§ Constitution and procedure of the Coal Commission.
§ 1. The Commission shall consist of a chairman and four other members appointed by 664 the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade shall nominate one of the members of the Commission other than the chairman to act as deputy chairman.
§ 5. A member of the Commission shall, within three months after his appointment, sell or dispose of any interest or securities which he may hold in his own name or in the name of a nominee for his benefit in any undertaking carrying on the business of coalmining or supplying or selling coal or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining.
§ 6. It shall not be lawful for a member of the Commission white he holds office to acquire, directly or indirectly, for his own benefit any interest or securities in any such undertaking as aforesaid, and if a member of the Commission becomes entitled for his own benefit under any will or succession or otherwise to any interest or securities in any such undertaking he shall sell or dispose of it or them within three months after he has so become entitled thereto.
§
9. There shall be paid out of the revenues of the Commission—
(a) to the members of the Commission, or to any of them, such salaries and allowances for expenses as the Board of Trade with the approval of the Treasury may determine; and
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to add to paragraph 1: "At least two members of the Commission shall be persons who have had executive responsibility in the coal-mining industry." The noble Marquess said: I venture to think that this Amendment is really much more important than it might seem to be at first sight. The Schedule provides for the appointment of a Chairman and four other members who are to constitute the Coal Commission, and under this Bill the Commission have broadly two very important sets of functions. On the one hand, they have to administer the coal industry and revise from time to time the rents, and at the end of leases to make new leases for every coal-mining undertaking in the country. On the other hand, they are entrusted with the duty of considering whether there are an excessive number of undertakings in any area, and of making proposals 1o Parliament for the amalgamation of those concerns, and asking Parliament to give them compulsory powers to bring about such amalgamations. Those are two very important functions, and the latter may mean, as indeed the first may, that in due time the Commission may become the most vital factor for good or evil in the mining industry of the country.
665§ It seems to me it would be quite fatal ii the members of that Commission are of what I may call the ordinary Civil Service type, and that is not because I have not the very highest opinion of the Civil Service of this country. It is one of the greatest advantages which the country has that it has got a magnificent Civil Service. But the men in it are qualified by the conditions of the Service, which is intended to produce certain definite sets of qualities. They have security of tenure and they have great experience, but everybody knows that the Civil Service as such tends to lack the very qualities which are developed by private enterprise. We have a conspicuous example of that in the history of the Post Office. As long as the Post Office was administered as an ordinary Civil Service it was not successful, and the fundamental reason was that its members had security of tenure. Once a person got his foot at the bottom of the ladder and was ordinarily competent you could not get rid of him, whereas, as everybody knows, in a successful business getting rid of people who are not really up to their job, and putting other people in who are up to the job, is of the very essence of success.
§ It is absolutely vital that the experience of the members of this Commission should be that of people who really understand, and have spent some part of their life in, the practical business of coal mining. If you get that kind of person—of course with complete independence—then there is some chance of the Commission being a success, because the members will understand the problems, they will have sympathy with the managers, the workers and the owners, and they may work successfully. But if you get a body consisting of people who have not got that experience, and who may be looked upon as interfering without really understanding, you may get a serious condition in the coal industry. At any rate you will certainly not get the results which the Government look for from this Commission.
§ I therefore regard the question of the composition of the Commission as an absolutely vital matter, and in order to secure what seem to me to be the essential qualities which must be represented on it I am moving this Amendment, providing that at least two members of the Commission shall be persons who have had execu- 666 tive responsibility in the coal-mining industry; that is to say, people who, when the proposals for amalgamation or leases come forward, will deal with managers or owners of coal mines as men having the same kind of experience of the industry as they have, and in making proposals for amalgamations will understand what amalgamations mean. Perhaps the Government already intend to do these things, but I am not sure that intentions are always the same thing as execution in dealing with public matters, and I have moved this Amendment in order to make certain that the Coal Commission do have that kind of experience.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ LORD HASTINGSI wish to support my noble friend in this matter. The Civil Service have the admirable qualities to which my noble friend has referred, but they do live a circumscribed and, if I may say so without offence, a hide-bound life which places them out of touch with the daily life of the people. To exclude a member of the Civil Service from this particular Commission would react to the advantage of the industry and to the proper conduct of the purposes for which this Bill is produced before Parliament. It is really essential to have persons who are in contact with the daily life of the people and who are familiar with the problems of industry, and not a member of the Civil Service who, through no fault of his own, has in early life entered a Service which takes him out of daily touch with the people which alone enables him to understand the problems which this Bill must present. It is for that reason that I beg to support my noble friend.
§ EARL STANHOPEFrankly I have no idea who the gentlemen are whom my honourable and gallant friend has got in his mind, if he has anybody in his mind, as regards the members of the Coal Commission; but if my noble friend will consider what generally happens in this country he may change his mind on the subject. I do not pretend that this Government is a Government of experts in every particular. I cannot pretend, and I do not suppose most of my colleagues can pretend, that we are experts in the actual subjects which we have to administer in 667 our respective Departments. There is one great exception in the shape of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is an expert in his particular subject, but the remainder of us are chosen for other reasons. Similarly, very often in regard to public companies or even private companies—for instance, take my noble friend Lord Home. I do not suppose he would set up as being a great expert on railway matters; but nobody would say he is not obviously a thoroughly suitable person to be head of a great railway company.
Why should a different system prevail in regard to the Coal Commission, particularly if you look at the second paragraph, which lays down that no one shall be a member for less than five years or for more than ten years? What follows from that? It means that if you take an expert from the coal industry, unless you take him at an age when he is going into retirement, which is in most cases undesirable, he is going to go back into the coal industry. Is it a wise thing that a man who works in one particular area, and with a certain section of the people in the coal industry, should be put as one of the five people in charge of the whole management of this great industry? Is it not better to get someone with general knowledge and fine capacity in other ways who relies on the expert evidence and expert guidance of his advisers, not civil servants in this case, but the equivalent of civil servants, except that they can be discharged if they are found not to be suitable; one who will rely on that evidence and guidance and bring an independent judgment to bear upon the problems presented to him? I suggest to my noble friend that he may find that under his proposal he is getting someone who perhaps does not come with an independent mind to the matter, but comes with an expert mind, rather inclined not to trust his advisers; one who thinks his opinion is right and who is rather allied to the people in one region rather than to the country as a whole. As directors of companies are not experts, but rely on experts to advise them, similarly the members of the Coal Commission should do the same thing in this case.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI am sorry I do not understand the argument the noble Earl has used at all. The com- 668 parisons which he has made are, I think, completely irrelevant. I am not suggesting what the noble Earl says. I did not suggest that the head of a great Department of State should be an expert or that it was desirable that there should be an expert at the head of the Coal Commission. In the first place, except in the case of one or two, the Departments of State do not administer great services, and in the case of the great Services the Army Council consists of expert soldiers and the Board of Admiralty consists of Admirals. The Directors of the London Transport Board consist largely of people who have built up the London Transport. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Chairman or all the members of the Coal Commission should be experts. What I am suggesting is that it is essential that on this Commission you should have an effective representation of people who have real experience of the industry itself. If there is a difficulty in finding such persons because they have to retire after ten years, I would eliminate the ten years and let them serve for fifteen or twenty years. If you have a first-class man, why should we limit his period of service? All I am contending for is to secure that this Commission should have on its membership men who really do understand the inner workings and the life of the great industry over which they are to have an enormous influence.
§ EARL STANHOPEThey are really equivalent to a small board of five directors. Of course they have the whole of their expert advisers below them to advise.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI think that the analogy of the Ministers of the Crown was not only irrelevant but really almost improper. We can very easily get rid of a Minister of the Crown, but I was very much surprised at the remark made by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, that these members must retire within five or ten years. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor if that is the correct reading of the first few lines of page 51.
§ EARL STANHOPEI think they can be reappointed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDThat is very important. Lord Stanhope indicated that these men were going to be retired after five or ten years. There is nothing in the first few lines of paragraph 2 to 669 say that unless the term is a term which can be repeated they shall retire. It is important, and I think makes all the more necessary what Lord Lothian has suggested should be done—namely, that there should be one or more experts appointed qua experts. I cannot help thinking that read in connection wtih paragraphs 5 and 6 the reluctance of the Government to allow an expert to be put on to this Board is notable. Paragraphs 5 and 6, which later on I propose with the leave of your Lordships to try to omit, set out a number of limitations upon the qualifications of these gentleman. They have to sell out their possessions in certain types of industry in order to avoid all risks of corruption. I will move to omit the words. I think they are quite derogatory to the dignity and probity of the men to be appointed on this Commission. Meanwhile, I really do not see that Lord Stanhope has answered the case. It seems to me that a very simple, very straightforward and very convincing case was put forward by Lord Lothian.
THE EARL OF RADNORThe noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has in my opinion quite rightly likened this Coal Commission to a board of directors. So far as my limited experience goes—and I know many others in your Lordships' House have greater experience—two expert directors on a board of directors are most valuable, and probably the most valuable are those who are ex-officials who have been concerned in the business. It is most desirable in a case like this, which quite obviously is a most complicated business, that there should be expert directors on the Coal Commission.
§ LORD WOLVERTONI should also like to support the Amendment. From my very limited experience I think it is absolutely vital to have two people with expert knowledge on a Board of this sort. I think on the Electricity Board there are two or more expert members as well as those with knowledge of finance.
LORD PHILLIMOREI cannot help feeling grateful to the noble Marquess for endorsing the thesis which I put forward on Second Reading. The truth of this matter is that you are removing from the coal industry by this Bill one of the most valuable component parts that go to make up that industry. That is the essential mistake of the Bill. By eliminating the private landowner, who has skilled 670 technical advisers, you have left a weakness which has got to be filled in, and the noble Marquess has provided one of the means by which that weakness can possibly be mitigated, although I should not agree that the mere appointment of two technical members of this Commission would be one quarter as effective as the present participation of the private landowners in this industry. I very much hope that he will develop his thesis and if necessary go to a Division.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMay I say one word, because I think there is a little misapprehension about the position. The difficulty is not that the Government do not want to have two persons with technical knowledge, or more persons with technical knowledge, on the Commission. The difficulty is simply that if the Amendment is passed as it stands there is a possibility that at once, or from time to time, it may not be possible to get two completely suitable people who have had executive responsibility in the coal-mining industry. There is some difficulty in my mind as to what is meant by executive responsibility. The noble Lord who has just spoken has pointed out that very often coalowners are admirable people to assist in such work as that which will fall upon the Coal Commission. Those are not people who have had executive responsibility.
It is quite easy to agree that the Commission shall as far as possible include among its members not less than two persons—now I am venturing to suggest an alteration—with executive responsibility or other intimate acquaintance with the working of the coal-mining industry. If you put that in it can always be done, but if you leave it as it is it may force upon the people who have to appoint the Commission—and I rather think I am at the moment one of the people who have got to consider the matter—the appointment of two people who are not wholly as good as other people you could get, who have not the quality of being persons who have had executive responsibility. Something of the sort might be done, and I think it would carry out all the real objects of the noble Marquess, because I think the words "executive responsibility" are going to hamper very much the person who has to make this appointment.
§ LORD HASTINGSMight I ask the Lord Chancellor a question which is really very interesting? Would the alteration which he suggests exclude the possibility of appointing two civil servants from the Ministry of Mines?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI have suggested words which I certainly think would exclude them. Whether they are effective or not I will not pledge myself at the moment, but they are intended to exclude them. I want two experts. If that is all that is wanted, I would not exclude for a moment some of the people who are coalowners and who, as I know, are experts, although they are not technical people with executive responsibility. They are people who really have an intimate knowledge of the coal industry. Two people of that kind can always be found for the members of the Commission.
§ LORD GAINFORDI am aware that there is an enormous number of men who have had executive duties in connection with coal-mining but after a certain number of years underground have retired and are ready to be consulted, as they often are, by colliery firms in connection with underground and mining operations. I do not think, from my knowledge of the coal industry, that there would be any difficulty whatever in finding men, other than civil servants, who have had executive responsibility directly in the management of underground operations, know all about mining and are certificated mining engineers, who are no longer employed definitely except for purposes of being brought into consultation in connection with difficulties which occur in the collieries of this country. But so long as the words which the Government have suggested in place of those of my noble friend the Marquess of Lothian really mean that they are not to be reckoned as men of experience merely because they have been in the Civil Service, but that men who have had actual experience in connection with mining are to be appointed, I am satisfied.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI am very glad to accept the proposal of the noble and learned Lord. If he will introduce words of that kind to be considered at the Report stage, they seem to me all right. I think the purpose on which we are agreed is quite clear: that 672 you do not want this Coal Commission to be an alien and foreign body; it must be something that is integrated with the real life of the industry, otherwise you will get into trouble. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw.
§ THE EARL OF DUDLEYDoes the wording of paragraphs 1 to 7 make it quite clear that members of the female sex are excluded from this Commission? There seem to be very few Government Commissions so far into which they have not found their way.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am not certain whether the noble Earl desires to include or exclude them.
§ THE EARL OF DUDLEYI want to make quite sure that the wording of this Schedule definitely excludes them. The word "he" is used, and I hope that that is sufficient to exclude women.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI should like to say that, if a member of the female sex is qualified, I do not see why she should not be appointed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMANI have here a manuscript Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford: Page 50, line 26, leave out paragraphs 5 and 6.
§
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved to leave out paragraphs 5 and 6. The noble Earl said: These paragraphs say that the members of the Commission, soon after appointment, have to sell any interests they possess
in any undertaking carrying on the business of coal-mining or supplying or selling coal or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining.
Those are very wide words. They prevent a man having investments in practically any iron and steel business, any business that makes machinery or electrical equipment, or rails, or wagons, or wires, or which sells pit props or ropes or bricks, and above all the by-products of coal, which of course include gas and electricity. Is it really necessary or desirable, in appointing these five gentlemen, to assume as definitely as this that they are going to be subject to jobbery and corruption, that they will be influenced in the granting or withholding of leases by their share-holdings in one or other of one hundred or possibly two hundred sidelines of industry in plant and equipment? That is what these two paragraphs do.
§ Certainly it is very inelegant, but is it necessary to suppose that these gentlemen are going to be subject to corruption or jobbery of this kind, or are going to give leases or withhold leases in order to further the business of a company which makes bricks and suchlike? I think it is very unfortunate if this sort of restriction has got to be imposed. I may just add this, that if you are dealing with men who are so liable to dishonesty as paragraphs 5 and 6 assume, they are not going to be deterred by having to sell their shares in a brickworks or gas company. Their methods of corruption would be far more subtle, and therefore far more dangerous. If they are dishonest they are not going to be deterred by not being able to hold their shares in a railway company. I therefore move that these paragraphs be left out, in order to find out if they are necessary, because I think they are throwing a needless slur and doubt upon men who will doubtless be the soul of honour.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 26, leave out paragraphs 5 and 6.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI look upon this as a protection, because, human nature being what it is, if they give certain votes people will charge them with being influenced.
THE EARL OF RADNORThere is another aspect of the question. To come back to the simile of the Leader of the House, this is a board of directors, and if you become a director you have to take qualifying shares in nearly every case.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKI would like to support the noble Earl's Amendment. Presumably the Coal Commission are going to be a body of gentlemen upon whom we can rely to give us the best service. If we are going to ask the gentlemen who are going to sit on this Commission to get rid of all their holdings, or a great part of their holdings, we are going to get an entirely different class of man to sit on the Coal Commission. In the past we have always found, in this country at least, that the gentlemen who serve on Commissions of this sort have been, as the noble Earl has said, the soul of honour. We found that both during the War and in peace time. I suggest 674 that these paragraphs will have a deterrent effect and prevent the employment on the Coal Commission of gentlemen who could render the best service.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERThese two paragraphs were put into the Schedule for one purpose only—namely, to secure the independence of the members of the Commission, and in the short time which has been available since this manuscript Amendment was handed in I have ascertained that they are the usual and general provisions which are inserted in connection with members of such bodies as this Commission. I am told that in the London Passenger Transport Act and the London Electricity Act these identical paragraphs are inserted.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKThe London Passenger Transport Board has in its membership gentlemen who do serve in other companies.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERThat does not alter the argument at all, and I am told that there are many more Acts of Parliament where exactly the same provisions are inserted.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDIf that is the case I will accept it, but I am bound to say I should be a little surprised if I heard that Lord Ashfield is not permitted to hold shares in a brick-making company.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYI think this is a more important question than the noble Earl suggests. If the members of this Commission have to be individuals who really have no connection with any important commercial undertaking, you may have to go very far in order to find some individuals who are entirely unconnected with those undertakings which supply the coal trade. I believe we shall have to fall back on derelict Cabinet Ministers. It seems to me they will be the only individuals in the country who have no connection with any useful undertaking.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI think the intention of this paragraph is perfectly all right, but I think a little consideration ought to be given to it. What is clearly intended is that these gentlemen should have no connection with a coalmining concern; but to say that they must have no interest in any derivative of the coal industry is really almost absurd.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERIf it would satisfy the House we should be prepared to omit the words in lines 30 and 31 "or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI suppose my noble friend can put that down on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERWill the noble Earl move it in that way?
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe noble Earl moves this as a manuscript Amendment—in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule, omit all words after "coal" in line 30.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERI beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 30, leave out ("or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining").—(The Earl of Munster.)
§ THE EARL OF DUDLEYI am not at all sure I can assent to this Amendment. It seems to me that it is giving a definite advantage to those who go in for low temperature carbonisation and other methods of manufacture. He can boost them as much as he likes, and help them as a shareholder in every possible way, to the detriment of ordinary coal-mining. I do think it ought to include "the manufacture of the by-products of coal." Would the noble Lord agree to the inclusion of these words?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERIf it would suit the convenience of the House I shall withdraw this Amendment and bring the matter up again, in some other words, on the Report stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, after paragraph 7, to insert the following new paragraph:
8. The Commission shall by order, approved by the Board of Trade appoint one or more Regional Commissioners in each valuation region with the power and duty of carrying out in that region such administrative functions of the Commission under this Act as are specified in the order.
676
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is moved in much the same spirit as the one moved earlier this evening by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. The idea underlying it is to make the Commission more effective in its dealings with the coal trade. I do not know whether, in fact, I have put this Amendment down in the right part of the Bill. It might have been better in some other place, but, as this Schedule seems to describe the arrangements of the Commission, it may well find a place here. This Amendment is not in the interests of any particular section of the coal trade, but it is an attempt to ensure that the Commission will keep more in touch with coal-mining in the districts, more in touch with the people responsible for carrying on the work. It is, I believe, very important that a body such as this should decentralise as much as possible.
§ It may sound a little contradictory, in a Bill which has as its object the unification of royalties, to suggest anything that might appear to split up the body responsible for the management, but that is not the real intention. There is no suggestion that the ownership should be subdivided or that the management in matters of policy or principle should be affected in any way. It is simply a proposal that in matters of detail the Commission should work in and through the-districts where that work has to be done. The small day-to-day and week-to-week items should not have to be referred to the Commission in London if a decision has to be taken. I feel strongly on this point of centralisation. Your Lordships will be aware of many other examples connected with Government Departments, and the administration of local government where endless time is wasted through having to wait for decisions to be taken by the Department in London. There is a feeling in many walks of life in the country that too little attention is paid to local opinion, and the fact that that feeling exists is a bad and unhealthy sign.
§ This is a very important thing indeed. I could quote endless examples in other spheres of activity. Your Lordships will be familiar with many questions of local government which have to be decided subject to the approval of the Minister or the Department, not only questions of broad policies, but questions of detail in many cases. I would suggest that one-of the advantages of the present system 677 is that in most cases those who direct the industry at least live in the district where the coal is mined. Their agents live there, and they are in intimate touch with the district and with the people who are conducting the trade. If any question of a decision has to be taken about the alteration of a boundary or about the method of working and so on, it is comparatively easy to get the mineral agent of the owner to consult with the owner. Perhaps ninety-nine times out of a hundred he is on the spot. I have put this Amendment down for the purpose of avoiding the delay and the awkwardness of having to wait while the application on behalf of the coal company has to go up and be considered, possibly not by the Commissioners themselves but, it may be, by the secretary or the general manager who are concerned with the administrative machinery.
§ I have not attempted in the Amendment to specify what functions should be delegated to the Regional Commissioners. I suppose in a Schedule of this sort it would be impossible to do so. I think your Lordships will appreciate the sort of thing I have in mind. The general tendency in most firms at the present time in regard to administration is towards over-centralisation, and this Bill is another example of that. I think a provision such as I have indicated would be of great importance. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 8, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Ridley.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANKAs one who has had a certain amount of experience in this sort of administration in this country I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. I cast my mind back to the pensions' administration which was set up during the War. I am referring particularly to pensions for Service men who had been discharged or were disabled and so on. One of the first Committees set up after the War by the House of Commons of which I had the honour to be a member was a Committee to decentralise the pensions administration in order to set up regional areas. It was found that under the original procedure there was a great deal of delay, as my noble friend has said, in administration, and there was a great deal of dissatisfaction owing to that delay, so that generally speaking, the Government were forced to decentralise that administration.
678 During the War, so far as food control was concerned, the Government found it necessary to do that from the very commencement. After all, questions of pensions were to some extent matters that could afford a certain amount of delay; but when we come to the question of coal and coal prices and matters affecting the coal industry itself, these are matters that have to be settled with the greatest amount of celerity possible. If these questions are to be referred to London for settlement I can conceive that the administrative machinery of the Coal Commission will suffer many disabilities, and will be liable not only to break down in certain respects but to be the cause of very great embarrassment, not only to those in the coal industry but to the Government themselves. I hope sincerely that the Government will consider this Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, because I feel sure that if they are able to accept it in some form or other it will save them from a very great deal of difficulty and trouble in the future.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIn the opinion of the Government this Amendment is really quite unnecessary. This is not a case where there is a pension fund being established and administered or anything of that sort. This is a case where a Coal Commission, which everybody is going to respect, the members of which your Lordships have already decided are so high in character that it is unnecessary to leave paragraphs 5 and 6 in the Schedule, because it would be an insult to them, is going to do its best in the interests of the industry. The main duty of this Commission will be to grant leases. There are no doubt some incidental things, such as answering tenants on various subjects and giving consent to various things, but the main thing is the granting of leases. As regards that it must be done by the Commissioners as a whole, and it is for that reason that there is a quorum established for them, that they are to have a secretary, officers, agents and servants and a seal, and that they are to act as if they were in substance a corporate body.
It is true there will be some work to be done in regions some distance from London. They already have the power to appoint any agent—whether you call him a Commissioner or not does not matter—in any district to perform any of the more 679 or less clerical duties and things of that sort that have got to be done in that part of the country. Anything important that comes before such an agent will be submitted by him to the Commission who will act in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule and a proper quorum will decide. It is most dangerous, I would submit, to suggest that an individual can do anything but something of a Ministerial character. The right course is to leave it to this body of high-minded people who are interested only to do their best. You must leave it to them to decide what duties they would confer from time to time on a local agent. I would suggest that with that explanation the noble Viscount might be content to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI understand that the Commission will be capable of giving executive authority to agents in the district. My only comment is that in similar circumstances I observe that has not happened. I will not press my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDBefore we pass from this First Schedule I would like to make an observation about the Amendment I moved just now. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, said this was exactly what appears in the Act establishing the London Passenger Transport Board.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERI did not. I said it was similar to that Act.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDThe noble Earl, Lord Munster, mentioned the London Passenger Transport Board, which prompted me to observe that I learned with astonishment that the noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, is not allowed to possess any shares in a brick-making company. Here are the terms of the relevant clause—that a member of the Board shall within six months sell his interests in any company which is carrying on any passenger transport undertaking in the London Passenger Transport area. That is entirely different from the ridiculous provision which appears in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Schedule.
§ First Schedule agreed to.
680§ Second Schedule: