned"). Page 24, line 1, after ("chairman") insert ("shall be elected by the members of the committee from amongst their own number").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection— (5) There shall be presented to Parliament not less than once a year a report on roads and bridges and the vehicles and traffic thereon, and the Minister shall consult the Roads Committee in the preparation of such report.

The noble Lord said: I lay stress on this Amendment and I hope the noble Earl will meet me in regard to it. I do not want to put an unfair obligation on the Minister, but ever since the establishment of the Boad Board in 1910 there has been presented to Parliament a Road Report which has been of great interest and service to the civil engineering community amongst others. In the various Road Congresses held in Brussels, in Paris, and in London, these Reports were taken as the only official documents relating to roads issued in this country. I suggest to the noble Earl that there can be no objection to continue this annual Report. If it is not continued it will cause a serious break in the series of these very interesting documents which are now at the service of every local authority and of all students of road administration, If the Minister is wise he will no doubt do it, though he will, of course, consult the Roads Committee before it is issued.

Another point with regard to these Reports. They enable the Minister to put forward any detailed schemes he may not have time to put forward in Parliament. In this year's Report you will see most interesting details of a new road to be constructed more or less parallel to the Commercial Road. There have also been given details about the Great West Road, and so on. I think it is useful to put into the Bill a statutory obligation upon the Department to produce an annual Road Report, and it will also be useful if the Government could accept the words that I propose suggesting that the Minister should consult the Roads Committee before he produces the Report.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I can certainly assure the noble Lord that it is the intention of the Minister to continue the present policy of issuing the Report to the value of which he has drawn attention. I hope the noble Lord will not press the words upon the Paper, because they would be a considerable embarrassment to the Minister in carrying out his work. The noble Lord will appreciate that there is a difference between the Report which the Minister will issue in the future and the Report which has been issued by the Road Board in the past. The Minister will issue a Report which will deal with a number of subjects and in which the matters connected with roads will be dealt with; but to say that in that Report must be included matters connected with bridges and vehicles and traffic thereon and that the Minister shall consult the Roads Committee in the preparation of such Report, is putting a statutory obligation upon the Minister which we are not prepared to accept. The Minister is prepared, and I undertake on his behalf that it shall be so, to continue annually these Reports. In the preparation of them he will, of course, have the benefit of the advice and assistance of the Roads Committee, as he will have upon all other matters connected with roads. In the form in which the Amendment of the noble Lord appears, however, I regret I am unable to accept it, and I hope, in view of the assurance I have given to him, he will not press the matter.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I have listened to what the noble Earl has said, and it is a great satisfaction to know that the Minister will make an Annual Report. I think, however, the Annual Report on the roads should not be included in the Report upon the rest of transport matters, but should be a separate document.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD EMMOTT had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new clauses—

"Power to make rules.

"22.—(1) The Minister and the Privy Council may respectively make rules in relation to the making of Orders and Orders in Council under this Act and to the publication of notices and advertisements, and the deposit of plans and sections and books of reference to those plans and the manner in which and the time within which representations or objections with reference to any Order or Order in Council are to be made and to the holding of inquiries and to any other matters arising in relation to their powers and duties under this Act.

"(2) Any rules made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and shall have the same effect as if enacted in this Act."

"Procedure for making certain Orders and Orders in Council.

" .—(1) Sections eighty and eighty-one of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, relating to the making of regulations under that Act as set out and adapted in the second schedule to this Act shall apply to the making of any order under section 3 (1) (d) of this Act or of any Order in Council under section nine of this act.

"(2) Any order under section 3 (1) (d) of this Act shall not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament."

"Procedure in certain cases by Bill in Parliament.

"23.—(1) If any objection to the making of any Order under section 3 (1) (d) of this Act or of any Order in Council under section 9 of this Act which have been stated in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed time shall allege that the proposals or some of the proposals are of such a character or magnitude or raise any such question of policy or principle that they ought to be deal with by Bill in Parliament and not by Order or Order in Council, the Minister, or the Privy Council (as the case may be) shall forthwith inform the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons (in this Act referred to as 'the Chairman') of all objections which have been stated to such proposals.

"(2) The chairmen shall thereupon take the proposals and the objections thereto into consideration and report thereon to the Minister or the Privy Council (as the case may be) and if it appears from the report of the chairmen that either of the chairmen is of opinion that the proposals or some of the proposals ought to be dealt with by Bill in Parliament and not by Older or Order in Council such Order or Order in Council shall not be proceeded with so far as the same is objected to by either of the chairmen.

"(3) A copy of such report shall as soon as possible be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

"(4) The chairmen shall determine all matters of practice or procedure which will enable them to take any such proposals into consideration, and to report thereon to the Minister or the Privy Council as the case may be."

The noble Lord said: With reference to the Amendment in my name, I think it would be more convenient to your Lordships to take the discussion later on. I am not entirely satisfied with the Amendments put down (after Clause 27) by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but I can easily move an Amendment to show any changes I desire to make.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new clause—

"22. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prejudice or affect any existing rights of the public in relation to the use of roads or bridges or of vehicles or traffic thereon."

The noble Lord said: I am informed by those who have studied this Bill that there are certain points in it which may affect the rights of road users. I will give one instance. At the present moment it is necessary for railway companies to keep the gates at a level crossing closed against the railway and open in favour of the road. I am informed that the Minister could order that the gates should be closed against the road and opened to the railway as their normal position. There is also the question as to the laying of light railways and of the working of traffic by which the public might be affected. This clause is to preserve the rights of the public which they have to-day with regard to the roads. They also have the right to me certain vehicles by Act of Parliament, and they have rights over certain bridges. I think it is valuable that every possible right of the public to use roads should be preserved. I therefore move this as a saving clause in case in the Bill, either by intention or by accident, the rights of the public over the highways should be affected.

Amendment moved— After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The noble Lord did not, I think, himself specify in what way he considered the rights of the public are or might be affected by this Bill. I am advised that, so far as can be seen, no existing tights of the public in relation to the use of roads or bridges or of vehicles or traffic thereon are affected by the Bill. There is a very serious objection to putting into an Act of Parliament a clause to say that the Act shall be taken to mean anything except what appears upon the face of it, and, as the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, pointed out to me earlier in the evening, the interpretation of an Act of Parliament is a matter for the Law Courts. It will be for the Law Courts in future to decide whether any of the clauses in this Bill do or do not affect the rights of the public in a manlier which would be prevented by the insertion of these words.

I am not sure, however, that the insertion of these words might not preclude certain things being done which it might be the object of the Ministry to do under the Bill; for instance, supposing the laying of a railway or a light railway provided a level crossing at a certain point, it is true that the rights of the public to cross the railway would be maintained. On the other hand, if a gate were put at the level crossing there might be certain moments when a passenger might be unable to cross the railway and might therefore be kept waiting. That might or might not be considered to be affecting the rights of the public with regard to the use of the roads. I feel sure that as many difficulties would arise in the matter of intrepretation if these words were inserted as could possibly arise on the Bill as it stands at this moment, think the House will see that the insertion of vague words of this sort, which are in the nature of a mandate to future legal bodies to whom questions of interpretation may hereafter be referred, is open to very serious objection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22:

Advisory committees.

22.—(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 establishing new transport services by land or water, the Minister shall refer the matter to a committee selected by him from 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 BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Before the noble Viscount (Lord Midleton) moves his Amendment to subclause (4) of Clause 22, I should like to raise the question whether this subclause is really worth anything at all. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would prefer it, I would postpone this until to-morrow. I will not press it now, but to put myself in order I should like to move the omission of subclause (4) to Clause 22 which says that 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. This afternoon you have been changing the constitution of the Bill, and I think this subclause is entirely and absolutely impossible of fulfilment.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Take the case of the Roads Committee. It will be composed of representatives of local authorities and county councils, and possibly it may number ten or twelve members. Some of them may be chairmen of committees and others may become surveyors. These people, if they are to be of any use on the advisory committee, must confer with the authorities they represent before they go to the advisory committee to discuss important questions of policy. They would not be fully equipped to take part in the discussion unless they bad the views of the district they represent. It cannot be thought that every county council or district committee should have the same opinion; they do not usually hold the same opinion on ordinary matters. The representation would have to be grouped over the country, and one member would represent a considerable area with a large number of local authorities in it. If the clause says it is to be absolutely confidential, on a strict interpretation the member of the committee cannot go and discuss questions beforehand or afterwards with those whom he represents. It seems to me an absolute reductio ad absurdum, and I think it would do no harm to the Bill if this subclause were omitted.

Amendment moved— Omit subclause (4).—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think if the noble Lord had been present in Committee when this subject was discussed he would have realised that the Government, at any rate, attach very great importance to the presence of this sub-clause. Far from its omission having no effect whatever on the Bill, it would in our opinion have a very serious effect indeed. The matter was very fully discussed when the Bill was in Committee, and as I think the noble Lord was not present on that occasion perhaps I may be permitted to repeat the arguments which I used on that occasion. First of all let me say, in passing, that I do not consider that the words "acting in a confidential capacity" would preclude a representative of a local authority, or of any other interest, from consulting with those whom he represents. Obviously, no man can represent any interest unless he is free to consult with that interest. What I understand is meant by these words is that he shall not make public the information that he has received by virtue of being a member of that Committee. To say that he may consult privately with those he represents is quite another matter.

There are three Committees and before all these three Committees matters must be discussed which are of considerable importance to the private trading interests either of an individual trader or of an existing undertaking. It is desired, when these Committees are transacting their business, that every one who comes before them should lay all the cards upon the table and discuss the whole problem in a perfectly free manner. That would be impossible if it were felt that public use might afterwards be made of the information so obtained. The noble Earl will, I am sure, appreciate that whilst a trader is quite willing to give to the Minister, through the Advisory Committee, information respecting the tonnage of his services or with regard to his financial position in a question of taking over a new service—matters which he is not only willing to discuss with the Committee but of which the Committee must be cognisant before they can advise the Minister—he would be very reluctant indeed to place them in the hands of his trade competitors.

It is really entirely in the interest of the Minister, of the Committee, and of the trade interests which come before them, that the proceedings on these Committees should be regarded as confidential. If they are to be published, either by members of the Committee or by the Minister in a Report to Parliament, as is hereafter suggested, it would be quite impossible for the Committee to get information which it is vital and essential they should have, if they are to give sound advice to the Minister, because the fear that information might be published would preclude many of those who come before the Committee as witnesses from giving information about their own private affairs. When I say "private" I mean private details of their commercial undertakings.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am sure the House will agree that there must be matters falling within the purview of these Advisory Committees which would have to be regarded as confidential and would be so regarded by any properly-composed Committee. But I should like to ask the noble Earl, for purposes of information, whether there is any precedent for inserting in an Act of Parliament a provision that a Committee constituted in this way is to be put on its honour, as proposed by this clause. As we all know, certain functionaries of different sorts are compelled to take an oath of secrecy, and we know also that public servants are forbidden by law to divulge the contents of a confidential paper, but can it be regarded as really worth While to insert a provision of this kind in an Act of Parliament?

The noble Earl mentioned just now that those who serve on these Committees in a representative capacity—say members of county councils or other local authorities—would have to consult with the members of the bodies to which they belong. But you cannot consult confidentially with a county council. You may consult individuals, or even Committees of the Council, but there is no means of obtaining the approval of a county council, which sits in public, without certain relevant facts becoming known. It must be left to the discretion of the Committee, just as it is left to such a body as the Advisory Committee of the Department of Research, who have to deal with a number of matters of the most confidential sort, to decide how and when secrecy ought to be observed. I cannot think it is wise to insert a provision of this kind in an Act of Parliament.

LORD WITTENHAM

I also should venture to doubt whether there is any precedent in any Act of Parliament for words of this kind, and I should be very grateful to the noble Earl if he can give us one. Suppose these words are put in and confidence is not observed, what is the penalty? The penalty, no doubt, of having done something which a particular man ought not to have done; but is there any penalty under the Bill? I should like to try it by that test. If there is not, and if the only test is the test of what a man ought to do or ought not to do, he will do it without these words. If there is no penalty, I do not see the advantage of putting the words in.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not want to prolong the discussion, for this matter was fully discussed in Committee, but I should like to put this to the noble Earl. I think he must see that this proviso is going to run the great danger of any legislation that is absolutely unworkable in practice—people will get to ignore it, and it will become a dead letter. It is unworkable in practice because a great deal of what the Committee discuss cannot be confidential. They mist report to the bodies who appoint them and these are public, and not private, bodies. The thing is, therefore, quite impossible. I appreciate the point of the noble Earl that private traders may wish to have the information they give about their own particular concerns kept private, and it is "up to" the Government, if I may use that expression, to propose words to cover that point, but which will not have an enormous scope over matters which have nothing whatever to do directly with the private trader. Discussions in Committee, and as to whether the Committee fulfil the directions which those who appoint them have given them, must be of a public character. The mother-bodies will desire to know. I suggest to the noble Earl that, before the Third Reaching, he should try to produce words which will net be open to the objection so well put by my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, And the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

After what has passed, Lord Lytton will gladly consent to look at this matter before the last stage of this Bill, but with one reservation. I think all your Lordships who have spoken have dealt with the matter as though it affected roads in the first instance. Lord Crewe said, How can a man represent a county council if he may not talk to his colleagues, or his employers, if he be an official on that body? I do not think that is quite a correct reading of the clause. What I wish to put forward is this. There may not be a precedent for this. I do not know. I should rather fancy that something in the nature of a precedent would be found in the Act which controls the Income Tax Commissioner. Yes; Lord Lytton informs me that under the Income Tax Act the Income Tax Commissioners are bound to secrecy. Everybody agrees with that; it is quite proper. If there are no more recent precedents it is perhaps only because legislation of this kind has recently become necessary. But this does not apply only to roads; it applies less to roads than to anything else. I do not share the fears which the Marquess of Salisbury or Lord Balfour of Burleigh entertain, that it will prove unworkable. I do not think anybody would read this to mean that he is forbidden to discuss matters with those on whose advice he is entitled to count.

I wish to point out how grievous might be the impression created, not on the road people, but on the trading community by omitting subsection (1). Here, for good or for bad, we have put a statement in an Act of Parliament, that where matters dealing with the private affairs of persons or corporations are considered under these statutory powers the discussions are to be taken as confidential. It would be unfortunate if Parliament deliberately cut out these words, which are inserted solely as a safeguard to the trading community, thus inferring that there is no reason for these discussions to be treated as confidential.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

After the very conciliatory manner in which the noble Earl has met me, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment now, and I will put it down to-morrow for the Third Reading when we shall have a matured judgment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to insert as a new subsection— (5) Every report to the Minister of the advisory panel, or any committee thereof, or of any committee established under section three of this Act, shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.

The noble Viscount said: This question was briefly discussed in Committee and I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a moment. There seems to be this difficulty in the position of the Government. They have admitted that this Committee is now to be an independent body. Such independent committees have been rare up to now, and its position will be really almost analogous to that of the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty. As the Bill stands there is no reason why the Minister should not come to any decision he pleases and to any decision opposed to the views of the Advisory Panel. It seems to me impossible to discuss in public questions which are going to be decided, and on which a good deal of public opinion might be aroused, if, as far as Parliament knows, the Minister has decided against the whole of the expert advisers who have been specially appointed to advise him, and who may have advised in the very opposite sense. In the absence of any evidence it will be held that the Minister after the fullest guidance from them has come to the conclusion which he has announced.

I think there must be some half-way house. Parliament has a right to some knowledge as to the advice that has been given by this Committee, selected by Parliament. Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has given notice of another Amendment on the same subject and perhaps I might discuss it for a moment. He contemplates that where a Minister acts in conflict with the Committee he shall, at the request of either House of Parliament, produce such advice or report. There is a good deal to be said for that method of proceeding. The disadvantage of it is that the Committee will be much constrained not to report adversely to his opinion, if that report involves the Minister in the production of their advice before Parliament. Unless there is real friction between the Minister and the Committee they will wish to act in harmony with him. I have put down an Amendment that where—I am not presuming the many occasions on which informal advice will take place—an absolute report is made to the Minister that that report shall be deemed to be public and shall be laid before Parliament. I imagine the Minister will only call upon the Committee for an absolute report in cases of very great importance. In all other cases there will be merely discussions and communications. It is impossible for the position to remain where it is; that we should have no access to any opinion of the Committee or that we should not know what the Committee has advised.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 30, after subsection (4) insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I cannot help feeling that both of these Amendments, if I may be allowed to allude to both, go somewhat far, in the sense that they seem to alter the character of the Advisory Committee. It becomes something more than advisory if all these reports are liable to be presented to Parliament, or if the option, as Lord Montagu of Beaulieu suggests, is to be given to any member of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons to ask for some adverse report which is presented. That, I confess, is more than in the circumstances it can be expected the Government could accept. There is no doubt something to be said against the ascription to the Minister of all these powers only subject to advice, but he is not going to be provided with a body like the Board of Admiralty or the Army Council. He is provided with an Advisory Committee, and these powers now suggested in the Amendment mean something more. The noble Viscount assumed that the Committee would only be asked by the Minister to report on very important subjects, and then asks that its report might be laid. But that is not what is in the Amendment. The Amendment says "Every report to the Minister of the Advisory Panel," which will clearly leave it in the power of the Advisory Committee to make reports on any subject on which them Opinion is asked. After all, the Minister musk ask its opinion very often, because should he not do so the fact would soon become known and it would be assumed that he was not taking advantage of the advice given him by Act of Parliament. I confess, on the whole, that although I dislike subsection (4) altogether, as I have already stated, it does not seem to me to be wise or necessary to insert the Amendment of the noble Viscount.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Before the noble Earl replies, perhaps I may save time by speaking on this Amendment. I put down ray own Amendment^* in purposely wider terms, and I think in terms which are less likely to be offensive to the Minister, because I propose that it shall be "at the request of either House of Parliament.'' What I intended was not that every advice or report should be asked for, but that when you have a big question of principle you should be able to ask for such report or advice. For instance, supposing there was a question of traffic facilities out of London. The railways, the trams and the road traffic would be concerned, and we should like to see the alternative methods of doing the work, and I think Parliament should have an opportunity of receiving that information before coming to a decision. That was really my point. I do not want in. any way to hamper the Minister, but you must remember that these committees, being of a confidential character, would find it difficult to put their views before the public, whereas if Parliament can ask for their Report Parliament can be guided. Without some clause such as is proposed the Minister might report in one direction although possibly both the other committees had reported in another direction, and Parliament would not have the information upon which they based their Report.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

We are discussing the noble Viscount's Amendment, but the wording of it will not do now because of what has happened to Section 3. However, that is merely a verbal matter. What I want to ask the noble Earl is this—these individuals are to be representative on these committees?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Only OH the Roads Committee.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

But this applies to the Roads Committee. You might have a man on the Roads Committee representative of the county council, and the county council should have means of knowing What their representative has ^* The proposed new subsection standing in the name of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu was as follows: "(5) If the Minister, after receiving advice or a report from any committee established under this Act, acts in conflict with such advice or report, he shall, at the request of either House of Parliament., produce such advice or report. said. They may have told him to say a thing, but they have no security that he will have said it.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I would really ask your Lordships to consider seriously what it is that we are asked to do by this Amendment. It is suggested here that "Every Report to the Minister of the advisory panel, or any committee thereof, or of any committee established under section three of this Act,"—that is the Roads Committee now transferred to another part of the Bill—"shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made." Can your Lordships conceive of any Government Department, or any business of any kind, that could be conducted under such conditions? We have stated that there shall be set up a number of committees consisting of expert persons to advise the Minister. Now we are asked to say that the Minister is in every case to publish to the world, in a Parliamentary paper, the advice which he has received, but what Government Department could possibly act if the Minister was always compelled to issue as a Parliamentary Paper the advice which he received before he acted? It really is, I think, an impossible demand that is put forward.

Reference has been made to the Secretary of State for War and to the First Lord of the Admiralty. Obviously their position would be absolutely untenable if they were compelled as a matter of fact to publish as a Parliamentary Paper in every case the advice which they received—by the First Lord of the Admiralty from the Board of Admiralty and by the Secretary of State for War from the Army Council. This Amendment would be even more analogous to the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in if, before the preparation of the Budget, having consulted the bankers and perhaps not taken their advice, or having taken it, he was compelled to make public the advice which he had received. I really do not think that the demand which is put forward in this Amendment is one that can be entertained. It all arises from the belief, continually expressed, that this particular Minister is a person out to ruin everybody, and that these Committees must be set up to prevent him from doing mischief. I repudiate any suggestion of that kind. The Committees have been established and accepted by the Government and put into the Bill for the purpose not of controlling the Minister but of giving him expert advice, so as to ensure that whatever he does in these very important matters he shall not act without having all the information to enable him to act wisely. Having that information before him the responsibility for action must rest with the Minister himself. In those circumstances if the Amendment is pressed we shall certainly vote against it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am very sorry to hear the observations of my noble friend, and I do not think he quite realises what a very great new departure this Bill is. He seems to think that the Minister of Transport is really on the same footing as the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the First Lord of the Admiralty, and so on—people who have to do with the administration of great public services. This Minister is for the first time in English history to be allowed to invade an enormous number of private rights without the sanction of Parliament. That is broadly what this Bill proposes. When the proposal came, if I may use the phrase, in its naked deformity before the House of Commons the House of Commons was profoundly shocked, and in the Standing Committee upstairs that Committee did its utmost to secure safeguards, and these advisory committees were put in as safeguards. The noble Earl says that the advisory committees were put in for the purpose of enabling the Minister to have adequate advice. Does he really think that? Of course, the Minister could always have adequate advice. He can always send for persons whom he wants to see.

The House of Commons was not out merely to give him advice, but to make it necessary for him to consult certain persons in order that he should be to a certain extent checked from any extravagant use of his power. That was obviously what the House of Commons wanted. The only question for the House with which the Amendment deals is not on the merits of the case but whether the advisory committees which the House of Commons inserted are effective. What my noble friend submitted, and I thought most conclusively submitted, was that if no one knew what advice the committees gave the check which the House of Commons proposed was not effective against a powerful minister. The whole point of the check is as against a powerful Minister, and it was thought by the House of Commons that if you start an entirely new departure, and put at the head of it a very powerful personality, you do want a check. My noble friend wishes to make that check effective, and unless some publicity is given to the committees' decision it is clear that the Minister may ignore that decision and no one will be a bit the wiser. I say to treat the Minister of Transport in this new departure, this sudden invasion—it may be in a good cause—of private rights in all directions, as on the same footing as other departmental Ministers, is really exaggerating so much as to be not quite worthy of the ability of the noble Earl, and I am sorry he is not able to accept the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If I might add one word upon the question, I would say that it has very deeply engaged the attention of the Government, and I assure the noble Marquess that the points he has just made have by no means been overlooked, and that the conclusion which has been reached, as I hope shortly to show, was reached upon quite adequate grounds. The noble Marquess has pointed out that this is a new Department, and he has attempted—I confess I thought entirely without success—to distinguish between the position of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the position of the new Minister by pointing out that those are two established Ministers while this he says is a new Minister who is to wield new powers.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. That was not the point. I said not only a new Minister; I said a new Minister who invaded private rights.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

But the noble Marquess is surely aware that there are many important respects in which the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War have long invaded private rights. I understood the argument to be that the reason for insisting upon some difference as between the two was because this was a new Minister exercising, if you please, new powers of invading private rights. I said at an early stage of this Bill, and the noble Earl Juts many times said that, if the right method to approach the discharge of his duties by the new Minister is that we are not to treat him with the same degree of confidence that immemorial usage has decreed should be given to important Ministers under the theory and the practice of our constitution, then I cannot see any reason why your Lordships should sanction one single constructive part of this Bill. Of course he must be trusted. He must be treated as if he were a Minister who, weilding great responsibilities, would be judged in his discharge of them precisely by the same standards that every important Minister is judged by, and when the noble Marquess told us of the view that was taken in the House of Commons, and what was in the minds of the Commons in Committee, and how it was their object to establish control, it become more relevant to remember (if that was the intention) that those who attempted to carry it out very signally failed. And it must not be supposed that they failed through stupidity. They knew perfectly well, if that was their object, that, the Amendments accepted at the intermediate stages of this Bill had teemed those objects, and they were also well aware that substituted Amendments were successfully carried which reduced the Bill to the form in which it was presented to this House, yet on this occasion it is not unimportant to point out that those members who had moved those Amendments in Committee were present when the Third Reading Division was taken, and, as has been repeatedly pointed out, not one of them rose—although according to the noble Marquess their purpose was so clear—to challenge a Division on that stage. It would be wrong if I concealed from your Lordships that the view taken by the Government is that the function of this committee is to advise the Minister, and that it is not the function of this committee to control the Minister. I agree that the issue is perfectly plain. I agree further that the question is whether this Committee is or is not to be effective. I say that it is effective for the purposes inserted in the Bill and is non-effective for other purposes.

I feel that there is some slight risk of reaching a confusion between the position of the Minister in relation to Parliament, and the position of the Minister in relation to the Cabinet. Where there are domestic differences of opinion in a Government Department—either at the War Office or the Admiralty or the Treasury—the process is—and those who have been Ministers know that these differences are perpetually recurrent—that either somebody resigns or threatens to resign, or the Minister goes to the Cabinet and says: "Here is a domestic question which requires attention, and these are the issues." According to the familiar constitutional practice these things are settled in that way. They are made the subject of Cabinet decision one way or the other. To say of one Minister, and of one Minister alone, however novel his functions may be, that every report to the Minister of the advisory panel or any committee thereof, or of any committee established under Section 3 of this Act, shall be laid before Parliament, is to challenge one of the oldest of our constitutional practices. There is not one single precedent for a Bill which goes even one-fifth of the way that this proposal goes.

I wonder if noble Lords have considered how many committees there are likely to be—how many committees of panels and how many committees—established under Section 3, and if this Amendment were carried every one of their reports would be presented to Parliament. It appears to be forgotten that these matters deal with, and must deal with, confidential subjects. Many must deal with matters which, if they became public property before a decision was reached, would be greatly prejudiced. Your Lordships must also realise that it may be that the Minister must take an unpopular decision. It may be that the national interest requires that he should take an unpopular decision, but perhaps his panel or his committee of panel will take what is the popular view. Is it desirable in those circumstances that the decision of the Minister should be submitted not merely to the Cabinet but also to the House of Commons and the House of Lords to be made the subject of debate before the moment is reached at which a decision could be taken? I should be very sorry if your Lordships came to that conclusion. The view is taken very plainly and strongly by the Government that this should not be done. We are of course in your Lordships hands, but I confess that I have not heard, if I may say so with the deepest respect to those who have used arguments against the Government, really adequate reasons for coming to this decision.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I do not propose to move my Amendment dealing with the same subject, because I think there is a good deal in what the Government have said. The noble Earl has said, and said rightly, that these committees are advisory; but if he will look at Clause 21 he will see that they are not only advisory in the case of roads, but that they offer a safeguard in the exercise of their powers. I now move, after Clause 22, to insert the following new clause— . With a view to carrying out the powers conferred by this Act and advising and assisting the Minister or any local authority in relation to the construction, improvement, and maintenance of roads, bridges and ferries, the establishment of railways, light railways, and tramways, and the promotion and improvement of transport services, by land and water, His Majesty in Council may by Order authorise the Minister—

1. "(a) to constitute local traffic boards;
2. "(b) to define the membership of such boards and the areas over which they may respectively exercise jurisdiction;
3. "(c) to confer upon such Boards with or without restriction such powers or duties conferred upon the Minister under the provisions of this Act, as may be necessary or desirable for the above purposes."

I move this Amendment in order to give the Minister powers to create local traffic boards. This has been done in consequence of what has happened in the Traffic Report regarding London. It is a purely constructive idea, and will assist the Minister to carry out his duties in regard to local government more easily. This committee has the approval of representative local authorities, and I suggest that it may receive the consideration of the Government.

Amendment moved— After Clause 22, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu).

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think I explained to the noble Lord on Committee stage my objections to the Amendment which he proposed. He has withdrawn some of the features to which I took exception in Committee, and he says quite rightly that all that is here asked for is merely words which will empower the Minister, if he thinks fit, to do certain things, and that no obligation is put upon him to do anything. That of course is perfectly true, but I think your Lordships will realise that if you insert into an Act of Parliament powers to do something which you have no intention of doing great pressure is certain to be brought to bear to put those powers into practice. I am unable to day whether some of the powers to which this clause refers might in fact be exercised. But, generally speaking, it is not the intention of the Minister to constitute local traffic boards and to delegate to them the powers which have been given to him by Parliament.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Does that refer to the London Traffic Board?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes, I think it is not the intention of the Minister to work in that way. But this is really a power, the noble Lord has pointed out, to confer further authority upon this Minister. Here you are saying that, not only is a Minister to exercise the powers given under this Bill, but that he is, by virtue of this Amendment, to set up new traffic boards in various parts of the country, the composition of which presumably will not be in any way discussed in Parliament, and then to delegate to them all the powers, or such powers as he thinks fit, that he may possess by virtue of this Bill. It is really authorising the Minister to do something to which, I think, there might be very considerable objections, though it is not for me to raise them. For these reasons I would ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new clause—

"Provision as to Orders and Orders in Council made under the acquisition of land and the construction of works.

".—(1) The Minister may make rules in relation to matters preliminary to the making of Orders and Orders in Council under this Act which authorise the acquisition of land or casements, or the breaking up of roads and the construction of works, including the publication of notices and advertisements, and the deposit of plans and sections and books of reference to those plans, and the manner in which and the time within which representations or objections are to be made, and to the holding of local inquiries.

"Any rules so made shall be laid before Parliament as soon as they are made and shall have the same effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rules are so laid praying that any such rule may be annulled, His Majesty may annul the rule, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.

"(2) The rules of procedure set out in the Second Schedule to this Act shall apply to the making of any Order under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act and of any draft of an Order in Council to be submitted to Parliament under section nine of this Act.

"(3) The Minister, on publication of notice of a proposal to make an order under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act shall, except as hereinafter provided, send to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons a copy of the draft Order, and if within fourteen days of the receipt of the copy if Parliament is then sitting or within one month thereof if Parliament is not then sitting, either such Chairman reports to the Minister that he is of opinion that the proposals of the draft Order are of such a character or magnitude that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by such Order as aforesaid the Minister shall not make the Order, but in that case notices published and served, and deposits male for the purpose of the proposed order shall, subject to Standing Order, be held to have been published, served and made for a Private Bill applying for similar powers.

"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any Order with respect to which the Minister certifies that the acquisition of the land or casements authorised to be acquired there-under and the works authorised to be constructed there-under does not involve an estimated expenditure exceeding one million pounds, nor to any Order of any class which may be exempted from the provisions of this subsection by rules made by the said chairmen."

The noble Earl said: We now come to a matter of very considerable importance, although rather technical in character, in which I hope we may be able to reach complete agreement. As your Lordships are aware, there are three places where by virtue of the powers conferred upon the Minister land may be compulsorily acquired. It may be compulsorily acquired by the Minister himself under Clause 9; it may be compulsorily acquired under Clause 3 by an existing undertaking, acting under the direction of the Minister; it may be compulsorily acquired by a dock company under Clause 4 acting on the order of the Minister.

The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, pointed out in the Committee stage that at present there was no machinery in the Bill for defining the conditions under which these powers of acquiring land compulsorily should be exercised. He accordingly put some Amendments on the Paper to deal with the matter. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I informed the noble Lord that I accepted the spirit of his Amendments and hoped that I should be able to agree with him in the wording of them. I have now put on the Paper Amendments to carry out the undertaking which I then gave, and I will endeavour to show what are the few points in which my Amendments differ from those of my noble friend Lord Emmott.

First of all the Amendment after Clause 7 to insert a new clause. This new clause, I think I am right in saying, meets all the points that were raised in Lord Emmott's Amendment. The machinery which I provide is exactly the same as that which he provides, though in somewhat different words. The only difference, I think, is that in Lord Emmott's Amendment the Privy Council was inserted. The Minister and the Privy Council, said Lord Emmott's Amendment, may respectively make rules. I am informed that the Privy Council is not the body for dealing with this matter, and to insert, them therefore would be novel. With that exception I accept Lord Emmott's Amendment and have endeavoured to carry out his object.

Then in connection with this new clause a schedule has been inserted at the end of the Bill. I think it would be convenient if I covered the whole ground at this stage. If I may refer to this schedule for one moment, the only difference between my schedule and that of Lord Emmott is this. The schedule provides for the holding of inquiries by persons affected by any Order made under Clause 3 (1) (d) under this Act or any Order in Council made under Clause 9. Any person who considers that he will be prejudicially affected by these Orders may state his objection and appear before the Inquiry. The only difference between Lord Emmott and myself is this, that, whereas in the schedule he provides that any person who in the opinion of the Minister may be affected, either under Clause 3 or under Clause 9, shall have the right of making an objection, under my schedule the person who shall be entitled to make an objection is defined as a person whose property will be prejudically affected by the carrying out of the Order. My Amendment provides, that "The Minister shall consider any objection made by or On behalf of any person whose property will be injuriously affected by reason of the acquisition of the land or the construction of the proposed works." In other words, the ground of objection is limited to an allegation that the property will be injured by the land which it is proposed to acquire or the works which it is proposed to erect.

I think that my noble friend wishes to give in this Schedule a right beyond objection on principle, or objection "on preamble,'' if I may use the word, to any Order which the Minister may make under Clause 3 (1) (d), and I believe that he intends to move words which will give effect to that. I am quite willing to accept those words. I think that with regard to the acquisition of land under Clause 3 (1) (d) it is quite reasonable that an objection should be made "on preamble" by anybody who may object to it. And therefore, although I desire to retain my limit, to those who may have a title to object under Clause 9 I am willing to extend the matter to objectors under Clause 3.

Up to this point I believe that I am able to meet Lord Emmott in every respect. There is only one matter left. The noble Lord pointed out that under the powers of Clause 3 the Minister might authorise existing companies to carry out such very large extension of their works as would really amount to new services which ought to be controlled by the machinery of a private Bill. He proposed therefore to insert in the Bill some machinery giving to the Lord Chairman a power of discretion in such matters. Here again I accept the noble Lord's proposal in spirit. I differ from him slightly in machinery, and I differ from him also in desiring to insert, a limit beyond which, and beyond which only, this procedure shall operate. The noble Lord proposed that if anybody brought before the Lord Chairman an objection that the size of the proposal or the nature of the proposal was such as to justify Private Bill legislation, the Lord Chairman should then take the matter into his consideration. I now propose that, in cases to which this procedure shall apply, the matter shall at once be referred to the Lord Chairman by the Minister himself, and the Lord Chairman shall give his decision within fourteen days if Parliament is sitting or within thirty days if Parliament is not sitting. That is done in order to ensure that there shall be no unnecessary delay in the matter.

I think the only point on which I am not able to meet my noble friend is in the limit which I propose to insert. I have agreed with him that this procedure is reasonable if it should apply to matters which can be argued to be of such a size as really to be in the nature of businesses which ought to be under Private Bill legislation. Therefore I have imposed a limit of £1,000,000, and I have said that in every case in which the estimated expenditure under the order shall be or exceed £1,000,000 in that case only shall the matter be referred to the Lord Chairman or the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House of Commons. If in the opinion of either of those Chairmen the proposals of the draft Order are of such a character or magnitude that they ought to be dealt with by a Private Bill, then the Minister shall not make the Order but shall proceed by Private Bill. The Government consider it is perfectly reasonable if the undertakings are of such magnitude that this procedure should apply. We are not prepared to make it apply to smaller schemes where I think it will be unreasonable to suggest that this procedure should operate. Therefore I offer my noble friend this Amendment on the understanding that the limit of £1,000,000 shall remain. I am unable to recede from that, and I should not be willing to move the Amendment at all unless that limit remains in it. I hope my noble friend will feel that I have really gone very far to meet him and, I think that upon every point except this one we are now in complete agreement.

Amendment moved— After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD EMMOTT

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the spirit of conciliation in which he has met me with regard to this matter which is, as he has explained, a matter of considerable moment although in itself highly technical. The only part of his remarks that disturbed me was the statement at the end when he said that he would not propose the Amendment at all except on the understanding that the £1,000,000 was to stand. I am sure my noble friend will agree with me that I am no party to such an understanding, and that I am therefore free to move an Amendment upon that point. I am sorry that we should differ upon that, but I will try and show your Lordships that it is not a matter which really can justifiably be held to be of such enormous importance as the noble Earl suggested.

I do not want to detain the House at this time, and I will therefore say generally that I am in agreement with the extremely clear and lucid explanation the noble Earl has made on his new clause. I have already thanked him for the spirit of conciliation in which has has met me. If I may say so with respect, the noble Earl has conducted this Bill with very great skill and ability, and in fine tone and temper—

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

LORD EMMOTT

And if the Bill had not been conducted by a Minister showing such a grasp of the subject as he has shown, and managing it so adroitly as he has managed it, I think it would have had a much more stormy passage through your Lordships' House. With regard to the Amendment I shall move on the Schedule, I understand that the noble Earl accepts it. I will read the words and explain them when we come to the Schedule, as I see no need for detaining your Lordships on it at the moment. I turn now to the matter on which I am sorry to say there is still some slight difference between us.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Shall we take first of all those on which we are agreed?

LORD EMMOTT

It is rather a matter of order. Procedure in this House is different from the more meticulous procedure with which I was familiar in another place. I do not know where and when I move my Amendment. On Report, of course, only one speech can be made. I have two Amendments to move, but one applies to the Schedule and I do not see that I can move that until we come to the Schedule. I will read it and explain it now if your Lordships wish, but I do not think I can actually move it yet. I have, however, an Amendment to move on this clause but I am not quite clear whether I ought to move it now as part of my speech, though I presume it would be convenient to do so.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

LORD EMMOTT

Then I will deal with subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by the noble Earl. He pointed out to me in the course of our conversation that under Clause 9 there are safeguards which do not apply to Clause 3 (1) (d); that the matter can be dealt with by each House of Parliament, and that for any new scheme involving an expenditure of £500,000 each house has it in its power to send the scheme to the Lord Chairman in this House and to the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other House and get a Report from them before the matter is dealt with at all; and that when they deal with the matter they can lay down such conditions as they choose, That differentiates very materially new schemes under Clause 9 from schemes under Clause 3 (1) (d). With regard to the form of this Amendment it is better in one respect because it gives the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means a definite line; therefore all we are concerned with is this unfortunate difference about the amount. I am in entire agreement, so far as words go, with the noble Earl in desiring that small schemes should not go to the Lord Chairman for consideration. The question is, What is a small scheme? Clause 9 puts in the figure of £500,000, and that has been agreed to. I cannot see any thing to differentiate new schemes under Clause 3 (1) (d) from new schemes under Clause 9. I do not see any difference between the two sets of schemes which will make £1,000,000 a reasonable figure in one case and £500,000 a reasonable figure in the other case. The argument put to me was that it was unnecessary to send a scheme under Clause 9 to the Chairman of the two Houses because Parliament has

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Does the noble Earl (Lord Lytton) move now to insert the new clause?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You have to put the new words in.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

No, my Lords; in that case I shall not move the clause which stands in my name.

complete control if the schemes are £500,000 or over.

There is one other clause in which £1,000,000 is mentioned—namely, Clause 17; but then that Clause deals with the making of advances, which I think is a very different matter. In those circumstances, if my noble friend agrees with me that I have not made any agreement not to move an Amendment—I think he understood I was going to do so—I must ask your Lordships to let me move an Amendment to this clause in the last line but two on page 12 of the Marshalled List of Amendments. My Amendment is to leave out "one" and to insert "half a".

Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment— To delete from the proviso at the end of the proposed new clause the word ("one") ["one million pounds"] and to substitute ("a-half").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, whether the word "one" shall stand part of the said proviso?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Hylton, L. [Teller.]
Bradford, E.	Churchill, V.	Lee of Fareham, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Finlay, V.	Ranksborough, L.
Jersey, E.	Peel, V.	Shandon, L.
Lytton, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Malmesbury, E.	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Onslow, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Chaplin, V.	Erskine, L.
	Hood, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Salisbury, M.		Farrer, L.
	Balfour, L.	Forester, L.
	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Islington, L.
Brassey, E.	Chalmers, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Cottesloe, L.	O'Hagan, L.
	Denman, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Grey, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Rotherham, L.
Selborne, E.		Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]
Stanhope, E.	Emmott, L. [Teller.]

LORD EMMOTT

It remains for us then to vote in favour of it. The noble Earl has moved it. I should object to its withdrawal, though I do not know what the form is.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl has asked leave to withdraw. Does the noble Lord move it himself?

LORD EMMOTT

Yes; I move the new clause in the altered form.

On Question, new clause (as amended) agreed to.

Clause 28:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The Amendment to this clause is merely drafting. By a previous Amendment, this has been inserted earlier in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 27, lines 20 to 30, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I have already given an explanation of the meaning of this proposed new schedule. I now beg to move.

Amendment moved. Insert the Second Schedule:

"SECOND SCHEDULE.

"1.—(1) Before any Order under section 3 (1)(d) of this Act is made or any draft Order in Council under section 9 of this Act is submitted to Parliament notice shall be published in such manner as the Minister may think best adapted for informing persons affected of the proposal to make the Order or Order in Council and of the place or places where copies of the draft Order or Order in Council may be obtained and of the place or places where plans of any lands (including eascments) proposed to be compulsorily acquired and plans and sections of any works proposed to be constructed and books of reference to those plans may be inspected and of the time (which shall be not less than twenty-one days) within which any objection made with respect to the draft by or on behalf of persons affected must be sent to the Minister.

"(2) Every objection must be in writing, and state—

1. "(a) The specific grounds of objection; and
2. "(b) The omissions, additions, or modifications asked for.

"(3) The Minister shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any person whose property will be injuriously affected by reason of the acquisition of the land or the construction of the proposed works, if the objection is sent to the Minister within the required time and may if thought fit amend the draft, and shall then cause the amended draft to be dealt with in like manner as an original draft.

"(4) Where the Minister does not amend or withdraw a draft to which any objection has been made then (unless the object either is withdrawn or appears to him to be frivolous) he shall before making the Order or submitting the draft Order in Council to Parliament direct an inquiry to be Held in the manner hereinafter provided, and may after considering the report of the person who held the inquiry, make the Order or submit the draft Order in Council to Parliament either without modification or subject to such modification as he may think fit, or may refuse to make the Order or submit the draft Order in Council to Parliament.

"2.—(1) The Minister may appoint a competent and impartial person to hold an inquiry with regard to any draft and to report to him thereon.

"(2) The inquiry shall be held in public, and any person who being entitled to do so has duly made an objection, may appear at the inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent.

"(3) The witnesses en the inquiry may if the person holding it thinks fit be examined on oath.

"(4) Subject as aforesaid, the inquiry and all proceedings preliminary and incidental thereto shall be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Minister.

"(5) The fee to be paid to the person holding the inquiry shall be such as the Minister may direct."—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD EMMOTT

In reference to this schedule I desire to move an Amendment in the last line but one on page 13 of the Marshalled List of Amendments, after the word "person," to insert these words, "being in the case of a draft order a person affected and in a case of a draft order in council a person." The effect of this Amendment is to give, as the noble Earl has explained, a chance of objecting on preamble in reference to schemes under 3 (1) (d) but to confine the possibilities of objection in the case of objectors under Clause 9 to those whose property is injuriously affected. I think I am stating roughly the correct effect. You will not desire, my Lords, to be kept any longer at this hour of the evening, and I therefore move this Amendment without further explanation.

Amendment movod— Insert the said words.—(Lord Emmott.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Then it is proposed, after the First Schedule, to insert as the Second Schedule the words on the paper, as amended.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.