§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Amendments reported (according to Order.)
§ Clause 1:
§ The Commission.
§ (7) The Commission—
- (a) shall pay to the members thereof such salaries or fees, and such allowances, as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine; and
- (b) on the retirement or death of any of the members as to whom the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine that such provision should be made, shall pay to or in respect of them such pensions as he may so determine:
§ Provided that the Minister shall inform Parliament upon the first appointment of the chairman and other members of the Commission and at the end of each financial year of the Commission of the amount of the salaries, fees and other allowances or advantages payable or to be granted to each of them on appointment and paid to each of them during each financial year.
§
LORD MORRISON moved to omit the proviso in subsection (7) and insert:
(8) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the first appointment of any person as a member of the Commission, lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the salary or fees and of the allowances which the Commission are required to pay or grant to that person under the last preceding subsection.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Addison, with a minor alteration in the last lint as printed in the Marshalled List. There the words are: "the Commission are required to pay to that person under the last preceding subsection." I desire to add the words "or grant" after the ward "pay." Your Lordships will remember that this matter was discussed in the Committee stage of the Bill. The Amendment is designed to delete the proviso inserted on June 9 and in its place to insert a new subsection which requires the Minister to notify each House of Parliament of the salaries, fees and allowances of each member of the Commission. There is a later Amendment to Clause 4 which requires the inclusion of a statement of the salaries or fees and of the emoluments of each of the members of the Commission during the preceding year. The two Amendments taken together go a great deal farther in the way of disclosing information about the salaries, etc., of the members of the Commission, than does the Companies Bill now before Parliament, which, in Clause 36, requires only the aggregate fees and the estimated money values and other benefits to be disclosed, and how much is apportionable to each director. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 39 to 45 and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I should like to have one point elucidated. What is proposed is in itself reasonable enough, but what would be the situation if, after a person has been appointed a member of the Commission and in the first instance is paid or granted such and such sum or allowance, by some subsequent decision the payments or allowances are increased? I dare say it fits into the scheme of the Bill as it stands, but the publication provided for in this proposed subsection is limited, of course, to a statement of salary, fees and allowances payable to the person when he is first appointed. His service and experience may warrant, after a time, an increase of salary or an addition to the allowances.
§ LORD MORRISONAs I indicated, later on, in Clause 4, the Annual Report of the Commission will include a statement of salaries or fees and emoluments. I presume, therefore, teat any increases 263 that have been granted during the preceding year would be included in that Annual Report.
LORD TEYNHAMI am very grateful to the Leader of the House for having put down this Amendment. It fully meets the points I raised on the Committee stage.
§ LORD MORRISONI am much obliged to the noble Lord.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 2:
§ Powers of Commission.
§ 2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall have power—
- (c) to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission, so, however, that facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;
§ Provided that the Commission shall not have power to carry passengers by road in a hackney carriage adapted to carry less than eight passengers and used in plying or standing for hire in a street.
§ (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section include power—
- (f) to enter into and carry out agreements with any person for the carrying on by that person, whether as agent for the Commission or otherwise, of any of the activities specified in the said subsection (1);
§ Provided that—
- (i) the Commission shall not by virtue of this subsection engage in the building of ships, except lighters, barges or like vessels of a gross tonnage not exceeding one hundred and seventy-five tons, or engage, otherwise than for the purposes of experiment or research, in the manufacture of chassis for road vehicles;
§ (3) Where, whether by agreement or otherwise, the Commission acquire the whole or any part of any undertaking of any other person, they may, subject to the provisions of this Act, carry on any activities, whether mentioned in subsection (1) of this section or not, which were theretofore carried on for the purposes of that undertaking or part of an undertaking or were authorised by any statutory provision to be carried on for the purposes thereof:
§ Provided that, notwithstanding anything in this subsection or in any subsequent provision of this Act, or in any scheme, order or 264 regulations made under any such provision, the Commission shall not have power either directly or indirectly to construct or manufacture anything which is not required either for use for the purposes of their undertaking or for the fulfilment of a contract made, before the acquisition by the Commission of the undertaking or part of an undertaking, by the person theretofore carrying it on.
§ (6) The provisions of this section (other than the proviso to subsection (3)) shall not be construed as limiting any power of the Commission conferred by or under any subsequent provision of this Act.
§ 2.50 p.m.
§ LORD TEYNHAM who had given Notice of an Amendment to subsection (1) (c), to leave out "whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission," said: My Lords, I do not propose to move this Amendment, in view of the Government Amendment which follows mine in the Marshalled List and which meets the point I raised.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I now move the Amendment to paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to insert certain words after the word "goods." There are two consequential Amendments. As the noble Lord has explained, this Amendment is put down to meet a point that he raised. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, after ("goods") insert ("which have not been or are not to be carried by the Commission.").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("at places") and insert ("on premises").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("required") and insert ("provided").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, at the end of the proviso, in subsection (1), to insert:
or to carry passengers in a vehicle adapted to carry less than eight persons except where they are employees of the Commission or its agents acting in the course of their employment or where the Commission or its agents
265
are engaged in the execution of a contract, express or implied made with the passengers to early them by rail or by public service vehicle to any specified destination or destinations.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, there are three categories of vehicle licensed to carry less than eight persons; they are taxicabs, hackney carriages and hire cars. Taxicabs and hackney carriages are already excluded, I think, from the Bill, but hire cars are not. There are upwards of 35,000 hire cars in the country, and it is an important point for those concerned that consideration should be given to the it exclusion under the Bill. Their vehicles are very similar to hackney carriages and taxicabs. I think the main difference is that one bears the notice "hackney carriage" at the back, whereas the hire car does not. I very much hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to see their way to accept this Amendment, particularly as on the Report stage in another place some assurance was, I think, given that it was not the intention that the Commission should enter into the hire-car business. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment, or at least give some specific assurance that it is not the intention of the Commission to enter into the hire car business. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Rothes.)
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, while I cannot accept the Amendment, I think I can give specific assurances that it is not the intention of the Commission to enter the hire-car business. As has been stated, quite truthfully, taxicabs are excluded but I think the Amendment is unnecessary because its effect might in marginal cases be to operate unreasonably and would cause hardship to the public. I will give four examples of instances in which, if this Amendment were accepted, it might operate unreasonably upon the public. The first is, a car service between one of the hotels and a railway or a bus station, or to a dock. The second is a car service from a small pier served by railway steamer to a neighbouring village. The third is, in cases of a breakdown on the railway line it might be necessary to mobilize with no delay small vehicles to cope with the passengers who were stranded owing to the breakdown. The fourth one is that the transport departments of certain municipalities operate a 266 few cars for members and officials of the council. The Commission should be entitled to afford similar facilities in future if the council so wishes. Those are all exceptional cases, but the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to prevent the Commission doing that. I hope the noble Lord will not wish to persist with his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, the instances which Lord Morrison has given are indeed perfectly reasonable, and nobody would want to deprive the Commission of conducting these very small and ancillary services. But what is really at issue here is not that; it is the question of whether the Commission should have the right to enter into the hire business. He said that the Commission do not intend to do this, but they want to be able to give these little facilities which it is quite right they should be able to give, and that they do not propose to enter into this hire business. This is a business which employs no fewer than 35,000 vehicles, and may perhaps employ more in the future. Though that is the intention, and I accept it completely, ought we not to put that into the Bill? If we do not put that into the Bill, may I take an analogous case? Of course, the Commission as the Bill stands, if some Amendment like this is not made, have an absolute and unchallenged right to run a hire business. When we came to the question of charter, which I think is less important than this, the Minister said very fairly that you do not want a special provision in to enable people to run charters, because they could do that without a special provision; but he also said quite clearly that the Commission might want to run charter services themselves, and he did not wish to exclude that power and, therefore, he wanted the charter service left absolutely free.
If we leave the Bill as it is without an Amendment the Commission will undoubtedly have the absolute right. That is not what either the Government or the House wants. What we all want is that the Government should not run this business, but that they should have the fullest power to run these little ancillary things. As we are so completely in agreement, and as we ought to make this Bill correspond to what is our common intention, I would ask if he would not put down 267 this Amendment on the Third Reading. I would suggest that my noble friend should not press his Amendment now, but that we have an agreed Amendment on the Third Reading which would do exactly what the noble Lord is saying, give the Commission power to run the ancillary services. It might be that it ought not to specify the four items in terms that he has given, because I dare say there will be others of a like nature. But there should be something like that, that the Commission shall not have power to run a hire business, provided that—whatever words are suitable—they shall themselves be able to give authority to run, or the Minister can give authority to run, services of an ancillary nature, which is what his words really mean. It would be much better if we could have that in; the Amendment ought not to be difficult to draft.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, I should not have thought it was necessary. As the noble Earl has said, taxi-cabs are already excluded from the Bill, and what the noble Earl refers to is a car-hire business, which we all recognize generally is run by individual people running just one car of their own. I should not think that the Commission would consider that they, by a sort of side wind, would enter into the car-hire business. Nevertheless, as the noble Viscount has asked me, I will consult with those responsible for the Bill. I cannot give any pledge, but if they should think that it is necessary, then steps will be taken to cover this point.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONOf course, my noble friend would have his rights on Third Reading.
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, if I might correct an error, the noble Lord said that he thought that this class of business would be a one-man business. The Daimler Hire business is one of the largest private hire businesses in London, and all their vehicles come under that category. This is not a small business at all. A lot of the various car-hire people in London come under that title, the Daimler Hire people and others.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
268§ 3.0 p.m.
§
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT ADDISON) moved, in subsection" (2), after paragraph (c) to insert:
(d) to provide houses, hostels and other like accommodation for persons employed by the Commission.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down to carry out an undertaking which was given in the Committee stage. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 46, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, the next Amendment is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on which I gave an undertaking in Committee. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, at end insert ("or for the provision by that person, whether as agent for the Commission or otherwise, of clearing house facilities in connection with the transport of goods").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this Amendment is to carry out an undertaking which was given to Lord Dudley on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, at end insert ("(i) to make housing loans to persons employed by the Commission to assist them to acquire housing accommodation.").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISON moved in proviso (i) in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "tons." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am afraid I must make a somewhat lengthy statement upon this Amendment. It is the beginning of a series of Amendments all of which belong to one another. They are designed to restrict the power of manufacturing of the Commission and the concerns which they take over. Perhaps I may elaborate as briefly as I can upon them. The Amendments to which I am now speaking go down to the end of the Amendments to Clause 2 and finish on page 5 of the Marshalled List. As I have said, the Amendments go together and what they amount to is this.
269
§
As your Lordships will remember, pledges were given during the Committee stage that negotiations should be undertaken to try to arrive at an understanding with those concerned as to the limitation of manufacture, and also gave a pledge to my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon to which I will refer briefly later. The matter divides itself roughly into three parts. Apart from the fact that manufacturing, under the clause, was first limited to experiment, research and matters of that sort, it was agreed that when concerns were taken over which might themselves be manufacturing, limitations should be proposed in respect of the manufacturing, activities of the concerns so taken over. It is to that really that the bulk of these Amendments relate. As I have said, the matter falls into three parts. The first part relates to chassis. They are dealt with in the proposed subsection (4) (a) which sets out that the Commission:
shall not manufacture in any one financial year of the Commission, otherwise than for purposes of experiment or research, chassis for road vehicles substantially in excess of the total of the number manufactured in a year in the course of carrying on all undertakings or parts of undertakings acquired by the Commission before the end of the financial year in question …
In other words they shall not manufacture more than a concern manufactured in that year. That is to be their limit.
§
In the case of bodies, with regard to which there was no limit in the Bill before—they were not mentioned separately—it is suggested here that what is reasonable in the case of chassis is reasonable also in the case of bodies, and it is proposed that they should be limited as shown in the new subparagraph (b) (i). This says:
in the case of bodies for passenger vehicles, one-fifth of the total number of such bodies estimated to be required to be manufactured for the use for the purpose of the Commission's undertakings …
and so on. That one-fifth is arrived at with a view to putting a figure which will not mean augmentation of the manufacturing powers of the concerns taken over. Paragraph (b) (ii) says:
in the case of bodies for other vehicles, one-quarter of the total number of such bodies estimated to be required as aforesaid.
That is a more uncertain number and I shall refer to that when I come to a
270
somewhat mysterious definition in the next page of the Amendments.
§ There is a group of Amendments after, and including paragraph (d) which gave us a good deal of perplexity in the Committee stage, and I may say that upon this my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was very helpful in promoting an understanding. Paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) relate to miscellaneous activities which were being carried on by undertakings which will be taken over. The proposal here is not only that a limit should be placed upon the activities which might be so taken over, but that with regard to the major part of the business also there should be a time limit. For example; you might take over a concern which had a repair shop or some petrol pumps, or which dealt in second-hand cars, or carried on other activities of that kind. Now those activities are not necessarily proper to the business of the Transport Commission, and there is no desire that they should continue to pursue them. But they might be part of an undertaking which was necessarily taken over and you could not shed yourselves of them straight away. You must make some arrangements because members of the public in considerable numbers may well be concerned in the conveniences which arise from those ancillary activities. This group of Amendments is designed to put a limit to them.
§
Paragraph (d) reads:
shall not purchase any road vehicle for the purpose of sale to another person.
Paragraph (e) says:
shall not trade in spare parts for or accessories to road vehicles …
It also makes further provision to meet these circumstances. Whilst of course it might arise that the Commission might find a good customer for this part of the business within a month of the takeover, on the other hand it might be some time before they did so. It was felt that with regard to these miscellaneous activities there should be a time limit, after which it must be got rid of somehow or other. So, in this paragraph (e), we propose that the Commission:
shall cease to carry on any such activities not later than on the expiration of three years from the date of the acquisition. …
The next paragraph is ancillary to that.
§
Then we come to a group of paragraphs which really tie all these up to one another and lead to definitions which are fairly self-explanatory except perhaps in regard to what are called "major components." In subsection (5) we have definitions of "chassis" and perhaps paragraph (b) calls for a word of explanation. I understand that there are contrivances now in which the body and the chassis are one thing. The body is not manufactured separately from the chassis; they are all one construction. It is to make sure that even that form of activity is limited, that this paragraph is put in. I confess that unless they had been explained to me privately, the words would not have conveyed very much to me. I understand, however, from those who are thoroughly acquainted with the business that they do what is necessary. The paragraph begins:
in relation to a vehicle in which the framework to which the major components are attached forms an integral whole with the body structure, …
and so forth.
§ I understand that by that is meant this sort of body-chassis. I believe this process is utilized sometimes in the manufacture of buses and such like vehicles. But these things are now similarly excluded.
§ I come to subsection (6) of the proposed Amendment which arose out of an Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, on which we promised to consider adaptation of the words. This gives effect to that undertaking.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI think it does. It was a good point.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe point was that where someone is concerned in a business taken over, directly or indirectly, he should similarly be brought within the limitation. I am glad to hear that the noble Viscount is satisfied that we have genuinely given effect to the undertaking. The whole group of Amendments stand together, and I think that I can fairly say that after prolonged negotiation they represent an honourable understanding with the industries concerned. I hope your Lordships will accept them as carrying out the undertakings given in Committee. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("tons") to the end of line 41.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the House on an admirable chain of Amendments, and to thank him sincerely for the great trouble he has himself taken over this matter. I would also thank the Department. We felt that the position was unsatisfactory as it had been left. The Minister had given a pledge that he would not manufacture any chassis at all except for experimental purposes and then there was the involved possible qualification of that by reason of subsection (3). The plain common sense of it was that he was not going to make chassis at all. On the other hand, so far as pledges went he was left completely free to make all the bodies he liked in the world. Both the Leader of the House and I thought that that was not a very sensible arrangement, and that it would be much better if those undertakings could manufacture a reasonable amount of what they were going to use, whether chassis or bodies, and that what really ought to be done was to arrive at a fair working compromise. Thanks to the Leader of the House, the net result is that we have an extremely practical clause before us in which everything is covered. There is a limitation on what should be manufactured which seems to be a fair and reasonable one and one which applies all along the line.
I must add one word of particular congratulation that this curious composite article has been covered. I should not have thought it was a major component. I thought a component meant a part and that a major component meant a larger part. What this means is a complete whole and, though I certainly do not quarrel with what is intended to be done, it seems to me rather an odd definition. What we really mean is not a major component but a unitarian vehicle, but if the draftsman likes this rather odd definition and makes it perfectly clear that "major component" means the whole vehicle however constructed, I am satisfied. I think the House and the Leader of the House have done a very good job of work.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I add my thanks to the Leader of the House for so fully and generously meeting the points which I 273 raised during the Committee stage? I do not think it could have been done better. I quite realized that some limit would have to be inserted and I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether he could give me the assurance that it is not intended that the three years should be the usual period of running the ancillary service, but that the three years will operate only in very exceptional cases, and the majority of them will be disposed of far sooner; in fact, as soon as possible. I would also like to congratulate the noble Viscount on doing something which the industry itself has failed to do all these years. And having some technical knowledge, I can congratulate him on defining an integral body structure. I can only think the noble Viscount's past experience of agricultural machinery must have stood him in good stead. I thank him very much for the way in which he has met us.
§ LORD WOLVERTONMy Lords, I would also like to thank the noble Viscount on behalf of the body with which I am associated for the definition of an integral body, which was not covered when it came up on Committee stage.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEMy Lords, I am sorry to introduce a slightly discordant note into this complete harmony between the Government and the Opposition, but I think it is important to point out that there is a different point of view from that represented by this agreement to put with enthusiasm into an Act of Parliament the words, nine times repeated, "shall not." Somebody who could do something is not to be allowed to do it by Act of Parliament. This is the policy of restriction to which we are being driven more and more by this process of nationalization. This is the policy which will, in due course, let me warn noble Lords opposite, and those who believe in restriction on this side, help to impoverish this country. You have already in the clause two "shall nots" and you are adding seven more. We on these Benches think that even a Government Department, if it were enterprising, might be allowed to do a thing. If it can do it better than others, it should be free to do it. But the policy of nationalization means shall not, shall not, shall not, shall not, shall not, shall not, shall not, shall not, shall not—nine times.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I sympathize with the sentiment that lies 274 behind what has been said by my noble friend, but I do not think that he has observed that all these "shall nots" reduce the power of monopoly. The thing that is being reduced is the power of the Commission, and I think my noble friend probably would be well pleased if he could intend by the Commission's "shall not" that it should do nothing at all.
§ LORD BEVERIDGENo.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONThis Amendment imposes on enterprise no restrictions whatever but reduces the area within which the Commission is to have power to operate, and while I have a great deal of sympathy with the general point of view of the noble Lord, I do not think that this particular Amendment was open to that particular reproach. I am not absolutely certain at the moment—no doubt the draftsman will settle it, and I dare say rightly—whether or not the new paragraph (e) will work as it is desired, for this reason. Paragraph (e) says:
shall not trade in spare parts for or accessories to road vehicles, or in petrol or oil for road vehicles, except by way of carrying on any activities mentioned in the preceding subsection.The last preceding subsection is subsection (3), which says:Where, whether by agreement or other—wise, the Commission acquire the whole or any part of any undertaking of any other person, they may, subject to the provisions of this Act.Are we not in danger of arguing in a circle? In the new subsection (3) there are accepted the activities mentioned in the last preceding subsection; but the activities mentioned in the last preceding subsection are said to be subject to the provisions of the Act; and one of those provisions is the subsection we are carrying now. That rather looks like going round in a circle. Perhaps it is not. The draftsman will no doubt look at it to see if any small correction is necessary at a later stage.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for what they have said, and I take no credit myself whatever for this ingenious definition. It emerged from the Department after consulting the various experts, and I have no right of parentage. I can give my noble friend Lord Lucas the assurance that the intention and hope is that these other odds and 275 ends will be cleared up as soon as possible. I am surprised to hear the references of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, to these vetoes, seeing that he himself proposed to leave out no fewer than twenty clauses on the Committee stage. That was a wholesale "shall not."
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, the next four Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out from the beginning to ("use") in line 9 and insert—
("(iii) the Commission shall not, by virtue of this subsection, construct, manufacture or otherwise produce anything which is not required for").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, leave out from ("not") to ("anything") in line 23 and insert ("construct, manufacture or otherwise produce"). —(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, at end, insert:
("(4) Notwithstanding anything in the two last preceding subsections or in any subsequent provision of this Act, or in any scheme, order or regulation made under any such provision, the Commission—
Provided that, where any rights or liabilities under a contract made, before the date of the acquisition by the Commission of an undertaking or part of an undertaking, by the person theretofore carrying it on become, by virtue of the acquisition, rights or liabilities of the Commission—
(5) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection—
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4) and of the provisos to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, where a body corporate is directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission, anything done by that body shall be deemed to be done by the Commission and the undertaking of the body shall be deemed to form part of the undertaking of the Commission."). —(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 42 and insert ("(except where they expressly refer to any subsequent provision of this Act)").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.25 p. m.
§
LORD ROCHDALE moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Nothing in this Act shall affect the application to the Commission of so much of Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, in so far as it relates to the giving of reasonable facilities, and the provisions of that section shall be extended to include the giving of reasonable facilities by road.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Committee stage I had a similar Amendment down to that which I now have on the Order Paper. It was then down under Clause 81, and I was unable to move it owing to the deletion of that clause. At that time there was a specific reason for including the Amendment in that part of the Bill, but with the deletion of Clause 81 it seemed to be an inappropriate place to put it, and I move it now after Clause 3. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, in the granting 278 of reasonable facilities to cover road as well as railway and canal traffic. Up to now that provision has not existed. There has been no need for it, because if the user of the road was dissatisfied with the facilities he had available to him, all he had to do was to go to another provider of road transport. He cannot do that now. The only thing he can do now is to take out a "C" licence, which he may not wish to do. I would point out that the facilities asked for by this Amendment do not confer the right on any user to insist on road facilities where he wants them and where they do not already exist, but they do confer on him the right to make representations to the Commission that all he wants are reasonable facilities. It will then be up to the Transport Commission to decide whether he has proved his case, and to act accordingly. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Rochdale.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR(VISCOUNT JOWITT)My Lords, I have been asked to say something about this Amendment. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that a provision corresponding to this one has never been imposed before. There was such a provision in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854, but it never extended to road transport. Although at a later stage, in 1921, the railways received permission to run road transport, Section 49 of the Act of 1921 makes it quite clear that they were under no obligation to collect and deliver unless they held themselves cut to do so, when they would become voluntarily under all sorts of obligation. Broadly speaking, the Act imposed no such obligation, and the railway companies do not run read services, other than collection and delivery, to any considerable extent. As the noble Lord has said, he originally intended to move his Amendment to what was then Clause 81 of the Bill. Clause 81 said that the Minister might, by regulations, exempt the Commission from certain enactments, and, as we were doing that, we had to put in a proviso to say that nothing in that section should affect the application of the Act of 1854 in that respect.
The noble Lord appreciates that as we have dropped that provision altogether, it is unnecessary now to have the proviso. 279 So far as the railways are concerned, the obligation attaches. So far as the roads are concerned, we think it is quite wrong that this obligation should be inserted there, and we are not willing to have it. The counterpart of the obligation of the railways, as it existed in the Act of 1854, is now a special obligation in Clause 3 upon the Commission, who are charged with the duty of providing "an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport." So that the general charter of the Commission itself requires that they shall provide reasonable facilities. In the view of the Minister—I think it is the right view —this is the counterpart of the statutory obligation extending only to railways, which was to be imposed on the then private companies by the Act of 1854. Your Lordships will not forget that there is a further safeguard under Clause 6, which enables the Minister to give directions to the Commission to provide any particular service; and then, of course, there is the provision about the council, and so on. The council can look into the matter if it is alleged that these services are inadequate. For these reasons, we do not feel able to accept this obligation and to extend it for the first time to roads.
LORD ROCHDALEMy Lords, whilst I am not entirely surprised at the point of view the noble and learned Viscount has taken, I regret it, but in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 4 [Powers of the Minister in relation to the Commission]:
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, at end, insert: ("and shall include a statement of the salaries or fees and of the emoluments of each of the members of the Commission during that year.").—(Viscount Addison).
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5:
§ The Executives.
§ (3) The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be decided by the Commission, but unless and until other provision is made by such an order 280 there shall be Executives known respectively as the Railway Executive, the Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive and the London Transport Executive and, as from the appointed day, an Executive known as the Hotels Executive.
§ (6) Any delegation effected by or under such a scheme may be expressed by the scheme or by the relevant instrument issued thereunder to be subject to conditions and limitations, and, whether or not the relevant delegation is expressed to be subject to any conditions or limitations, every Executive shall, in the exercise of their functions, give effect to any directions which may from time to time be given to them by the Commission.
§ (9) As respects matters for the time being falling within the scope of any such delegation, the following provisions shall have effect except as between the Executive and the Commission, that is to say—
- (a) any rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers and liabilities of the Executive, and the Executive only;
- (b) the Executive shall, to the exclusion of the Commission, be treated as the employer of any officers or servants of the Commission so long as they are by virtue of the delegation under the control of the Executive;
§ Provided that if any sum required by any judgment or order to be paid by an Executive is not paid by the Executive within fourteen days from the date on which execution becomes leviable to enforce the judgment or order, the Commission shall be liable to pay that sum.
§ (11) Where the Commission abolish an Executive, or the effect of a scheme under subsection (4) of this section is that functions previously directly exercisable by the Commission are exercisable by an Executive or that functions previously exercisable by an Executive are exercisable by a different Executive or directly by the Commission, the Commission may make such transitional provisions as appear to them to be expedient, including provisions as to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTON moved in subsection (3) to leave out "other provision is made by such an order" and insert "determined otherwise by the Commission." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and the Amendment which comes at the top of page 7 are both drafting Amendments which bring 281 the clause correctly into line with the decision already taken. Although the Leader of the House is not in complete agreement with the principle, I think he will be in complete agreement that this is the way in which the subsection should be framed. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, leave Out ("other provision is made by such an order") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I think the noble Viscount has correctly stated my point of view. We did not agree on the Committee stage, but I think it is right that the Bill should read properly according to the Amendments we made, although we retain our views as to those Amendments.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.32 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISON moved in subsection after "the" ["the Inland"] to insert "Docks and." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not know whether it would meet the convenience of the House if, in making a statement on this Amendment, which, I am afraid, leads to a number of others later on, I might refer also to those other Amendments. On pages 15 and 16 of the Marshalled List there are some Amendments in my name to Clause 66, and they relate to the question of the docks. Your Lordships will remember that we had considerable discussion on this matter in Committee, and ultimately Amendments were carried which, in the first place, provided that the clocks should be organized in the form of the trusts which now operate many of the very good ports. On behalf of the Government, however, I objected to what I described as the stereotyping of the system. Considerable discussion with the interested industries has taken place between then and now.
§
With the Amendment which I have put down to try to meet the material points without binding the Commission too tightly, and which is to be found at the bottom of page 15 and the top of page 16 of the Marshalled List of Amendments, I think we have made a genuine attempt to meet the points which were put by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. That Amendment provides that the Commission, in preparing schemes for dealing with docks and harbours, shall have regard to the desirability—
282
of including among the members of any body (other than the Commission) constituted or specified in a provision included in the scheme by virute of paragraph (a) … to administer or take part in administering the scheme persons, or representatives of persons, who are payers of dues for the services or facilities afforded in, or who are otherwise interested in the trade or activities of, the harbour ….
§
Those words have deliberately been put down for insertion in order to bring in those persons who, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, pointed out during the Committee stage, were not necessarily included before. I think it is quite right that they should be. Then also the point was made very forcibly that several of these docks schemes might be regional, as some of the trusts now are. That is the reason for my proposal to insert paragraph (b):
of providing for the scheme to be administered, as far as may be, from a place at or in the vicinity of the harbour, or one of the harbours in the group of harbours, to which the scheme relates.
I am sorry we have not been able to go the whole way, but we have made a bonafide attempt to meet the point as far as we can, and I hope your Lordships will be willing to accept the insertion of the words "Docks and" in the light of what is proposed under Clause 66. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after the first ("the") insert ("Docks and"). —(Viscount Addison.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, again I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his trouble and his consideration. The English, and I hope the Scots, have a genius for compromise, and I think this is a very fair compromise. I am sure it is quite right to put back what really ought never to have come out—the provision for a Docks Executive. It was really struck out originally (just as it has been put in now) as a sort of prologue to all the Amendments which were to follow, and, on consideration, I think it was the wrong kind of prologue. If you are going to retain them as is quite right and proper, and if the Commission are to have the management of the railway docks, obviously somebody must manage them. My own view, as the noble Viscount knows, is that it would be much better to give the Commission a general discretion as to how they should manage all the different businesses which are entrusted to them. Again, that is really 283 unnecessary to argue as a matter of words because, in the first instance, they are told to proceed by means of a certain Executive. They have the power the next day to change those Executives to any form of Executive or management which they think most convenient for the purpose. Therefore there is nothing I want to say on that point. It is quite consistent with the plan of the Bill that this Docks Executive should be put back.
The real question is: What is to happen to the ports? As the Leader of the House has said, very fairly, most admirable work has been done by great public utility authorities for areas like London and the Clyde, where there is disinterested management, where everybody who is concerned in the work of the port—the users of the port, the shipowners, the warehousemen, the traders, the labour and the municipality all join together to give the most efficient service they can to the port. Those authorities do not work for profit; they pay their way, and whatever they make beyond that, once they have paid the interest on their loan capital, goes either into port improvement or into reducing port dues. I think it is common ground between us that those great and successful trusts will not be interfered with. If the position can be improved, we all hope to improve it and shall be only too glad to do so.
Then there are the railway docks which the Commission will take over. It was suggested—and indeed I had an Amendment down which I withdrew—that within a period of years the Commission ought to hand those ports over to a local nonprofit making trust. I think there was a good deal of force in the argument of the Leader of the House that, if we are going to entrust the Commission with the tremendous task of running the whole of this business, we ought not to fetter their discretion. I have asked that the Minister should not come in and fetter it at every stage, and I do not think I ought to ask the House to fetter it unduly. Probably, as time goes on, the Commission will find that, certainly for some of these railway ports, much the best way in the national interest will be to create a port trust. Very likely that may happen, but let them have the discretion, and let them review the position in exactly the way as they have to review the rest of the ports. I 284 think it is quite reasonable that we should leave the Commission to propose to Parliament in its scheme in due course whether they should continue the management of their own ports or whether they should hand them over to some different port trust.
Although that does not dispose of the greatest number of ports, it disposes of by far and away the greatest traffic which goes through the ports. There are some hundreds of ports in this country which come within the ambit of the Bill, but the bulk of the trade of the country goes through comparatively few ports. There are the port trusts, one or two of the big municipal ports—Avonmouth for instance —the railway ports and Manchester, which is in a peculiar position of its own. That is a company which is, I think, largely run by the Manchester Corporation, but it ranks in effect with the port trusts, as do the municipal undertakings. When you have dealt with those you have dealt with probably 80 or 90 per cent.—perhaps nearer 90 per cent.—of the whole of the trade of the country. There are left outside a mass of little ports which just come within the definition and which certainly ought to be reviewed, just as Lord Cooper made a great review of the Clyde and came to the conclusion that a number of small port undertakings should be embraced in a comprehensive trust.
I have no doubt at all that when the further review is undertaken it will be found desirable that a large number of ports should be grouped together. I think when that review is made it will be found that it may be quite a good thing to leave some of them as they are de minimis. They are probably doing quite a good job, I know that some of them are doing quite a good job for what is wanted. It may very well be that the Commission will say, "We had better leave them alone." But they have to review and then they have to make their schemes, and I think they will probably make the schemes on the lines of the port trusts.
The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, says, "I think you are very likely right, but do not dictate to them in advance that that is what they must do." I am bound to say that I think that is pretty reasonable. We give an indication of what we think prima facie is the right way to do these things, and I am extremely glad that in Clause 65, which is 285 now under consideration as well as this clause, I have prepared the way for it by abandoning all the odds and ends of Amendments I had down dealing with the same kind of proposition. The Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, does lay down what I think we all agree are the two essential principles. There is first the principle that the management should be a local management consisting of the users, of labour and of other people who are interested, exactly the lines in fact upon which the Port of London or the Clyde is run. The other thing to which I attach equal importance—as I am sure do all the users of ports—is that you shall have local management, and that it shall not be something done from Whitehall. That is essential. The Port of London is managed in London, the Clyde is managed on the Clyde. That is, I think, one of the secrets of their great success. The management is done by people who know the local conditions sitting on the spot.
That is set up in the new clause as the way in which they shall approach it. It is what in aircraft manufacture we call the prototype. But the noble Viscount says very reasonably that we should not fetter them; there might even be an occasion where they thought they should take over this or that port and for the time being run it themselves. So be it. In this way we do not fetter the discretion of the Commission, and I think we make sure that the great ports will go on running as they are, and give the Commission a proper discretion as to how they should run their own ports when they vest in them. I am so satisfied that the autonomous local port trust has justified itself, that I am sure that in nine cases out of ten or perhaps ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, when you come to the making of the scheme that is what the scheme will be. If it is not, there will be some very good local reason why it is not. For my part, I thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, very sincerely for the trouble he has taken over this, and I think we have reached a wise and happy solution.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEMy Lords, I would like to welcome this Amendment, while making one comment upon its form. It will be within the recollection of the House that when this matter was debated in Committee, we on these Benches voted with the Government against the Opposition, 286 because we thought there should be a Docks Executive, and therefore the word "docks" ought to come into his clause. We regret that it comes back in the form of "Docks and Inland Waterways Executive," implying what we believe to be wrong, that because there is water in docks and water in canals, therefore they ought to be run together. But very fortunately the Government have run out of their "shall nots," and they have not inserted in this clause a proviso that the Commission shall not rename the Executive; the Commission are given freedom to rename the Executive. Thus they will, on the assumption that we are right, not have a Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, but will, in due course, have a Docks Executive, possibly an Inland Waterways Executive or possibly a Railways and Inland Waterways Executive. We thank the Government for not putting in another "shall not" here. We only put in "shall not" in order to preserve greater liberty, and that is the reason why we did not want the Commission to take over the roads, because the Commission could net take over the roads without any number of "shall nots" on everybody else. I hope the Government will have regard to this and leave the Commission free to take account of the possibility of whether inland waterways go best with the docks, or go best with the railways. I welcome this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in sub-section (3), after "Road Transport Executives," to insert "the Scottish Transport Executive." The noble Earl said: My Lords, since nationalization measures have come for consideration before Parliament there have been a very large number of people who have endeavoured to promote in them a real measure of decentralization, and I am quite certain that there is not one section of your Lordships' House which does not agree that decentralization is an integral and important part of any nationalization measure. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has admitted that. He said in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill that the necessity for decentralization is real—or words to that effect. And indeed, I think there are many ardent followers of Socialism who will view with 287 the very gravest suspicion and anxiety the extreme centralization qualities which have been brought about by the type of Socialism which has been brought into these Bills. I am proposing this Amendment because it gives a specific type of decentralization. I want to do so on the ground that this measure is not only not decentralizing, it is not even leaving the status quo as it was. It is deliberately increasing the degree of centralized control in a large and important industry.
§
I think it is appropriate, from what we have heard in regard to this matter, to refer to the Montague Barlow Report, which has received a great deal of support, and I think recognition, on all sides. It says on page 84:
The concentration in one area of such a large proportion of the national population as is contained in Greater London, and the attraction to the metropolis of the best industrial, financial, commercial, and general ability represents a serious drain on the rest of the country.
On that they recommended that the continual drift of the industrial population to London and the Home Counties constitutes a sociological, economic, and strategic problem which demands immediate attention. We are now moving in a diametrically opposite direction.
§
I am not going to propose a detailed plan, because the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in the course of the debates in Committee, said he did not like detailed plans. In the OFFICIAL REPORT for June 19, he is reported as saying:
We cannot possibly accept an Amendment which tells us in advance precisely what they have got to do.
What is required is resident and responsible management; and by "responsible management" I mean management of personnel, of operations, of initiating schemes, and management of purchases and equipment. There will of course have to be over-all standardization, which I fully recognize. I do not propose to elaborate this further, but I am going to ask the Leader of the House not to say that there will be no decentralization until large numbers of Scottish nationalists have been returned to another place. I hope the noble Viscount will not make one of those appeals which are a blend of whisky and tears, characteristic of St. Andrew's Eve, which I am not in the least concerned with.
§ This system of central control is not economically justified. No man can manage what he cannot within one month see properly. That is a very broad generalization, but I think it is not far from being true. The principle of centralization is wrong because it is contrary to the whole principle in any large democratic industry, and morally wrong because it lowers personal responsibility. In the course of his remarks made yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said that in regard to electricity that this particular aspect of decentralization had been fully discussed in another place. The question in regard to transport has not been discussed. I therefore submit that this is a proper Amendment to send back to another place for consideration. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26, after the first ("executive") insert ("the Scottish Transport Executive").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this discussion, because I feel it is almost an impertinence. I have, I am ashamed to say, no Scottish blood in my veins, and yet I always seem to be weighing in on Scottish affairs. I am becoming, if I may so put it, a sort of honorary Anglo-Caledonian. But I believe in fact there are very considerable arguments in favour of this Amendment, and of a substantial kind. There is no doubt that what is here proposed is of a somewhat different character from other executives which find a place in this clause. It is regional in character, whereas the others are functional. But I think it is at least doubtful whether this regional aspect will not have to be included before we go much further. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has an Amendment down which deals with that particular aspect. It is extremely doubtful whether it is in any case avoidable; and if we are to have a trial of the possibilities of regionalization I can conceive no better area than Scotland, for every reason.
First, there is the special character of the country, to which the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, referred when this matter was last before the House. It is true that those who have to deal with transport in Scotland have a very different problem from people in England. It is a country divided by mountains, cut 289 up by lochs and rivers, with very special problems which the Scottish people themselves are well qualified to tackle. Then there is of course the other argument, which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, did not mention, and that is the psychological aspect, the sentimental aspect, the patriotic aspect, of this question. There is no doubt that the Scottish Peers who represent the Scottish people do regard themselves as concerned with a region in a way which perhaps no other part of this island does. It is no good the Government ignoring this aspect. The Scottish people do not like centralization. I do not like it myself. They do not like it because it is centralization in London, centralization away from Scotland. They like their own centre. For them it is a very real centre; and it is no good any of us ignoring that fact.
If you wish to get the best work out of Scottish people you must give them a chance of doing their work in the country they love and are accustomed to and in the ways with which they are familiar. That is a practical fact and not a sentimental argument. For that reason, the whole conception of centralizing these Executives in London on a functional basis is repulsive to them. That is a fact of considerable importance. We do not want decentralization of Scotland to go too far. The Government do not want that. If you can meet the Scottish people and their economic feelings and sentimental feelings halfway, as is proposed by this Amendment, you may very well stop decentralization from going too far. The Government have a chance of broad statesmanship here, which I hope they will grasp. It is no good saying that the question of Scottish nationality is not a practical issue. It will be, if you do not grasp the nettle when you have the chance. Therefore I recommend with all deference to the Government that they would be dealing with the matter in a very statesmanlike manner if they were willing to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEMy Lords, I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. This Amendment has been fully discussed, it is true, in Committee in your Lordships' House, and I do not desire to prolong that discussion, or to weary your Lordships by repetition. But I would, however, just like to say this: We flatter 290 ourselves, and I hope not unduly, that we made a good case on Second Reading; not Only a good case, but a reasonable case—a case which cannot easily be gainsaid, and a case for which then is overwhelming support throughout Scotland. I venture to emphasize what the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, said, that what is going to happen is that this decentralization will become more and more necessary for all parts of the country. As I think the noble Viscount. Lord Ridley, stressed on the Electricity Bill yesterday, it exactly applies in the same way to the North of England. The further you get away from the centre of administration the more difficult it becomes, and that is really I think the answer.
I have carefully read through once again the speeches which were made on the Second Reading by noble Lords from across the Border, including my own few words, and I have refreshed myself, not only with the good air of my native country, but also with all kinds and shapes of opinion in the country regarding this matter. Nowhere did I find the view held, which I think was suggested by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for whom we have the greatest respect, that noble Lords of Scotland lad exaggerated the feeling in regard to this matter in Scotland. Very far from it, my Lords; I found the feeling even stronger than I thought in all sections of the community. I believe it is becoming patently obvious to us all that there is a definite necessity for administration by Scotland of its own affairs, so that we can do what only we really can do, and that is to satisfy ourselves that our domestic economy is being properly run.
There is another view, a view which I think many of your Lordships warned the House on the Second Reading would come about. There is a feeling for something even more drastic and even stronger than decentralization, and I repeat, although I believe it is hard to persuade the noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, that I do not agree with this when it goes as far as separation. I am quite sure that what we really want in our country—and I would repeat again and again the words of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—is resident responsible management. That is absolutely essential if we are really going to look after the welfare of Scotland as a whole, granting, 291 of course, a measure of control as regards general policy. I stress again that, if you do not give this decentralization with all these measures of nationalization which are going on the Statute Book, you are only magnifying the problem and the evil of centralization, and you will eventually find Scotland, as has been said again and again, and as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, seeking something more, and which I for one think would not be in the best interests of either Scotland or England. But we do require the power and the right to manage our own domestic affairs, free from London control and all the slowing up process which that brings.
We must have that, and this view, as you know, has been supported by such responsible bodies, as was mentioned on the Second Reading, as the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), the Scottish T.U.C. and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which I unfortunately described as "queer birds," and which brought the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, to his feet. Of course, when describing them as "queer birds" what I meant was that they were queer birds to be sitting on the same bough. There is no doubt that the people of Scotland expect this decentralization, and I shall follow the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, into the Lobby undeterred—I was going to say "by the threats," but, if I may change the expression to "by the advice" of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on the Second Reading, and certainly undeterred by what I must call the threats of those who are making what, in my humble opinion, are extremely irresponsible speeches, both in another place and in the country, in regard to the conduct of your Lordships' House. I would add this: As long as I have the honour to sit in your Lordships' House I shall do what I think to be our duty as regards the functions of the House, and as soon as we develop into something which is nothing more than a debating society then I only hope that we shall disappear, or somebody will blow us up.
§ Loan LINDSAY OF BIRKERMy Lords, may I say a few words on this? Where Party and patriotism go different ways I do not quite know which is going to win. I should like to associate myself 292 with what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said about the general problem. I just do not know whether this Amendment is right. I do not know the proper way to deal with the very complicated problem of how to deal with the necessity of having the thing on a large scale, and how to give room and scope to these personal local sentiments which are so important. I do not know whether the right way to do that is to take this Amendment, but what I do feel perfectly certain of is that we must have some proper examination of the problem which arises.
I think it was perfectly right probably that we should begin, in setting up these nationalization schemes, by doing the thing on a large scale and fairly simply like that, and I am not sure that it is right, therefore, to start cutting these schemes up in this way. But I am perfectly certain that if the schemes are going to be democratically run, and are going to be what all Socialists have really stood for, when they have worked out the great central thing, they should investigate the possibilities of using the local patriotism and the local knowledge, and all the rest of it. That is why I entirely agree with almost everything that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said on this general point. But I do not know enough about the administrative snags to know whether this is the right way to do it, and I should very much welcome some intimation from the Government that they are sensible of this problem. It does not apply only to transport; it applies to all these big national matters. I think it is a very difficult technical point. If we knew that the Government are concerned about this and are going, let us say, to appoint a fact-finding or a technical, or some sort of expert commission to go into this problem, then I, at any rate, would be much happier about the whole thing.
§ 4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYMy Lords, I would like to support this Amendment on the general ground that it adds force to a later Amendment which states that it should be possible to appoint regional executives, if so determined. I think there is no doubt, as was argued by some members of your Lordships' House on the Committee stage, that we shall find that if the system is worked to the best possible advantage, it will end up in a regional system. I would remind your 293 Lordships that it is not so much a question of taking a system to pieces as of not putting an existing system into too big units. I think that in the course of discussion on a similar Amendment at the Committee stage, it was said that the present units are as big as can be operated—if not too big. Furthermore, there is the question of proper co-ordination of road and rail—whether it should be from the bottom or whether it should be from the top. I feel strongly that it should actually be done in the regional operating centre. I would remind your Lordships that with regard to one railway, the London and North Eastern, there is a separate operating division for Scotland, and a separate board in charge of a good deal of its affairs. The justification for that, in the special character of the transport requirements, the distances at which people live from centres and so on, is very clear. I feel that not only ought this to be adopted in the case of Scotland, but that it would also be an extremely practical and useful experiment in respect of the application of that kind of system to the rest of the country. I hope that the House will welcome this Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANMy Lords, may I attempt, for one moment, to follow What I might respectfully call the very interesting line of argument which Lord Lindsay of Birker has started? My name is down to an Amendment which follows this, and which really deals with the same principle—that is, the principle of whether or not we can get on in Scotland and similar places without an executive, or, putting it conversely, whether it would be possible for the show to work if we do not have an executive, and every kind of decision has to be referred to London. Let us, for a moment, try to put aside the peculiarly Scottish aspects of the problem, important as they undoubtedly are for Scotland. This does throw into relief the whole of the problem of regional executives. May I suggest that the key to the problem may be found in the question of responsibility? Like Lord Lindsay of Birker, I do not know, but I very much suspect that it is this question of responsibility which is the key to the problem. If you do not have an executive, then it strikes me that you will not have people with sufficient responsibility on the spot, not indeed to change the policy, which must be directed 294 from London, but to implement it in accordance with the local conditions.
As this Bill has been going through Parliament, it has always seemed to me that you must provide for people to exercise sufficient responsibility on the spot. If you do not have these executives— Scottish executives, regional executives—you will find that, although things may be working all right, each in their watertight compartments, under Clause 5, the Railway Executive, the Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive and all the rest, they will not work all right when it comes to a question of co-ordinating the work of one of these big executives regionally with that of the others. That may, or may not be a key to this problem. For my part, I suspect that if you do not provide for this delegation of responsibility in respect not only of Scotland—as I think we should—but of other places—we shall run into one of the worst evils which can develop in connexion with one of these large central organizations; that is tie frightful time lag between the period when a problem arises and the period when it can be solved.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRMy Lords, I should like very much to reinforce what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I can assure the House that there is very strong feeling in Scotland on this question, and that that feeling does not exist in one Party only; it is universal. The feeling is that Scotland should have its own separate management in this connexion. There are things which are peculiar to Scotland, and I do thank most sincerely the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, for the good word which lie has put in for Scotland. I cannot help thinking that it is his Scottish blood which has roused him to-day, as indeed it rouses all of us who have it, when we really do know what we want and what we believe to be best for Scotland. And may I add that what is best for Scotland is best for England and for the Empire? Scots have done great service in the administration of the whole Empire, and if we are not to be allowed to say what we think is best for our own country, then you are simply refusing to acknowledge what everyone admits—that we do play quite an important part in the community of time Empire. If we are not allowed to say what we know our own country wants 295 then I feel quite sure that what the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, has spoken of will come about in due course, notwithstanding that we do not desire it.
Scotland is part of Great Britain, but it has its peculiarities, and I think that all Scots realize that London is not the right place from which to administer Scottish affairs. The late Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Tom Johnston, always said during his period of administration at the Scottish Office: "Scotland first." He was one of the best Secretaries of State that we have ever had. I would like to acknowledge all that he did for Scotland, and to thank him on behalf of the Scottish members of this House. I do ask the Government most seriously to listen to the arguments which have been put forward and to accept this very modest Amendment. If they do so I am sure they will in due course feel very pleased at having taken such a decision, because they will find that the results will be much better, than if the Amendment had been resisted.
§ LORD WALKDENMy Lords, I have been asked to reply for the Government —I am not quite sure why. I have, to the best of my knowledge, no Scottish blood in my veins, but I was fortunate enough to have a Scottish godfather named John Alexander and my mother had me named after him—that is why one of my names is Alexander. I might add that when I was younger I had a fine sandy beard, but that is as near as I can get to being a Scotsman. I assure your Lordships, and the Scottish Peers in particular, that my heart is very warm in its regard for Scotland, and I and all my colleagues, have the fullest sympathy with the sentiments which have been expressed by them and on their behalf. The Government wish to do all they can to meet their feelings in this matter—to do all that they possibly can to meet their feelings. But, I do implore noble Lords not to press this Amendment. I do so, firstly, for operational reasons; secondly, for financial reasons; and thirdly, and altogether, for the sake of Scotland itself.
As some of your Lorships may remember, this matter was considered very carefully twenty-seven years ago. The Ministry of Transport was not set up until 1919, but in 1920, the Minister on behalf of the Coalition Governmen—the National Government, as it was called 296 —issued a White Paper. He had been considering the reorganization of the railways, and in October, 1920, he issued that White Paper to everyone concerned. The trade unions had it, and all the English railway companies had it. Everyone concerned had this White Paper dealing with the question of reorganization of our railways. It proposed that they should be grouped in geographical areas on a regional principle, as for example, the French railways are. France is a square country and it was easy to make a north, east, south and west grouping; but in this country our lines run across each other in a tangle. The grouping idea prevailed and the large number of companies in this country, including five Scottish companies—I remember them vividly—were grouped together. Because of Scottish sentiment the five companies were made into a group and the Government thought that that would suit Scotland very well. The railway directors and managers, however, who were neither poets nor politicans but practical transport men, cried out at once that it would not do to separate Scotland from England. They said: "If we are to have any grouping, let it be longitudinal grouping. Group us in with the English companies for our sake. We can provide them with plenty of men to carry on their work." Their request was met and it was a good progressive measure so far as it went.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe reason for that was to provide competition, the one thing cut out now.
§ LORD WALKDENYou are asking for separation, for a separate Executive. The White Paper proposed separation, and quite definitely postulated the Scottish railways for the Scottish people. The Scottish railway people came and begged us not to do that. I suggest to your Lordships that it is very much better to travel from London to Inverness by way of Perth with the L.M.S., which goes right through, or to travel to Aberdeen on the L.N.E.R. on trains which use the same engine and the same stock. You can have your lunch on the train. I remember having to get a hamper at Kingussie—
VISCOUNT PORTALWhy should you have to interrupt a dinner going to Scotland because there was a separate Executive for Scotland, and why should trains have to stop at Newcastle?
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe noble Marquess was not interrupted in his speech and I must ask that my noble friend should have the same courtesy.
§ LORD WALKDENThat has worked very well. The benefits accruing from the marriage have been very satisfactory. With a separate Executive you would have to pick up all stock going over into Scotland and have a, clearing house to take account of it. The Scottish people would complain that half their stock had come into England and they could not get it back. All these things would need a railway clearing house. You would have to divide receipts on tickets from King's Cross to Aberdeen or from Euston to Inverness; you would have to have agreements for the provision of coal and even for the greasing of the wheels. It could be done, but it would impose a great deal of clerkage. Many of the noble Lords have said that we do not want an increase in personnel. It has been worked on a joint system right through, and your Lordships would be making a very great mistake, and Scotland would be making a great mistake, to dislocate that now. It is in existence and this Bill will improve it in the very way that has been urged.
Under the two great companies, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, knows, each keeps a manager in Edinburgh and Glasgow. The one I knew best was Mr. Ballantyne, himself a Scot, representing the L.M.S., and I cannot remember the name of the manager for the L.N.E.R. These two officials would be left, and, there would be a Scottish managing office, but high policy control of capital expenditure and so forth will naturally be under the direction of the Commission. Day to day operations and management of the services will be under the Scottish Management Office. Two thousand trains cross the Border every week and the difficulty of arranging transfer at the Border is very appreciable and must be avoided. There is no sense in having it. I urge that this Amendment should not be pressed.
On the matter of finance, during the interregnum between 1920, when the White Paper was issued, and 1923, when the amalgamation took place, the Scotish 298 railway managers came to London on behalf of the five companies and begged for a reduction of the rates of pay and hours of work from their point of view. The Scottish employees had for the fist time been put on standard rates of pay and an eight-hour day. The managers said that Scotland was so poor they could not afford to keep this up. The National Wages Board, which was presided over by the first Lord Amulree, heard the pleadings of these managers that they could not maintain the railways on the financial standard of England, and though some slight concessions were given by the Board the managers were quite dissatisfied. The whole burden of the argument was that unless the Scottish railways were run with the English, and enjoyed the financial benefits of the English pool, they could not continue.
All the ambitions and hopes of Scotland will be met to the fullest possible extent by devolution. In addition to the Scottish Management Office they will have their own Consultative Committee, with a member of the Commission on it, and they will be able to get right up alongside the management, a thing which they have not been able to do under the old five companies and even under the two group companies. This Bill enables them to do so, and it is an enormous improvement on the existing system. Do let us try to make a success of the Bill on this firm assurance of the Government that we have done everything we can to meet the needs and desires of Scotland.
§ 4.29 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThe interesting and agreeable reminiscences of the noble Lord have really very little bearing on the Amendment before us. Leaving aside the pleasant interlude which led us to suppose that if we had a separate Scottish Executive all the trains would have to stop at the Border, and that we would have to go back to the era of lunch boxes and baskets—I do not think he really wished us to take that very seriously—his whole argument is that it is financially impossible and that Scotland would suffer gravely if a separate Executive were accepted. The establishment of a Scottish Executive has nothing whatever to do with the control of the finances, nothing at all. The noble Lord, Lord Walkden, referred to "broad policy and great finance." If he would study 299 his own Bill, he would see that broad policy and great finance are not the concern of any of the Executives at all: Those are vested in the Commission. That is what the Commission exist for. The whole structure and purpose of this Bill is based—
§ LORD WALKDENMay I just point out to the noble Viscount that it is laid down that every Executive must keep separate accounts, and on the best commercial principles. All the costings work, and the results in every department should be revealed; and this will be so in the case of Scotland.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONOf course that is laid down. But the fact that you are told to keep an accurate acount does not mean a stipulation as to who is to pay that account. It means that you are going to show—as every decent business does today—what is the expenditure of each department, with proper overhead charges, and whether it is being run at a profit or a loss. Whether you have a Scottish Executive or not, of course the accounts are going to show whether the business pays, or whether it does not pay. They are going to show whether the railways pay as railways, and what the roads pay. One of the things we have all agreed is that these accounts must show exactly where the profit is made, and exactly where the loss is sustained. The whole justification of this Bill is that the financial structure has to be treated as a whole; not only the whole of the railways but everything which is taken over. The Commission have got to make a profit as a whole. The whole justification of this Bill is that the fat has got to feed the lean. That is why we are told we have to have this Bill. The fat railways have got to feed the lean railways and the fat roads have got to feed the lean roads and railways. It really has nothing to do with finance.
The delegation of administration to a regional board does not mean in the least that you will interfere with the finance of this Bill. It does not entail interference with the broad policy of the Bill, because the broad policy is to be laid down by the Commission. The noble Lord says that you cannot possibly regionalize. But there is power under the Bill to regionalize. The next Amendment is in the name of my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman and myself 300 self, and it is designed to make sure that the Commission have full power (as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House last time said they will have) to set up regional executives. The noble Viscount said to me last time: "I am pretty sure there is full power in the Bill for the Commission to set up regional executives; at any rate, that is our intention, and if you put down an Amendment we will make quite sure that that is the case." I understand that there is the fullest power in the Bill to establish regional executives, and if that is so my Amendment will be unnecessary. So far from the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, saying how impossible is this idea of regional executives, the Bill gives the right to the Commission to establish regional executives; and I have not the least doubt that, whether this Amendment is put in or not, the Commission will find in a number of cases that they have to establish regional executives.
One is already provided for in the Bill. What is the London Passenger Transport Executive but a regional executive? It runs the tubes, the buses, the trams, and the suburban traffic of London within a certain area; the whole of that is lumped in a region, and rightly lumped in a region, because it is the only way of working it. If the Bill said nothing at all about how regional executives were to be created, and that the Commission should have a complete discretion to set up executives, whether functional or regional, whether on parallel lines or in large areas, I think there would be something to be said for saying: "Do not put in this one special case for Scotland." But that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says that at the start, at any rate (and we have agreed to this), with the exception of the Landon Passenger Transport Board (since the London region is a special case) these Executives shall be functional. This is very similar to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay. He said: "I know the sentiment of this is right, but I am not sure whether the way of doing it is right." I think it is right to put in that there shall be a Scottish Executive for Scotland.
A very wide latitude is given. In my view the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has been both moderate and wise in this Amendment. He does not fetter the Commission with the details of what this 301 Executive should contain, or how it should be run; that is left to the Commission to decide. But he does claim, as every Scotsman, irrespective of Party or creed, has claimed—and they are reinforcing that claim every day—that, not on the broadest lines of policy but on lines of practical administration, there shall be an effective regional delegation to people who can act on the spot. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, to say that this will not be in the best interests of Scotland. When the Scotsmen are unanimous on what is wise administration and as to what their national needs require, and when those two run together with a sentiment (which is a factor to be taken into account) which reinforces what is perfectly reasonable and right on this occasion, I think that your Lordships would be doing much less than your duty to Scotland, and to the best interests of this Bill, if this Amendment is not taken to a Division if the Government will not accept it.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEMay I, for my information, ask the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, a question about a statement he made just now, that separate accounts would have to be kept for every Executive. I do not know where that is in the Bill. I have looked at Clause 95, which deals with accounts, but that does not mention Executives. It says that separate accounts shall be kept by all the principal activities of the Commission, in accordance with the form prescribed by the Treasury. Where is the reference to Executives having separate accounts?
§ LORD WALKDENObviously, if there are to be supplied to the Houses of Parliament, and to the country, detailed particulars of the cost of operating and the results of business done in every section of this great enterprise, there must be separate accounts. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, indicated that there would be separate accounts for Scotland. There must be separate accounts for Scotland. Therefore, it will involve all the difficulty of keeping separate accounts, of checking up on the question of costings, and running. You will have to do it.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThe great bulk of the traffic is not these through trains. The great bulk of the traffic in Scotland is people travelling about in Scotland.
§ LORD WALKDENBut the very good fat traffic goes over the Border, up and down from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh—and local trains too—to the tune of 1,000 trains a week each way.
LORD BEVRIDGEAm I right, then, in reading this answer as meaning not that the Bill says "Executive" but that it is the noble Lord, Lord Walkden's, interpretation of the Bill? Is that so? There is no reference to Executives.
§ LORD CROMWELLMy Lords, in view of the advice given by the Front Bench on this side of the House and the encouragement given to the noble Earl who moved this Amendment, I do not feel that I can remain silent, and by so doing give tacit approval to the view that this Amendment in itself is right in principle. Even at this closing stage of the debate on the Amendment, I would appeal to those noble Lords who have moved it not to press it to a Division, especially in view of the Amendment which follows. I feel that, if that Amendment were accepted by the Government, or if—as we have been led to believe—it is unnecessary since the power sought already exists, we should be, making a mistake to press the Amendment now before the House. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, explained on a previous Amendment why he did not insist that the Commissioner's hands should be tied in relation to setting up a separate organization for the docks, and I feel that is fairness to that argument he must agree that that same principle should apply in this case.
I agree with the view that he has advanced on this particular Amendment, that as the London Transport Board is given a. separate status the principle has already been conceded. I put in that argument so far as it goes, but I feel that the fact of the London Passenger Transport Board already being an entity does not put it on the same footing as a special district selected at random, of the British Isles, at present all under the Central Government. If this Amendment is insisted upon and passed, it will appear to those outside your Lordships' House that it is a back-door way of preventing the Government from implementing the Bill as a whole. It is an attempt to ham string the general intention of the Government to have one unit.
303 It seems to me that that was the argument which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton used, in so far as he was sure that wisdom would show that the ports ought to continue to be under boards, and that those not under boards, it would be better to place under boards after mature consideration. Quite likely, therefore, regional executives will be set up on the same lines as that suggested for Scotland. But do not let us hamstring Scotland. Let there be a proper investigation, and if it proves right that this Scottish Executive should be set up leave it to the Commission, who will be sensible people, to implement it. Do not let us rush it through here without full knowledge of the facts. I say this not because of the arguments—if the noble Lord, Lord Walkden will forgive me—that he has produced, but, in spite of the arguments that he has produced. The principle is much more important than the details which he tried to elaborate. Therefore, if this is pressed to a Division, I shall be unable to vote for the Amendment.
§ 4.46 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMy Lords, may I add one word to this question that we are considering? Some noble Lords opposite seem to consider that Executives are to have certain independent rights of their own, apart from mere questions of administration, and that if there is a Scottish Executive they will necessarily come into conflict in some way with the rest of the Executives appointed for the docks and for the railways. What I really want to point out is that under this Bill "Executive" is a word which is a little bit misleading. Executives are purely agents of the Commission and they have only the rights which the Commission choose to give them under a scheme approved by the Minister. What I think is contended as an argument for the appointment of a Scottish Executive is that you cannot have an agent appointed for Scotland and an agent appointed for England.
As a lawyer, I am quite unable to understand that at all. It is simply a question of giving your two agents such power as will not conflict with your arranging, when giving them their respective powers, to say that in certain matters they are to act jointly on behalf of the 304 Commission. I cannot understand why it is suggested that there is any impossibility in this, or that the lack of funds of the Scottish agent will lead to difficulty. Of course, the only funds they have, apart from what goes into their hands, and which they have to hand over, are the funds of the Commission. The Executives are not given property; it is the Commission that have property; it is the Commission that are going to hand over to the various railways large sums, but those sums when handed over are not going to be the property of any particular Executive. The division is quite different. I venture to think that, with the true realization as to the legal position of the Executives, a great many of the difficulties which have been suggested will disappear.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMay I intervene for a minute? I can only urge that we should consider this Amendment on its merits as a part of the scheme of the Bill. I would like to assure the noble Earl that this has not been thought of with any nationalistic considerations. Our objection is based purely on what is the best way of running this business, and on no other grounds. I fully appreciate all that he and other noble Lords have said as to the strength of the Scottish feeling on various matters, although, quite frankly, I have not found evidence of it in this respect. But I am well aware of all manner of services which are administered in Scotland—Scottish services (housing, for instance)—and in a few days we shall have before us the Scottish Town and Country Planning Bill. There is a prodigious volume about that and about other matters in which Scotland is entirely self-directed, and so on. It is not any question of anti-Scottish consideration; I implore the noble Lord not to get that idea into his head. The only consideration is: What is the best way of running this business?
So far as the proposal goes, if I understand it aright, there would be an Executive in Scotland on a regional basis. This organization is on a functional basis. Your Railway Executive or your Inland Waterways Executive, or Road Passenger schemes are functional. The London Passenger Transport Board is not a general transport body; it is a passenger body; it carries passengers. If I understand the Amendment aright, this will 305 mean that there will be a body in Scotland which would deal with all the different branches of transport in Scotland—railway, road, goods and passengers. We do not think that is a practical way of doing it, for the reasons my noble friend mentioned. A vast amount of the traffic throughout the island is north and south, and it would be purely arbitrary and rather foolish, it seems to me, to try and de-limit that traffic by the boundary which separates the two countries, which I am happy to think is more imaginary than real, except in our hearts. If that argument were to be applicable, you would certainly have to have a separate transport board for Wales—and why not? But I am quite sure that no business man would recommend that way of dealing with the job; and the same applies here.
I am appealing to the noble Earl, with all the earnestness I can, really to disabuse himself of any thought that there is any question of nationalistic issues involved here at all. It is purely what is the best way to run this business. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is right when he says that the best way of running a business is to conceive of it as a whole, then give your Commission power to delegate and set up regional bodies as the services require. We have already set up a special consultative council for Scotland which is purely Scottish, and I have no doubt at all that there will be many other regional boards to deal with the transport in the Highlands, special passenger facilities, special goods facilities and all that sort of thing. Regional boards will no doubt be created of necessity, and I give the noble Earl complete assurance with respect to the Amendment which is on the Paper.
There is also a complaint that these Executives will be functionary bodies not based on purely geographical boundaries. This is really the best way of carrying on the business of transport. That is the only question, and I entreat the noble Earl not to insist that the best way of carrying on transport is to draw a line across a large volume of the transport running north and south, and say that the top part of this line should be administered 306 by one set of people and the other part by another set of people. It really is not a sensible way of doing it, and I earnestly hope that your Lordships will not insist upon carrying this proposal through.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, if I may briefly reply to the remarks which have been made, I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, that I think it is very remarkable that a Socialist Government should wish to follow haphazardly the views of capitalist organizations of twenty-five years ago. It seems to me it is not very logical, and I know the noble Lord prides himself on being up-to-date. Is this boundary we talk about really so arbitrary? Any glance at the map will show you where the Solway and the Tweed come in. That is a very natural boundary, and a boundary which Hadrian found many years ago, and different problems exist on either side of it. The remark of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that this is an area selected at random, is really going a trifle far. The noble Lord's name is, of course, well known in Scotland! I would only say that if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that every important industry is to be run from London—
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONNo.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKBut that is what is being done in this measure. There is no sort of decentralization of any kind in this measure, nor indeed in any measure which has emerged so far. The consultative committees are not much, but since the noble Lord has eviscerated them—and I think "eviscerate" is a word the noble Lord likes—by not providing them with the power to get information, those councils will be virtually useless. Unless we have people in Scotland and, indeed, in other parts of the country, who are responsible for their own business, we are not going to be able to produce results, and we may perish, as we were threatened yesterday.
§ On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 24.
307| CONTENTS. | ||
| Aberdeen and Temair, M. | Addington, L. | Hazlerigg, L. |
| Airlie, E. | Altrincham, L. | Howard of Glossop, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Amherst of Hackney, L. | Hutchison of Montrose, L. |
| Balfour of Inchrye, L. | Kinnaird, L. | |
| Dudley, E. | Belstead, L. | Llewellin, L. |
| Fortescue, E. [Teller.] | Bingley, L. | Lloyd, L. |
| Grey, E. | Broughshane, L. | Mancroft, L. |
| Iddesleigh, E. | Carrington, L. | Monson, L. |
| Macclesfield, E. | Cherwell, L. | O'Hagan, L. |
| Manvers, E. | Craigmyle, L. | Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.) |
| Munster, E. | Croft, L. | Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) |
| Onslow, E. | Denham, L. | Rankeillour, L. |
| Rothes, E. | Digby, L. | Ravensworth, L. |
| Selkirk, E. | Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) | Rochdale, L. |
| Roche, L. | ||
| Bridgeman, V. | Fairfax of Cameron, L. | Rockley, L. |
| Hill, V. | Gifford, L. | Saltoun, L. |
| Long, V. | Gisborough, L. | Sinclair, L. |
| Maugham, V. | Grantley, L. | Soulbury, L. |
| Portal of Hungerford, V. | Hacking, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Ridley, V. | Hampton, L. | Tweedsmuir, L. |
| Simon, V. | Hatherton, L. [Teller.] | Wolverton, L. |
| Swinton, V. | Hawke, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Marley, L. |
| Morrison, L. [Teller.] | ||
| Drogheda, E. | Dukeston, L. | Nathan, L. |
| Addison, V | Foley, L. | Piercy, L. |
| Hall, V. | Henderson, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| Mersey V. | Holden, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Kershaw, L. | Trefgarne, L. | |
| Ammon, L. [Teller.] | Lindsay of Birker, L. | Uvedale of North End, L. |
| Chorley, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. | Walkden, L. |
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
§
VISCOUNT SWINTON moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the Commission from appointing Regional Executives in respect of such areas as they may determine.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that I am to receive a satisfactory assurance that full power is given to the Commission to appoint regional Executives without these words being inserted in the Bill. In order that I may receive that assurance and that it may be on record, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Swinton.)
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, what the noble Viscount has said is correct, because the clause as drawn is sufficiently wide to enable the organization to be changed, if so desired, to a regional basis.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONAll I want to be sure of is that the Commission could appoint regional Executives, and, on that 308 assurance, and as the matter is safeguarded, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.8 p.m.
§
LORD RANKEILLOUR had given Notice that he would move to leave out subsections (6) and (9). The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments go together, and I am moving the first really for the purpose of getting some clarification of what, on the face of it, seems confused and inconsistent. I raised this point in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Morrison, who replied with his usual courtesy, said he was going to look into it further. I will try to state what the difficulty is. I know the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, said then that he understood the subsection, but still it ought to be
309
clarified for the benefit of lay minds as obtuse as my own. Let me read what subsection (6) says:
Any delegation effected by or under such a scheme may be expressed by the scheme or by the relevant instrument issued thereunder to be subject to conditions and limitations, and, whether or not the relevant delegation is expressed to be subject to any conditions or limitations, every Executive shall, in the exercise of their functions, give effect to any directions which may from time to time be given to them by the Commission.
§
That is perfectly clear, and if that stood alone it would be quite comprehensible. But then we come to subsection (9), and that says:
As respects matters for the time being falling within the scope of any such delegation, the following provisions shall have effect except as between the Executive and the Commission, that is to say—
(a)any rights, powers, and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers, and liabilities of the Executive, and the Executive only;
That appears, on the face of it, to be inconsistent with subsection (6). But then there is the expression "except as between the Executive and the Commission," and I really do not know what that means—whether it means that if the Commission choose to step in and take away some part of the jurisdiction from the Executive they should be able to do so. Perhaps it merely means "saving subsection (6)" to which I have already referred. But then:
any rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers and liabilities of the Executive, and the Executive only.
If that stood by itself one might be able to follow it, but later on in the same clause it seems that if the Executive have an order made against them the Commissioners shall be liable after all, so that their liability remains. I do not put this forward in any specially critical spirit; in fact not in any critical spirit at all; but I do think there is a real confusion, and I hope it will be cleared up. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 44, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Rankeillour.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I have been asked to reply. If I may say so, I do not really think that the difficulty is very acute. The noble Lord has taken a convenient course in referring to his three Amendments. May 310 I point out to him, first of all, what the position is as between the Commission and the Executive? The Executive are mere agents of the Commission, as the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, has explained. The Commission can give them instructions, and these instructions can be either limitations in the instrument of delegation itself or can be given afterwards. That is the position as between the Commission and the Executive. Now you have got to consider the next proposition: What is the position as between the Executive and some third party? As between the third party and the Executive, the third party may look to the Executive as though they were principals. He may, therefore, deal with the Executive and the Executive will be responsible to him. He may bring his action, if there is any question of an action, against the Executive, and for that purpose the servants of the Commission shall be deemed to be the servants of the Executive.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMOught you not to say "must" instead of "may"?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think that is right; I am obliged to the noble Viscount. The third party must bring his action against the Executive, and he must treat the Executive as though there were no Commission behind them at all. Then, supposing he brings his action and recovers a judgment of £100, or whatever you like, obviously, since the Executive have no money of their own, unless they happen to have some cash in the till, it is quite obvious that the Commissioners there come in and satisfy the judgment; therefore the Commission must be responsible for seeing that any judgment is carried out. I think if the noble Lord will realize those two conceptions, the position between the Commission and the Executive, and the Executive and the third party, this is indicated by the words "the following provision shall have effect except as between Executive and the Commission." The position between the Executive and the Commission has been dealt with in Clause 6, and indeed in Clause 4 subsection (4), and it is quite plain. I hope that explains the matter to the noble Lord. I quite appreciate his difficulty, but I think if he looks at the clause in that light he will see that I am correct.
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMy Lords, I accept, and I think I am beginning to understand, some of the meanings of those words, and I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but always with a hope that some struggling and impecunious barristers may derive benefit from those words being in the Act.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, on the Amendment moved on the Committee stage by Lord Rankeillour, Viscount Maugham raised a point about the liability of an Executive to be sued, and the procedure for obtaining payment by the Commission of damages awarded against an Executive. The purpose of the present Amendment is to make it clear that, without further proceedings, the Commission is liable to pay if a judgment against an Executive is outstanding for more than fourteen days. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 35, at end, insert ("and that judgment or order shall be enforceable against the Commission accordingly"). — (Lord Morrison.)
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I do not think there can be any objection to this, indeed I think it is an advantage. If I am not delaying the proceedings, I wish the Lord Chancellor would explain to me why this clause is constructed in this way. It very clearly states that the Executive are agents of the Commission, and, in the ordinary way, if a man has got a claim against somebody whom he knows to be an agent for a principal, he sues the principal, because it is the best thing to do, and in this case the principal has the money and the agent has not. I confess that I am puzzled why it is done in this way. I do not appreciate what the advantage is. When you say that the Executive is the agent of the Commission, and somebody wants to make a claim, why do you say that he must not make it against the Commission, he must make it against the agent, but, as the agent has no money, the Commission must pay?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIs not the reason simply this? It is to show that in this case we do want to make decentralization really complete, and we want, therefore, to treat the Executive in this case as the complete master of the situation, instead of having what otherwise would be the case, that the Executive 312 would have to refer back to the Commission to get authority to do this, that or the other, or everything would be dealt with at the centre. It is to achieve that very decentralization which your Lordships have been pressing upon us that we thought this was a convenient course.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI dare say that is right, but if the man sues the Executive he may lose his action and be liable for costs. If it concerns something taken by a railway porter to the railway station from the railway hotel, it is very difficult to decide which of the Executives should be sued.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.18 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to insert, in subsection (9):
Provided also that where any cause of action accrues before an Executive is abolished under the provisions of this section legal proceedings in respect thereof shall upon the abolition of such Executive be brought or continued by and against the Commission.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to provide for a somewhat unusual event, but one which might lead to considerable legal difficulty. Executives may be abolished, and if you bring an action against an Executive for so much—and it may be a large sum —you will be very puzzled, unless provision is made in the Bill, to know what happens to you when the person you are suing suddenly is abolished or extinguished, or disappears. In order to provide that somebody else should go on with the action and do all the things that are necessary as the defendants, if they are disposed to fight it out, I and others thought it would be desirable to insert the words on the Order Paper, that if the Executive is abolished "legal proceedings in respect thereof shall, upon the abolition of such Executive, be brought or continued by and against the Commission." I think it is an event which will not happen very often, but it is worth while to provide against it or there will be difficulties. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 35 at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Maugham.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI always hesitate to say anything on these legal matters, but I am advised that in subsection (11) 313 the situation which the noble Viscount anticipates is fully provided for. I am also advised that it would be entirely inconsistent with the general scheme in Clause 5, to provide that in case of abolition proceedings should lie against the Commission themselves. That, I should imagine, covers the position anticipated by the noble and learned Viscount. I am advised that the words in subsection (11) really cover quite adequately the point which has been raised. I am not, I am afraid, legally qualified to give any further opinion.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMay I ask the noble Viscount to be good enough to tell me precisely what the words are so that I may follow his argument?
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI am advised that it would be entirely inconsistent with the general scheme of Clause 5, as originally drawn, to provide that in case of abolition proceedings should lie against the Commission themselves. That appears to be the case which the noble and learned Viscount anticipated in his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONIs not that merely saying that my noble and learned friend's Amendment would be perfectly consistent with the Bill?
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONYes, I suppose that is so.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONThen had the Amendment better not be accepted?
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI understand that the Bill does not require the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMIt is no doubt my fault, but I seem to be completely misunderstanding what the noble Viscount has said. The question is whether the proposed Amendment is necessary or not. The noble Viscount refers to subsection (11). But that deals with functions previously directly exercisable by the Commission. The subsection states:
Where the Commission abolish an Executive, or the effect of a scheme under subsection (4) of this section is that functions previously directly exercisable by the Commission are exercisable by an Executive, or that functions previously exercisable by an Executive are exercisable by a different Executive or directly by the Commission, the Commission may make such transitional provisions as appear to them to be expedient. …314 Those are the functions which are transferred from one person to another. I do not quite know that that explains the point, to which I am referring, where there is abolition of an Executive. It may be that when the Executive is abolished the functions of that Executive may be transferred to another. Even so, it would only be a transference of the functions.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, if I might presume to interpose again, I think I do follow what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is saying. He extracts, and I think quite legitimately extracts, certain words out of subsection (11). If one reads it continuously one sees what he means. If you extract certain words it says:
Where the Commission abolish an Executive"—now leave out a number of words that follow and go on—the Commission may make such transitional provisions as appear to them to be expedient, including provisions as to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued.I understand that to mean that it will be in the power of the Commission, if they think fit, to make provision which would meet the point raised by my noble and learned friend, Lord Maugham. This is a question with respect to whether it ought to be left that the Commission will have power to make such provision or whether it ought to be put in as the Amendment provides. Is not my noble and learned friend justified in saying that it should be stated in the Bill that if someone has a claim against an Executive, and the Executive is abolished, he shall be able to go on with his claim? The difference is between the power given to the Commission to make the arrangements and a provision in the Bill that it must be so.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I am afraid that our proceedings are entirely irregular, for on the Report stage we are only supposed to speak once on each matter. And I must say that it is with great trepidation that I take part in a discussion with two ex-Lord Chancellors. I was advised that the words at the top of page 10 of the Bill which have been quoted do cover Viscount Maugham's point, and they are conditioned by various matters which go before them in the subsection. I hope that 315 the noble and learned Viscount will not insist on having this put in now. I promise that I will discuss the matter with persons who are more learned in the law than. I am, and will, perhaps, confer with the noble and learned Viscount before the Third Reading. I trust that he will be satisfied with that.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMI cannot quite see why it should be more appropriate to put this in at a later stage. Surely the best moment is at the Report stage, if it seems desirable that something of this sort should be inserted. As a concession to my noble friend, though I do not think he is right in saying that a later stage is a proper time to put this in, I shall be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, the next Amendment which I move on behalf of my noble friends the Marquess of Salisbury and Viscount Swinton, to subsection (11), is really consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("the Commission may make such transitional provisions as appear to them") and insert ("the scheme may include, or where there is no such scheme, the Minister may by order make, such transitional provisions as appear to the Commission and to the Minister.").—(Lord Teynham.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONWe have already expressed our views on this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.25 p.m.
§ Clause 6:
§ Consultative Committees.
§ (4) Every such Committee as aforesaid shall consist of such number of persons appointed by the Minister as the Minister may from time to time determine, being—
- (a) an independent chairman;
- (b) members appointed, after consultation with such bodies representative of the interests concerned as the Minister thinks fit, to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, shipping, labour and local authorities; and
§ Provided that—
- (i) in the case of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, the persons nominated by the Commission shall include at least one member of the Commission; and
- (ii) members need not be appointed under paragraph (b) of this subsection to any Transport Users Consultative Committee to represent any of the interests mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection which in the opinion of the Minister need not be represented on that Committee.
§ (7) Every Committee appointed under this section shall consider and, where it appears to the Committee to be necessary, make recommendations in regard to any matter (including charges) affecting the services and facilities provided by the Commission which has been the subject of representations (other than representations which appear to the Committee to be frivolous) made to the Committee by users of those services or facilities, or which appears to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given, or which the Minister or Commission may refer to them for consideration; and every such Committee shall meet when convened by the chairman thereof, but in no case less frequently than twice a year, and, without prejudice to the discretion of the Chairman to call a meeting of the Committee whenever he thinks fit so to do, he shall call a meeting thereof when required so to do by any three members of the Committee.
§ LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) to leave out "an independent" and insert "a." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment moved for the purpose of clarification. It was raised by me in the Committee stage, and my noble friend Lord Morrison, I remember, said that he would look into it with a view to seeing what exactly was implied by "independent." I think, if I remember rightly, that he did say that "independent" in this connexion meant someone who was not interested in any of those five subjects—agriculture, commerce, industry, shipping, or labour organizations. If that is really the meaning I suggest that that ought to be made clear, otherwise it does not seem very easy to see what "independent chairman" would mean, and of what or whom he is to be independent. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("an independent") and insert ("a").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I am afraid I am still very perplexed as to what the noble Lord wants. Even if we do leave out the words "an independent" it does not seem to me to make any material difference. The effect of the Amendment is to substitute "a chairman" for "an independent chairman." 317 The reason for putting in the word "independent" I should imagine is so that it should be understood that the person concerned was not himself personally interested, in the ordinary meaning of the word "interested"—that is, financially or otherwise—in the matters which came before him. In that sense he would be independent. What else it means I cannot imagine. I cannot imagine anyone being appointed chairman unless he was independent. In any case, I should have thought there was great advantage in having the words in. Having them in does mean that the man concerned is not grinding any particular axe.
I certainly think it is better to leave the wording as it is, and I cannot follow what the noble Lord is driving at. I read this in the light of the next Amendment, which is also in the name of the noble Lord. He specifies there that the chairman must not be a person interested in agriculture, commerce, industry, shipping or labour organizations. I must say that that struck me as a very extensive category. If he was not interested in any of those matters what would he be interested in? Of course, he might be a poet or a musician.
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMay I say that Lord Morrison said "You will always be able to get some professional man."
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI was merely indulging in a little recital. It was suggested to me that a person who was not interested in any of the matters specified would be a Bishop. If we exclude a person interested in any item of this catalogue we should be excluding from the ambit of these bodies a large number of extraordinarily suitable people. I cannot imagine any useful purpose could be served here by knocking out "independent" and by including this list. I should have thought the sensible thing to do would have been to have some one who knew something about the matter. I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMy Lords, what I was getting at was what the noble Viscount has just interpreted it as meaning, that an independent chairman was a chairman not interested in these things and not a member of a local authority. If it is clear from the wording that that is the proper construction, I agree that there 318 is no particular need to expand it. It certainly was not made clear before, although Lord Morrison said he thought that would be the interpretation. Now, if the noble Viscount says it is the interpretation, I do not press the need for further words and am pleased to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD GIFFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to add "and the interests of the travelling public" to paragraph (b) in subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that members of the travelling public are represented on these consultative committees. I mean people like the season ticket holder and the commercial traveller. I gave the example of Billy Brown of London Town last time I spoke on a similar Amendment in Committee. I admit that he may have been rather an unfortunate selection because he is a stupid little man. At that time it was observed there was no body representative of the interests of the travelling public. I do not know whether it is necessary to have such a body, but if Lord Morrison wants to have one, one has been recently formed for the travelling public in the London area. I think I am right in saying a large number more will be formed in the next year or two and may make themselves quite a nuisance to the unfortunate Commission. However, that is by the way.
§ LORD MORRISONThe difficulty about appointing Billy Brown of London Town is that there are millions of them.
LORD GIFFORDThere is now this body, I do not know if it is a large one but I think it will increase. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has an Amendment down immediately following this and if I could have his assurance that these two additional members are really to be the kind of people I want to have represented on this consultative committee, I would be prepared not to move my Amendment.
§ LORD WALKDENI can give the noble Lord the necessary assurance. The power to add two additional members to the consultative committee without defining whom they shall specifically represent was intended to meet this point and to provide that the travelling public may 319 possibly be directly represented. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
§ LORD WALKDENMy Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, leave out ("and").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALKDENMy Lords, I beg to move this Amendment for the reasons already given.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11 line 13, at end insert ("and
(iii) the Minister may, if he thinks fit, appoint to any such committee not more than two additional members")—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD ADDINGTON had given Notice of an Amendment to add to proviso (ii) in subsection (4) the words "but this proviso shall not apply to members to represent the interests of the travelling public." The noble Lord said: My Lords I am in a little difficulty, as this Amendment was intended to refer to the Amendment which Lord Gifford has not moved. Its intention was that the additional members to represent the public should always be allowed on each Committee and never excluded. But I think the words are now out of place and if I can have an assurance that that will be arranged, I will not move.
§ 5.35 P.m.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, in subsection (7), after "consideration" to insert "and for the purpose of the proper discharge by them of their functions the Commission shall provide every such Committee with such information as they may reasonably require in regard to the matters to be considered by them." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I beg to move the Amendment standing in our names and that of Lord O'Hagan. It is similar to the Amendment moved by us on the Committee stage. I am sorry to say we on these Benches did not feel that the reply 320 of the Government quite took us all the way we should want to go. The object of the Amendment was to make quite sure that the Consultative Committees were really live bodies, that they were not dummies or stooges or part of the window dressing, that they were bodies who were given all the information they wanted and that they were entitled to ask for it and get it. In fact, that they could contribute something really valuable towards the running of this huge undertaking.
§ We got a reply from the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in Committee. He asked whether anybody could imagine an authority or committee which would be asked to look into something and refused any necessary help or information. Of course not. There is going to be a member of the Commission on the Committee to see the Committee work properly and with full authority and there are officers and premises. Surely, he said, it necessarily follows from that that the Commission are going out of their way to make these Committees a success. I am afraid that with the best will in the world might not follow that people are going out of their way to make the committee a success merely because there is a staff and premises and a member of the Commission on the Committee. You could in theory, and maybe you can in practice, use all that as a device to blanket the Committee. It is perfectly easy for the Committee to have deliberations without it being provided with information. It may not be convenient to provide it with the information. It may be that some cats will come out of the bag if the information is provided. I hope it is not this way.
§ It seems quite clear from the reply given by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that the intention is that these Committees shall be real, effective and efficient bodies. If that is so, I cannot see why the Government cannot accept our Amendment and undertake to give the Committees the information. But supposing they cannot accept the Amendment, we are left with a not very pleasant inference, which is that they wish to withhold information from these Committees. I have put it rather plainly, but it is either one thing or the other. I hope I have put the wrong construction on what I think is the Government's attitude on 321 Committee stage. If I have, it seems to me there must be some reason which has not yet been disclosed why the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself cannot be accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 33, after ("consideration") insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bridgeman).
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, I do not think this Amendment is so important as the noble Viscount indicated. The simple explanation is that it is surely not necessary to burden the Commission with the statutory duty of supplying a great deal of information. I know, as one who has taken some part in public affairs, like every other noble Lord, that one of the bugbears is the mass of paper and material poured into them from public Departments. We are always hearing that plaint and the noble Lord himself, who has served on many bodies and Committees, knows that a great deal more information is sent to him from Government Departments than he has either time to read or the inclination to study. It is because the Government do not wish the Commission to be burdened with this statutory duty to send Willy nilly to every member—
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANI apologize for interrupting for a moment, but I must point out at this stage that we are asking that the Committee shall be provided with the information which they may reasonably require. We are not asking, and certainly would not ask, that officials at Whitehall should shower paper on the Committee.
§ LORD MORRISONThe answer to that, again, is surely that in this year of grace it is unnecessary. If the people who are appointed to these Committees are not getting the information they require, the obvious thing will be for them to resign from the Committee. No self-respecting person is going to serve on a Committee in any capacity if he is denied the information he reasonably wants. It does seem to me that the spirit of the Amendment is wrong. It seems to assume that the Government have some ulterior motive in appointing a Committee, and will give the Committee as little information as possible so that they cannot come to reasonable decisions. I am advised that it is not necessary to have this in the Bill, and I hope that, on consideration 322 the noble Viscount will not wish to press the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANMy Lords; I believe that I speak again only with the leave of the House, but I am bound to say that I am not really satisfied with the noble Lord's reply. It may be that it is unnecessary, but if it is unnecessary to put in these words, why is it necessary so often in another place, when a Committee are appointed, that that Committee should be empowered, in so many words, to send for persons, papers and records? That, I think, is the normal procedure. After all, it is not really a question of necessity. Either this thing is going to work, in which case it will not burden anybody, or it is going to be used as a reason for not providing the information. But I think we have got as far as we can now. It will be the duty of this House to see whether these Consultative Committees are really efficient bodies, and whether they are getting the information, or whether pretexts are found for withholding the information from them. It may be that some of the members will have to resign. As the noble Lord has said, we shall all see. As I do not wish to take this into the Lobby, I beg leave to with-draw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, on behalf my noble friend Viscount Swinton, I would just like to say that, in view of the Government Amendment on the Order Paper after Clause 115, I do not propose to move the Amendment relating to the protection of travel agencies, standing in his name and that of Lord Gifford.
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, may I just say a few words on this? I would like to thank the noble Lords opposite for the Amendment which they propose after Clause 115. However, I wonder if I may suggest one small addition to the wording. I do not know whether this is the right time to do it.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONIf the noble Lord. would like to mention it now, we will come to it in due course.
LORD GIFFORDAs the noble Viscount knows, after the Commission take over they will have everything that the independent travel agent requires; that 323 is to say, sleeping berths, seating reservations, and so forth. As I said on the Committee stage, I do not think it is quite good enough to have just a passive, pious hope against discrimination. There will have to be some servant of the Commission who will be concerned actively to see that the independent agent receives his fair share. Otherwise, I think it is only human nature that he will not. The proposed new clause reads:
The Commission shall secure that, in the treatment, in like circumstances, of travel agencies, no discriminatory practices are introduced"—and there I would like to see added the words—or permitted after the date of transferand so on. Perhaps that could be considered.
§ LORD WALKDENWe will consider that matter, and perhaps the noble Lord will raise it again when we reach the relevant clause.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Clause 18:
§ Suspension of dividend payments, etc.
§ (3) If any interest is paid, or any dividend declared or paid, or any repayment or distribution of capital is made in contravention of this section by any body, all the directors of the body shall be jointly and severally liable to make good to the Commission any damage, which the Commission suffer by reason of the declaration or payment.
§
VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subsection (3), at the end to insert:
Provided that a director shall not be liable under this subsection if he proves that the payment, declaration or distribution was made without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent contravention of this section as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions as a director and in all the circumstances.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which is put in as the result of a promise made during the Committee stage, which I think makes quite clear the limitation of the liabilities of directors. I think it carries out faithfully what was promised, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMy Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Viscount for this Amendment, which substantially carries out something which I believe to be essentially just and proper, and in the interests of the public. I need not enlarge upon it, because the lily does not need to be gilded. There is, however, one thing I would like to say in regard to the last words, "and in all the circumstances." This is a very common phrase in law, and as the circumstances must be relevant we always put in the words, "in all the circumstances of the case"; because it is only the circumstances of the case which have to be looked at by the Judge. It does not really matter, because I am quite sure, as a matter of construction, that a Judge who had such a case before him and saw the words, "in all the circumstances," would say at once that that meant, "in all the circumstances of the case." But those words are so often inserted, that I am not sure whether the noble Viscount would not prefer to have the usual tag at the end of the clause, if the House considers that it is proper. However, I am really quite content with the clause as it stands, and, as I said before, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI thank the noble and learned Viscount, and I will certainly make inquiry into those words.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 25 [Application of preceding provisions to local authorities]:
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThis is a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 13, leave out from the beginning to the second ("the") in line 14.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (9) to insert:
(10) Where the transport undertaking of a local authority is transferred to the Commission or any other body under the provisions of this Act the moneys forming any reserve fund established by such local authority for the general purposes of that undertaking shall not be transferred to the Commission or such other body.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is to clarify a statement which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, in reply to a question which I
325
asked in regard to local authorities, and in particular as to the position of reserves attached to or connected with transport undertakings belonging to local authorities. I asked whether these reserves would be free and left with the local authorities. The reply I received, on examination of the Amendment, certainly did not snake it clear that that was the case. Accordingly, I put down this Amendment in order to clarify what appears to be the intention of His Majesty's Government, and to make it beyond question that the reserves will not be taken over in the event of a municipal undertaking being brought into a scheme, under whatever Act it may be.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD WALKDENMy Lords, this Amendment is put down under Part II of the Bill, but that relates only to railways and canals. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no municipal authorities which possess a railway. I think one of them has a canal—the Nottingham Corporation —and they are properly covered all through the Bill. So far as the intention of this clause is concerned, they have no reserves whatever, so the words do not apply to them at all. It would be a mistake to insert any such words here. This part of the Bill really has nothing to do with what we discussed in regard to municipal undertakings the other day, because that was under the clause which deals with them. This is under the railway section. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, speak again? The noble Lord, Lord Walkden, appears to have missed the point. If the noble Lord will look at the Eighth Schedule, paragraph 1 (1) (a), he will see that it refers to:
provision for compensation to that local authority, joint committee, joint board, joint authority or combined body, which is, in the opinion of the Minister, identical, as near as may be, with the provision made in the case of transfers under Part II of this Act.That is precisely the Part to which reference was made. It appears to me that all the local authority undertakings will be taken over in a manner similar to that laid down under Part II.
§ LORD WALKDENPart II relates only to railways, and really what the noble Lord has now cited does not bear on this at all. Only the canal, belonging to the Nottingham Corporation, is affected here, and that is properly dealt with all through the Bill. This Amendment would not apply.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI hesitate to continue the discussion, but I am afraid it is abundantly clear that under the Eighth Schedule the road undertakings, including those belonging to municipal authorities, are taken over as near as may be under Part II. Does the noble Lord deny that?
§ LORD WALKDENI understood they came under Part III "Transport of goods by road" is under Part III. Part. IV is "Other Forms of Transport and Port Facilities." Railways and canals are excluded from this part.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKBut look at the Eighth Schedule. It says:
Provided that, in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act which provides for the transfer of the whole or any part of any undertaking.It will be transferred under Part II of this Act; that means that the terms of transfer are laid down in Part II for schemes under Part IV. Might I ask the noble Lord to look at this again before the Third Reading? On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 39:
§ Certain road transport undertakings to be acquired by Commission.
§ 39.—(1) Where the Commission are of opinion with respect to an undertaking the activities of which consist wholly or partly of the operation of any vehicles authorised to be used under any A licence or B licence—
- (a) that the undertaking or any part thereof was carried on (whether by the same person or not) during the whole or any part of the year nineteen hundred and forty-six; and
- (b) that the activities of the undertaking in that year, so far as they consisted of the carriage of goods in goods vehicles (being vehicles with respect to which a licence, of whatever class, was in force), consisted to a predominant extent of ordinary long distance carriage for hire or reward,
§ (2) In this Part of this Act, the expression "ordinary long distance carriage" means, in relation to an undertaking, the carriage of goods by the person carrying on the undertaking for a distance of eighty miles or upwards in one goods vehicle or a succession of goods vehicles, in such circumstances that the vehicle, or, as the case may be, one or more of the vehicles is, at some time during the carriage, more than fifty miles from its operating centre:
§ Provided that the carriage of goods in a vehicle authorised for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, the carriage of liquids carried in bulk in a tank permanently fixed to the vehicle, or in a tank not so fixed of which the capacity is not less than five hundred gallons, ordinary furniture removals, the carriage of meat, the carriage of milk, the carriage of livestock and any carriage effected wholly in vehicles specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads shall not be treated as ordinary long distance carriage.
§ 5.53 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT ADDISON moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
("Provided that if the Commission, having due regard to their duties under subsection (1) of section three of this Act, are of the opinion that, by reason of the special character of an undertaking which fulfils the aforementioned conditions, or by reason of the goods carried or the locality served by that undertaking, it is expedient to make an exception in that case, the Commission may enter into an agreement with the person carrying on that undertaking that, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the agreement, a notice of acquisition shall not be given with respect thereto or, as the case may be, that, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the agreement, a notice of acquisition duly given, shall be withdrawn; and where any such agreement is concluded, the Commission shall be released from their duty under this subsection to give a notice of acquisition with respect to that undertaking, but may, if they think fit, give such a notice, in the event of any breach of the conditions specified in the agreement, and any notice of acquisition so given shall have effect as if no such agreement had been entered into.")
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment, which is rather a long one, is put down in pursuance of an undertaking that was given during the Committee stage, and it was drafted, as I think we called it in our discussions, as a "let-out clause"—to give the Commission the option not to have to take over certain concerns which it was quite reasonable should not be taken over. Various illustrations were given, and I promised to submit an Amendment to try to provide the necessary latitude. May I say in regard to it that I do not think the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, 328 which is repeated later on, is really a reasonable one. There might be cases such as a bus from a railway hotel, or something of that sort. There is no necessity to limit it. I am quite sure that in my Amendment I have done everything I could to give effect to all reasonable requests, and I think it meets thorn.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting, after "undertaking" where that word occurs a second time: "by reason of the undertaking consisting of not more than one vehicle." The noble Earl said: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for moving this Amendment and I am moving the addition of these words to it as only a small point. I think, however, that we all feel that it should not be necessary to extend a big scheme of nationalization to cover single vehicles. The case of the one vehicle is in a very special position. Locke, it was, I think, who said that property essentially is that with which you mix your labour, to which you add something yourself. That is indeed the most profound basis of property you can have. We are placing on the Commission a mandatory obligation to take over in certain circumstances—
§ LORD WALKDENThis Amendment is the very thing that does not make it mandatory; it makes it optional. That is the purpose of the Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKIn certain circumstances, by reason of the fact that only one vehicle is possessed, that is a reason for not taking it over. I would prefer to move my Amendment with the addition of the word "or"; I do not mean to restrict in any way the noble Viscount's Amendment. There should be three reasons for which the Commission's obligation would not be mandatory: (1) by reason of the goods carried; (2) by reason of the locality served; or (3) by reason of the fact that the undertaking possessed only one vehicle. If the noble Lord finds it too extensive I do not wish to press it, but I feel it is a pity that the Commission should not be free to leave certain undertakings with only one vehicle. I beg to move.
§
Amendment to proposed Amendment moved—
Line 5, after ("undertaking") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD WALKDENIt would be exceedingly unlikely that this would happen. I do not want a statutory limitation of this kind in the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI would like to alter the wording of my Amendment to read:
or by reason of the undertaking not consisting of not more than one vehicle.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONSo far as the clause itself goes, the Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the House, I think, fully carries out the undertaking which he gave, and it is admirably drafted for the purpose. He and I and, I believe, my friends, desire that there should be a discretion given to the Commission that in any special case, if they thought it was right to do so, they should be free not to take over an undertaking or, if they had given notice to take it over, they could cancel the notice. It seems to me that this Amendment is admirably drafted to carry that out. I have great sympathy with the one-man case. That was not specifically referred to in our discussion on the clause to which this Amendment is intended to give what the Leader of the House calls a "let out," but would not it, in fact, be possible for the Commission, without the words which the noble Earl is proposing to add, to "let out" a one-man business, because it is a one-man business? They can "let out" a business by reason of the special character of an undertaking, or by reason of goods carried, or by reason of the locality. The Commission could say, "Well, here is a one-man business; we think it would be very bad luck to take it over." They could say to all one-man businesses, "We do not want to take over any of these because of the special circumstances."
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI am quite sure that is a reasonable interpretation. The only objection I have is that I do not want this statutory undertaking to be binding in all cases on the Commission. This clause will be very sensibly interpreted, I am quite sure, as the noble Viscount has suggested.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKIt is no statutory limitation; in fact, it is an extension of the powers of the Commission, because it enables them for another reason not to take certain mandatory duties. If the noble Viscount has difficulty in accepting my Amendment which would allow the Commission discretion in regard to taking over an undertaking with only one vehicle, I will not press it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
§ 6 p.m.
§ LORD BEVERIDGE moved in subsection (2), after "of" ["carriage of goods," where that phrase first occurs] to insert "the same." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to clarify, so far as possible, the process of determining, by doing a large number of arithmetical sums, which undertakings shall be taken over and which shall not. The Amendment is independent of the number, whether it should be the distance of eighty miles as it is in the Bill as it now stands, or the original distance of forty miles which was in the Bill when it was introduced. It is quite independent of whether it is fifty miles or twenty-five miles from the operating centre. The question which I think does need clarification is this. Take the present limit and take the sums which have to be done when a survey of all the journeys made by an undertaking which is on the border line is being taken over in the year 1946. If that undertaking sends its goods for sixty miles and at the other end picks up different goods and brings them back the sixty miles, is that a journey which counts as long distance haulage or is it not? That question will have to be settled, because it will arise.
§ The intention of my Amendment is to make it clear that if you contract to take out goods for less than eighty miles, it is not made long distance by the fact that when you get to the other end you pick up other goods and carry them back. That question has to be made clear, because the clerks who draft the forms of instruction to be filled up by the transport undertakings will have to know what they are to say on this matter. My first impression on reading this clause was that if you took goods out for sixty miles and 331 another lot of goods back for sixty miles, that would count as a long-distance journey. I think it is equally possible to argue that it was not, and that in fact my Amendment is not necessary, but I cannot see that it would do any harm. If it is the intention of the Government that it is only long distance if you contract to carry the same parcel of goods for more than the prescribed distance, and is not made long distance by your carrying other goods, then I think there is no harm in accepting my Amendment. I put the Amendment down only in the spirit of helping to clarify the work of the Commission, and not in any way desiring to make it more difficult. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 23, after ("of") insert ("the same").—(Lord Beveridge.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I must confess that I never suspected that clarification was the motive of the noble Lord. I also remember that earlier in the day he was the champion against the "shall nots." I ask him to consider what will be the effect of this Amendment on the "shall nots." With his Amendment the subsection would read as follows:
In this Part of the Act, the expression 'ordinary long distance carriage' means in relation to an undertaking, the carriage of the same goods by the person carrying on the undertaking for a distance of eighty miles ….In other words he has to carry the whole lot eighty miles. He cannot as a matter of convenience pick up some other goods half way along, but he must carry them eighty miles. I cannot imagine a more completely unreasonable Amendment, and I am sorry to say that I cannot possibly accept it.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEI must say that the noble Viscount has absolutely and completely misunderstood the effect of the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI have read the Amendment into the clause, and that is what it does.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEThat is not so. The fact that you carry the same goods does not mean that you cannot collect other things as well.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONYes, it does.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEIt does not mean that. If the clerks who prepare the sums to be solved by the transport undertakings know whether it is a long distance journey if you carry goods sixty miles up and another set of goods sixty miles back, then it is a simple question. But it will have to be answered in a large number of cases, and I wish the noble Viscount would endeavour to answer that question. I am quite willing to accept his answer.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI will certainly inquire into that question, but it is certainly not the question raised by the Amendment.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEYes, it is.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONIt is nothing whatever to do with the Amendment.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEI am sorry that the noble Viscount will not have the kindness and the courtesy to answer the perfectly simple question I have asked him. He has simply decided he will not answer me.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONNo.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELSurely it ought to be possible to answer the noble Lord's question: Does it mean one journey or does it mean the journey there and back?
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe journey of eighty miles clearly means the distance travelled. It might be a journey there and it might include a journey back. If it was more than eighty miles then it would be outside the radius. But I am not affected by that question. The effect of the Amendment is to make the clause read, "of the same goods." It is nothing whatever to do with the journey, but it has to be the same goods.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELThe way of effecting my noble friend's purpose may be a matter for discussion. It may be that this is not the best form of Amendment to achieve his object. His object is that those concerned in the industry and all the world should know whether the eighty miles is a straight line, or whether it may be a journey there and back. If the latter —and I do not doubt it is the intention of the Government—I do not know that you would be able to administer the clause at all in those circumstances. However, the matter certainly does need clarification and that is all my noble friend asks.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI am afraid I do not see the point, but eighty miles is the distance. It is not necessarily in a straight line. It may be entirely circuitous, and if it does not go outside the eighty mile limit then it would not be within the definition. This definition of eighty miles is clearly eighty miles by road from one place to another.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEObviously, I am not going to press this Amendment, which was only meant to be helpful. I still hope the Government will put their mind to it and not assume that everything I do is to make the thing harder. They have not answered a question which will have to be answered in large numbers of cases, which is whether eighty miles must refer to some one parcel of goods or not, or whether it refers to a journey in which there may be different parcels of goods. If the Government will consider that question before they issue their instructions, I think they may still find it desirable to put down an Amendment on this point. I am sorry that the Government have not considered the real difficulties of what they are asking people to do. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 6.10 p.m.
§ LORD ROCHDALE moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "gallons," to insert "the carriage of goods of a special character which, under any statutory provision specifically relating thereto, may only be carried in a vehicle constructed or adapted so as to comply with the requirements of that provision and which are being so carried." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to Clause 52, which was accepted, regarding the carriage of goods in vehicles specially constructed to meet various statutory provisions. This Amendment to Clause 39 is to avoid a certain degree of inconsistency which will occur in a few cases. In moving it I would like to point out that the wording I have used is the same as the wording used by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in his Amendment to Clause 52, which is an Amendment rewording the one that I moved in Committee. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 34, after ("gallons") insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, may I ask you to excuse me here with regard to this clause? There is a group of Amendments, all of which relate to the same kind of topic. We shall accept the Amendment; and it is, as the noble Lord says, in the words that we ourselves should wish to use. But there are a number of Amendments to this clause with respect to the types of vehicle, and it might be convenient if I were to make one general statement to cover the lot.
We propose to put in an Amendment now which carries out an undertaking given to the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Burleigh. There is another, at the bottom of page 50, line 37, which covers the conditional promise made with regard to ancillary vehicles of different kinds. I undertook that we world look into that, and I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied in that respect that we have carried out our undertaking, There are a number of other Amendments concerning the type of vehicles, carriage of fresh fruit and other goods, and then there is one, affecting materials in bulk, and another one in respect to loads. We have given the most sympathetic attention but I am sorry that we shall not be able to accept them, except the three I have mentioned, all of which have been drawn to give effect to a promise made in the Committee stage. I hope, with that explanation, that your Lordships will not press these Amendments.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I do not know, in view of the general statement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, whether this is the moment to comment on a particular Amendment which he has been so good as to put on the paper in relation to timber. The noble Viscount was perfectly accurate in saying that we have had some discussion on that subject on the Committee stage; but, grateful as I am for this Amendment, it does not, it seems to me, fully meet the situation. The noble Viscount's Amendment limits this concession to the carriage of felled timber from the site of felling. This clause is one which has to do with the acquisition of business by the Commission; and I take it to mean that the Commission will not desire to acquire these specially constructed vehicles. They prefer to leave that to the merchants themselves. If that be so, I think my Amendment a little further down is better. I think our 335 agreement was that we were going to hang the Amendment on the point of vehicles specially constructed. Now, vehicles specially constructed are used for many other purposes besides felled timber conveyed from the site of felling. The Amendment limits it too closely. You might have a merchant who would wish to move these baulks of round timber from his yard to the saw mill, and he might have vehicles for that purpose. I gather from the noble Viscount's concession that he agrees that it is undesirable for the Commission to have to burden themselves with this type of vehicle at all. I could understand a limitation of this kind being appropriate under Clause 52, because there might be a question of a man getting a permit if he had to go to the Commission. But in this instance I think the limitation to round timber and to mere motion from the site of felling alone is not sufficient. I do not know whether the noble Viscount could reconsider that.
§ THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRYI should like to thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the great trouble he has taken to meet us on this point. I am sorry if he finds me reluctant to agree that it does actually deal with it. It is very difficult to cover the point adequately but I hope it is not too late for another attempt. The limitation to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has just referred is a very real one, and it is a little obscure how far it will be of assistance to the timber merchant. The timber merchant will probably have a saw mill either adjoining the wood or at some convenient place two or three miles distant; and if this concession only enables him to take the timber from the wood to the saw mill it is not really sufficient.
The object of this Amendment is clearly to prevent any serious adverse effect on the home-grown timber trade in Scotland. It is a real difficulty to foresee at this stage exactly what that effect will be, and whether the timber merchant will lose the use of the contractors' vehicles which he normally requires for this purpose. And, of course, it is realized that we have not got railways and stations near to where these woodlands generally are. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment can be considered again and widened. I do not really see how you 336 can get over the difficulty unless you exempt the haulage of all home-grown timber as opposed to imported timber. There is a real difficulty, and I hope it can be met.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe man who has a concern himself will be operating his vehicles on a C licence, and he will not come into this at all. As to the other point, I will gladly give it further consideration.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI appreciate the fact that the owner would have a C licence, but there would be holders of A licences who would also be affected. I think this would involve the Commission in acquiring more vehicles than they want. I am grateful for the concession, and I think the best course would be for me not to move the Amendment which comes later.
LORD TEYNHAMPerhaps it would be as well if I deal now with my Amendment to the proviso in subsection (2) after "milk," to insert "the carriage of fresh fruit, cut flowers and green vegetables." This Amendment is really a modification of an Amendment I moved during the Committee stage. What it really does is to exclude three special categories: the transport of fresh fruit, cut flowers, and green vegetables. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, during the Committee stage, undertook to look into the whole matter and discuss it with the Minister of Transport. I hope the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will now accept this modified Amendment. I should like to emphasize the question of the time factor. It is very important that these particular commodities, fruit, flowers and green vegetables, should be conveyed without delay. It is very essential that the drivers of vehicles should know the localities where they are going to collect this stuff, otherwise there is bound to be delay. That is most important. It is also of great importance to the consumer to be certain that he is going to get quick delivery of fruit, vegetables and flowers. I do not suggest that the Commission will not be able to do this work efficiently—at some time in the future. But it will be a long time before they can train their drivers or be certain of having the same driver in each case.
§ VISCOUNT LONGMy Lords, in speaking to the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend—
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONWhich Amendment?
§ VISCOUNT LONGThe last Amendment that was moved.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI propose to accept Lord Rochdale's Amendment which has just been put to the House.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI would like to say that sometimes in Committee general discussion is very convenient, but here, when we have a whole series of Amendments, one dealing with timber, another dealing with perishable goods and a third dealing with something else, it will be hard on noble Lords who are trying to move particular Amendments if they find them spoken to in general discussion. I believe that we should dispose of each Amendment as it comes.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 6.21 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I now beg to move the next Amendment standing in the names of Viscount Long, Lord O'Hagan and myself.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 35, after ("milk") insert ("the carriage of fresh fruit, cut flowers and green vegetables.")—(Lord Teynham.)
§ VISCOUNT LONGMy Lords, I would like to reinforce what my noble friend said with reference to fruit, cut flowers and vegetables. It must be quite obvious to your Lordships that all three of these are inseparable. They all come from more or less the same part of the world to the markets, and it would be fatal if they are not excluded from the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has spoken on the question of drivers. I can only reinforce that over and over again from personal experience. When the control scheme was on during this war, and drivers were imported from different areas to do this particular work, not only was there great chaos but great loss of money from the vegetables and the fruit which were ruined because the driver did not know the time and the way to go. The result was that they were ruined and never reached the market. Now, according to this Bill, you are to include them in this nationalization scheme.
338 There is one other word I would like to say, and that is in regard to empties. There is a great shortage of empties in this country and it is only by the most skilled handling that this problem is being dealt with at the moment. Incidentally, if your Lordships would spend four mornings or evenings a week in my office overlooking Covent Garden Market you would get a good idea of how this market traffic is run. Everybody thinks it is chaos and muddle. That is not so, but if the Commission get hold of it there will be complete muddle. The care which is now taken to return the empties—which are most essential to the market growers—is something which has to be seen to be believed. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD O'HAGANI have only one word to add in support of this Amendment. I think practical experience of the efforts made during the war to deal with these particular commodities shows that they were not a great success; in fact very much the reverse. There were numerous complaints about the condition in which these commodities arrived at the retailers; and consequently, of course, the consumer was directly affected. I trust that His Majesty's Government will treat this matter on the lines that have been suggested.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I am sorry that I cannot go any further than I said. Your Lordships will remember that the carriage of milk was inserted, against the advice of the Ministry, by a majority of the House. I cannot see any reason why the vehicles carrying this class of goods should automatically be excluded. It would be perfectly possible in this case, I should have thought, for the people concerned to know the business beforehand, or even to learn it. There is no reason to suppose that there will be mistakes and mismanagement with regard to the carriage of fresh fruit, flowers, or green vegetables, any more than there will be with anything else. I cannot see any reason for whittling down in this way the opportunities for work for the Commission. We might proceed on this basis, and we could exclude every commodity that there was. I have gone as far as I could to meet the points raised on this clause and I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, the point that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has not answered, if I may say so with very great respect, is the fact that these commodities are extremely perishable. That is why in our minds they are classified with milk. I would ask His Majesty's Government, when they are making this great experiment, which I think they themselves admit is a great experiment: Is not it wise and prudent to leave out, at any rate for the time being, those commodities which are most likely to cause trouble, and which will suffer most from any delay or any hitch in the organization? I cannot help feeling that the Government, in their own interests, would be very wise to allow commodities like milk, fresh fruit and flowers the latitude which we seek by this Amendment, so that if their plans do not work exactly as they anticipate—and in this life, we never can be sure that our plans will work exactly as we anticipate—at any rate these highly perishable commodities will be exempt from the injury that they would otherwise suffer
After all, we are dealing in this matter with the food of the people, which for other reasons is going to be in great jeopardy in the coming months; and we shall have to make all the use we can of our home-grown food. If there is a commodity which is more perishable than milk, it is such fruit as strawberries, for instance. I have some practical experience as a fruit grower, and I can assure your Lordships that it makes a great difference to the edibility and the digestibility of the fruit that it should be taken to the consumer with the least possible delay. Therefore, without entering into the question as to whether or not the Government plan will work smoothly, I think there is a strong case for seeing that—in the initial stages—there shall be no compulsion to bring these highly perishable commodities into the Government scheme, if the Government scheme is not working as they anticipate. It would always be open to Parliament in subsequent years, when our nationalized transport is working with complete smoothness and efficiency, to make it all comprehensive; but during the period of transition surely it is wise that there should be a loophole and a latitude for these particular perishable goods.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, all the Amendments we have had so far to- 340 day have proceeded with such an air of sweet reasonableness that I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give this a little further consideration. I quite appreciate—and I say this sincerely—that he has taken great trouble over this Bill, and has tried to meet us. We also have taken great trouble over this Bill, and particularly we have been at great pains over this clause. It would be quite easy, as he said, to put down what his noble colleague would call, I suppose, "the, whole caboodle." As a matter of fact, I do not mind taking him into my confidence to this extent: that when we were considering this clause, there was submitted to those of us on this side of the House who are more particularly concerned with the Bill, a very lengthy list. It would have been extremely easy to put down the whole lot. I do not mind saying that a number of people in different industries thought they were very harshly treated because we did not put them down.
We did make a very careful selection, not from the point of view of seeing how much we could take out of this Bill, but whether there was a really special case—and not, believe me, a special case in the interests of the transport undertaker himself but in the nature of the things which he carries for all of us. Nearly all of these have been accepted. There was a wrangle about milk but I think that on consideration the Government will probably feel that the decision arrived at was a wise one. Meat, your Lordships will observe, has been in all along. That has never been a bone of contention. I should have thought, honestly, if it were for me to judge, that where it was most necessary to have very quick transport, it would be most desirable to employ people who knew exactly where to go to collect the stuff and where to take it. This is the sort of work that might well be done by a small man who would be able to take an order very quickly on the spot. I should have thought that fresh vegetables and fresh fruit provided a much stronger case than meat. Meat, after all, is transported in carcases. It is true that it is a very important food, and the smaller our ration the more important it is to ensure that we should get it to the shops; but I should think that in addition to being less perishable it is in much more regular supply than such things as fresh vegetables and fruit.
341 I was a little alarmed at something the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, perhaps inadvertently. He said in effect, "Why should you take this away from the Commission? It is, I think, the kind of business which they could learn to do." If I may say so, I do not think that is a very good line of approach. After all the Commission are, in any case, going to have a great deal to do, and there will probably be a lot for them to learn. What is the interest of the people who produce the fresh fruit and fresh vegetables, and the people to whom they have to be consigned? I believe that even if the Government do not do what is now suggested they will probably find that they would be well advised to exempt the whole of this traffic and the people who carry it on under what the noble Lord has called "the escape clause" which we passed. But as there is such a strong case on merits for these commodities, I do not think it is reasonable to place every producer, or the people engaged in transporting these commodities, on the chance of whether they will get a licence under the "escape clause." In the interests of the producers of these commodities I would beg the Government to look at this again. Frankly, I think that this is at least as good a case as others which we have all agreed ought to be included. This is not an attempt in any way to see if we can claw something away from the Commission. This is submitted in the interest of those producing these commodities, and in the interest of these commodities—commodities of which we are going to be very short.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 36, after ("livestock") insert ("the carriage of felled timber from the site of felling in a vehicle specially constructed for the purposes of such carriage"). —(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after "livestock" to insert:
the carriage of materials in bulk in a vehicle specially constructed and used solely for that purpose and having a tipping gear for discharging the load.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I moved this Amendment in the Committee stage and at that time I received no answer. I am moving it again, formally, because I think the facts are now known to His Majesty's Government. To a very large extent the vehicle referred to is specialized. The driving of it is also specialized. There are very few of these vehicles which in fact will go outside a limited circle; and therefore they will not in the main qualify for long distance. In any case, the nature of their work is essentially short distance; they could not for that reason be used for long distance travel. I will not enlarge upon this any further now. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 36, after ("livestock") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMay I ask the noble Earl whether it is his desire to exclude every vehicle which carries sand ballast in this country? Vehicles used for that purpose have tipping gear. The noble Earl made a statement about the vehicles which he seeks to exclude having to have drivers with special knowledge. I have never known yet that it requires special knowledge either to drive or to empty a tipping wagon used for carrying sand or ballast. As the noble Earl rightly says, the majority of these vehicles to-day are not driven outside a radius of fifty miles. I cannot see any ground for excluding these vehicles as the noble Earl suggests.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think it would be entirely wrong to exclude these vehicles. Thousands of them are used for all kinds of useful work, and I am sure that it would not be right to exclude them. I can give one very important illustration of their value. During the bad winter weather a few months ago people obtained a certain amount of open cast coal, and it was necessary to mobilize all the tipping vehicles that could possibly be mobilized to help in transporting it. If this Amendment were carried the Commission would not be in a position to help in an emergency of that kind in that way. It would be entirely unreasonable that the Commission should not be able to make use of this kind of transport.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI will not enter into any further argument on this for I know that it could be carried on to great lengths. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 36, leave out ("and").(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this is to carry out an undertaking which has already been referred to. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 37, after ("loads") insert ("and the carriage, in a vehicle in which no other goods are being carried for hire or reward, of apparatus or equipment ancillary to the operation, for the purposes of the carriage of such loads, of such a specially constructed vehicle").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 40 [Notices of acquisition]:
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this Amendment and the next are consequential on the Amendment to Clause 39, page 50, line 20, which has already been moved. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 3, leave out from ("not") to ("the") in line 4, and insert ("one with respect to which the Commission are required or entitled to give a notice of acquisition under").
line 17, leave out from ("is") to ("he") in line 18, and insert ("one with respect to which the Commission are required to give a notice of acquisition.")—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 41:
§ Tests as to whether ordinary long distance carriage for hire or reward predominates.
§ 41.—(1) For the purposes of any proceedings under the last preceding section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act, the activities of an undertaking in the year nineteen hundred and forty-six, so far as they consisted in the carriage of goods in goods vehicles with respect to which A licences, B licences or C licences were in force, shall be deemed to have consisted to a predominant extent of ordinary long distance carriage for hire or reward if, and, save as is hereinafter provided in this subsection, only if, one or other of the following conditions was satisfied as respects the undertaking in that year, that is to say— 344
- (b) the receipts of the undertaking from ordinary long distance carriage for hire or reward exceeded half the total value to the undertaking of the services of the vehicles,
§ VISCOUNT LONG moved, in paragraph (b) in subsection (1), to leave out "half" and insert "threequarters." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, you will remember that a considerable amount of time was spent on this Amendment during the Committee stage. I am certain that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government deliberately to deceive the people. They have stated quite openly that they desire to take over long-distance haulage. If in this subsection the test is left as a matter of fifty-fifty, they will in fact be taking over a very great amount of short-distance haulage. It is to straighten that out that I move this Amendment, the effect of which is to make the stipulation that the receipts from long-distance shall exceed 75 per cent. of the total as against 50 per cent. now in the Bill.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 5, leave out ("half") and insert ("threequarters").—(Viscount Long.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONAs the noble Lord said, we considered this point at considerable length in Committee. I think the test of half the income derived from this business, coupled with half the amount of goods carried, is reasonable, and I can see no reason why we should have a different fraction in this case. It would upset the whole balance of the scheme. I cannot accept this further cutting down of the power of the Commission to take over a business.
§ VISCOUNT LONGThe noble Viscount has not answered my question. It was a perfectly fair one to ask. It is now quite obvious that it is the intention of the Government to take over the short distance hauliers. It is not fair: it is grossly unfair. If it is the intention of the Government to take over only the long-distance hauliers, then my Amendment is perfectly logical. What the Government will do in the present position is to take over short-distance concerns. I hope your Lordships will clearly understand that this is deception on the part of the Government.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
345§ Clause 44:
§ Date of transfer under notice of acquisition.
§ 44.—(1) Every notice of acquisition shall specify a date (not being earlier than the prescribed time after the service of the notice) on which, subject to the provisions of this section, the transfer to be effected in pursuance of the notice is to take effect.
§ (2) Where the person on whom a notice of acquisition is served duly requires the Commission to withdraw the notice, the date on which the said transfer is to have effect shall be the date specified in the notice of acquisition or a date one month after the question whether the notice of acquisition is to have effect has been determined, whether by withdrawal of the owner's notice or by proceedings before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act, whichever of those dates is the later.
§ 6.42 p.m.
§ LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in subsection (1) after "time" to insert "or later than the prescribed time." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point which arose when Clause 50 was under discussion in Committee and on which Lord Nathan, then speaking for the Government, expressed, I thought, certain sympathy or at any rate interest—though I may be wrong. Under Clause 50, as soon as a notice of acquisition has been given, the owner of an undertaking becomes compulsorily the agent of the Commission and has to carry on his business in a kind of strait-waist-coat, subject to all sorts of restrictions. If you look at Clause 50 you will see that if he does not carry on successfully, he may find himself mulcted in damages. He cannot enter into a contract for the purposes of his undertaking or undertake new works estimated to cost more than £500, and so on.
§ I have no doubt these are necessary parts of procedure, but I would suggest that a correlative of that necessity is to protect a man from continuing in that position for an indefinite time. In the Bill as it stands there is nothing whatever to protect him from being kept in the position of compulsory agent for the Commission—in a strait waistcoat—for an indefinite time. Clause 44, on which I am moving this Amendment, says that every notice of acquisition shall specify a date (not being earlier than the prescribed time after the service of a notice); but the date can be as late after the serving of the notice as it likes—it may be six months or a year. I suggest that that is not fair to the undertaker. This Amendment 346 does not fix by Statute a limited period, but enables the Minister, by regulation, to fix a maximum period for this kind of compulsory imprisonment of an undertaker as agent of the Commission. The notice of acquisition must specify a date not being earlier than the prescribed time, and not being later than the prescribed time—they can be quite different prescribed times. The only object is to help to carry out, without injustice and unnecessary upsetting of the undertakers, the objects of the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 21, after ("time") insert the said new words.—(Lord Beveridge.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI sympathize with the proposal of the noble Lord, but I am advised that if we inserted these words we would have two prescribed times, neither of which could be either earlier than the one, or later than the other, and no elasticity would be left. The clause states that the notice shall specify the date, not being earlier than the prescribed time after the service of the notice, and that seems to be quite reasonable. The noble Lord's Amendment would unduly restrict a considerable number of cases, and it would be very inconvenient if we had these two hard and fast limits. No doubt the time will be prescribed in the notices in the vast majority of cases.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEIf I may have leave to speak again, I did not say, "not being earlier or later than the prescribed time," which meant you would have to fix only one time. My words give complete flexibility, so that when you issue a notice all you require to say is that you must be prepared to take over in a maximum time, say six months. Surely that is only reasonable. Not to give a time is to look at the thing purely from the point of view of a bureaucrat and not from the point of view of the person being taken over.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI have done my best to try and get the noble Lord's point. If we put in his words it would read: "every notice of acquisition shall specify a date (not being earlier than the prescribed time, or later than the prescribed time after the service of the notice)." It would make it more restrictive, not less.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
347§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I beg to move this Amendment in accordance with the understanding arrived at.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 25, after ("where") insert ("under subsection (2) of Section forty of this Act").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 45 [General effect of notice of acquisition]:
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 43, after ("subject") insert ("as respects any particular property or any particular contracts").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 46 [Disclaimer of property and contracts]:
§ LORD MORRISONThis Amendment has been put down to comply with the assurance given to the noble Lord, the Earl of Selborne, that the question would be examined whether the period of seven days from the date of transfer within which a transferor is to supply particulars of relevant property and contracts in accordance with subsection (1) of Clause 46 was sufficient. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 17, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 52:
§ Additional restrictions on carriage of goods for hire and reward.
§ 52.—(1) On and after the appointed day, it shall be a condition of every A licence and every B licence that, except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Commission, goods shall not be carried for hire or reward in any authorised vehicle if the vehicle, at any time while the goods are being so carried, is more than fifty miles from its operating centre, and the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall have effect as if the said condition were included among the conditions specified in subsection (1) of Section eight of that Act:
§ Provided that the said condition shall not apply where—
- (a) the goods carried are liquids carried in bulk in a tank permanently fixed to the vehicle, or in a tank not so fixed of which the capacity is not less than five hundred gallons, or are goods which may only be carried in vehicles specially constructed in accordance with the requirements of any enactment relating to the carriage of goods therein specified, or the carriage
348 is an ordinary furniture removal, or the goods carried are meat, livestock or milk; or - (b) the vehicle is a vehicle authorised for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; or
- (c) the vehicle is a vehicle specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads; or
- (d) a notice of acquisition has been served with respect to the undertaking for the purposes of which the vehicle is being used and has not been withdrawn or declared to be of no effect, and, if that notice has effect, the vehicle will, by virtue of the notice, be transferred to the Commission.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, I beg to move:
Page 63, line 17, leave out from ("goods") to ("or") in line 21 and insert ("of a special character which, under any statutory provision specifically relating thereto, may only be carried in a vehicle constructed or adapted so as to comply with the requirements of that provision and which are being so carried").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 22, at end insert—
("(b) the goods carried consist of felled timber which is being carried from the site of felling in a vehicle specially constructed for the purposes of such carriage").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had given Notice of an Amendment to insert in the proviso in subsection (1):
- ("(c) the vehicle is a vehicle specially constructed and used solely to carry round timber or wrought timber in large units which cannot be carried in a vehicle of the type in common use for the carriage of goods by road; or
- (d) the vehicle is a vehicle specially constructed for the carriage of materials in bulk and having a tipping gear for discharging the load; or").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, before deciding not to move this Amendment, may I say one word, because here we are dealing with a different thing from Clause 39. In Clause 39 we deal with the kind of vehicles going to be acquired by the Commission. Here we are dealing with the conditions under which people will have to apply for licences. I must frankly admit I find it difficult to grasp the relations between these two clauses. Hitherto 349 I have always regarded it as consequential that an Amendment put into Clause 39 has got to appear here, too. I cannot understand why that should be so. Quite frankly, I find this problem very difficult to grasp. Sometimes I think I have grasped it, and then, hey presto, I have not. If some noble Lord on the Government Front Bench can explain it to me, I would be very grateful. In particular reference to this question of timber, it does seem to me that there might be a difference between Clause 39 and Clause 52. I propose not to move my Amendment, on the understanding that the noble Viscount is going to be good enough—
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONPerhaps the noble Lord would move the Amendment so that we can take part in it.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHIn those circumstances, I will move the Amendment, but with no intention of pressing it. The noble Viscount has given an undertaking that he will look very closely at the wording, both as to round timber, and the limit to the site of felling. I think it may well be that there is a case for a difference in this particular matter between Clause 39 and Clause 52. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 25, at end, insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I would only like to say that I repeat my assurance to the noble Lord. With regard to his question, Clause 39 deals with the character of the vehicles that are to be taken over and so forth, and Clause 52 deals with the goods they are going to carry. Apart from that, I will do my best to go into the matter raised by the noble Lord with regard to the wording of the Amendment in order to meet his point.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I take it that whatever is done will apply equally to Clause 39 and Clause 52. I appreciate the difficulty, but I think you must do it. The noble Lord has some doubt about it. Clause 52 is what gives the right to operate, but it would be quite unfair, if you are going to give A and B the right to operate under Clause 52, to take away from A under Clause 39 the tools with which he would operate.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHIn the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, the next Amendment is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 27, after ("loads") insert ("or the goods carried are apparatus or equipment ancillary to the operation, for the purposes of the carriage of such loads, of such a vehicle").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 53 [Protection for certain existing undertakings with A or B licences]:
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on what was described as the let-out clause. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided that where, by virtue of an agreement between the Commission and the person carrying on an undertaking, the Commission either do not give a notice of acquisition with respect to that undertaking which it would have been their duty to give but for the agreement, or withdraw a notice of acquisition given in accordance with their duty the said provisions shall have effect subject to such modifications, if any, as may be specified in the agreement.")—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 59 [Application of Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to Commission]:
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, the next two Amendments are also to get the correct drafting to give effect to what was decided. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 78, line 30, after ("shall") insert ("not ").
Page 78, line 30, leave out ("and") insert ("but").—(Viscount Swinton.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 63 [Preparation and approval to area road transport schemes]:
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, this Amendment has been put down to comply with an undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, during the discussion on the Committee stage on the Amendment which he moved as to the definition of "local althority." I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 12, leave out ("and any") and insert ("every joint committee, joint board, joint authority or other combined body which provides passenger road transport services within or partly within the area to which the scheme relates, being a committee, board, authority or body all the members of which are, or are representatives of, local authorities or the councils of county districts, and any other ").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ LORD ADDINGTONMy Lords, may I both on my own behalf and on behalf of those in whose interests it was put forward, just express appreciation for the way in which the noble Lord and his advisers have met the point?
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 64:
§ Contents of area road transport schemes.
§
64. A scheme under the last preceding section may provide for all or any of the following matters, that is to say—
(g) for incorporating, with or without modifications, in relation to any such transfer as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section, any of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer of undertakings or parts of undertakings to the Commission. including (subject to the provisions of Part II of the Eighth Schedule to this Act) provisions relating to compensation;
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, in the course of the debate on the Committee stage of an Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, in the Eighth Schedule, he and other noble Lords urged that where a scheme provides for the transfer of any undertakings, the undertakings affected and the time of the transfer should be specified. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, promised to look into the point before Report stage, and this Amendment and the Government Amendments, in the next line, will provide for the specification in any scheme which involves the transfer of any undertaking, both of the undertaking and of the date of the transfer. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 37, after ("transfer") insert ("on a date specified in the scheme").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF ROTHESMy Lords, I am very much Obliged to the noble Lord for meeting these points, and to him and his advisers for all the trouble that was taken in discussing the matter.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
352§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, the next Amendment is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 38, after ("undertaking") insert ("so specified").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, the object of the next Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of a scheme for regulating the relations of persons providing passenger transport services, and in particular for the pooling of receipts or expenses, can be applied only to persons who are actually providing passenger transport services under the scheme, and not to other passenger transport undertakings. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 44, after ("services") insert ("under the scheme").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, the next six Amendments are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 4, leave out ("other")
Page 83, line 5, after ("services") insert
("otherwise than under the scheme")
Page 83, line 8, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection")
Page 83, line 14, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection")
Page 83, line 26, leave out from ("provisions") to ("of") in line 27.
Page 83, line 30, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ [The sitting was suspended at seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
§ THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, in paragraph (g), after "Commission," to insert "including the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 48 and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, under subsection (3) of Clause 48, hauliers whose compensation does not exceed £20,000 may ask for a sum of £2,000 in cash instead of in British Transport stock. The object of this Amendment is to provide that the same concession shall be granted to the operators of road passenger transport. I referred to this matter in the Committee stage of the Bill, and some indication was given that consideration might be given to it. I think 353 the answer I may receive may be that this provision can already be invoked under Clause 63, paragraph (g). If I am correct in that assumption, I would ask for an assurance that it will be invoked in appropriate cases for the operators of road passenger transport. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 32, after ("Commission") insert ("including the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 48 and").—(The Earl of Rothes.)
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, while I regret I am unable to accept the Amendment, I think I am in a position to give the noble Lord the assurances for which he asks. The Government have every expectation that, when schemes come to be formulated, provision will be made for small operators to receive an appropriate amount of compensation in cash rather than in stock. The Government feel, however, that to single out this particular item in the Bill for statutory inclusion in a scheme is getting the matter somewhat out of focus. A scheme will, no doubt, have to include a great deal of the other matters mentioned in the Bill relating to the transfer of undertakings or parts of undertakings, and the precise details should be settled when the scheme is made and particular circumstances have to be taken into account. In any event, it is possible that, when the scheme is made, it may be desirable and convenient from the Commission's point of view to buy out small operators entirely on a cash basis or, if not entirely, to increase the figure of £12,000. I am authorized to say, therefore, that this matter could best be left to the scheme itself, with a clear undertaking that there would be strong grounds for including in any scheme an appropriate sum in cash. On that understanding, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 8.33 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT ADDISON moved to add at the end of the clause:
Provided that a scheme shall not provide for the transfer otherwise than by agreement of part only of an undertaking unless the part to be transferred includes the whole or so much of the undertaking as relates to the operation of passenger road transport services.
354
(2) The Commission may be the body specified, or one of the bodies specified, in a provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, and a part of the undertaking of the Commission may be the subject of a transfer under a provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1).
(3) Where a provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section constitutes or specifies some body or bodies other than the Commission to administer or take part in administering the scheme, provision shall also be made in the scheme to secure that at least one member of any such body shall be a person who has had not less than six years experience in local government within the area to which the scheme relates.
(4) The Minister shall not regard as satisfactory for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule to this Act any scheme made under the last preceding section which includes provision for prohibiting or restricting the provision within or partly within the area to which the scheme relates of passenger road transport services otherwise than under the scheme, unless it includes also provision to secure—
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords: this is a rather long Amendment, I am afraid, but it is again the result of considerable negotiation and discussion to try, in effect, to meet certain undertakings that were given during the Committee stage. I will briefly explain it to your Lordships; I think it does faithfully carry out those undertakings. There may be cases, and no doubt will be cases, where a man is carrying on other parts of the business which would be interfered 355 with or perhaps destroyed or damaged if the transport department were taken away. During the Committee stage I promised to secure that in cases of that kind a man should not be compulsorily deprived of the part which did not relate to transport, except by agreement and when he wished it to be done. That is provided for in the first two paragraphs of this new Amendment.
§ It was also arranged that in administering the schemes we should take care that there should be some person who had an interest or who was experienced in local government matters within the area to which the scheme referred. That also is provided for. Subsection (4) provides that a man who suffers damage shall receive compensation where part of his business is taken over for the transport undertaking. Of course, that will be paid for in the ordinary way, but it may have damaged the other part of his business and he may have suffered loss in consequence. The paragraph to subsection (4) provides that the Minister shall not regard the scheme as satisfactory unless it includes provision that compensation is payable. Then three cases are set out which really mean that a man will be paid compensation for the loss he has suffered through being deprived of the transport of his business and the damage it has inflicted on other parts of his activities. That is fully provided for in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii).
§ It is also provided that disputes shall be determined as provided for in the Bill. I think this fully meets the cases which were put forward during the Committee stage, and to which I promised to give consideration. The Department has taken a lot of trouble and has been in close consultation with the Ministry in framing the proposals, and I think these proposals do meet the necessities of the case. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 43, at end insert the said proviso and subsections.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE EARL OF ROTHESI should like to say that I am extremely obliged to the noble Viscount and his Department for going into these points so thoroughly. I entirely agree that they meet the points on compensation which we discussed.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
356§ Clause 65 [Passenger road transport services of the Commission]:
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe next Amendment is consequential upon what has gone before. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 44, leave out from the beginning to the end of the subsection.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThe next two Amendments are in a sense consequential, or rather they are to correct the drafting in order that we may give effect to what the House has decided in regard to the provisions concerning licensing authorities. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 4, leave out ("not").— (Viscount Swinton.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONWe accept this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThe same argument applies to this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 8, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 23 and insert ("otherwise than under Part II of this Act provided that the licensing authority shall give effect to the relevant provision of any scheme made under Section 63 and 64 of this Act").—(Viscount Swinton.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI am informed that I might have to ask the noble Viscount to accept some revision in the wording of this Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI thought I had taken most expert advice, but if it wants further amendment the noble Viscount can put in anything he wants on Third Reading.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 66 [Schemes as to harbours]:
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, the next is the Amendment referred to earlier in our discussion, and gives effect to the arrangements arrived at with regard to dealing with dock undertakings. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 35, leave out from the beginning to ("part") in line 7 on page 87 and insert—
357
("(4) The Commission may be the body specified, or one of the bodies specified, in a provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, and a ")—(Viscount Addison.)
§ LORD REAMy Lords, I should like to say a word of thanks to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for having met us over the two points which gave us some anxiety, as to the representation of people interested in the ports and particularly that ports should be administered in their own neighbourhood. I hope the noble Viscount will accept our assurance that in asking for this concession we merely desired to make the Bill more workable.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this is a consequential Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 10, at end insert—
("(5) The Commission, in preparing a scheme under this section, shall have regard to the desirability—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 71 [Advisory Committee as to costal shipping]:
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this Amendment is carrying out the undertaking given that the matters jointly affecting the interests of the Commission and persons engaged in coastal shipping should be referred to the Advisory Committee for consultation.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 42, at end insert ("or which the Minister may refer to them for consideration.")—(Viscount Addison.)
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for setting down this Amendment, which fully meets the points I made in the Committee 358 stage, that the Advisory Committee should be able to deal with any matters put to them by the Minister.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 78 [Confirmation of charge schemes]:
§
VISCOUNT ADDISON moved after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection:
(3) Any body representative of any class of persons providing for hire or reward services or facilities similar to or comparable with the services or facilities to which the scheme will relate who desire to contend that the charges provided for in the draft scheme are unduly low may lodge a representation to that effect with the tribunal under this section, and the tribunal may, if they think fit, agree to hear the body with respect to that representation.
§ The noble Viscount said: I undertook that this matter should be discussed with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. It concerns persons prejudiced by the scheme of fares or charges lodging an objection, and I undertook that I would try to provide for it. I suggested certain words which I still think are right, that where the scheme is made and where a man thinks the scheme of charges will prejudice his business, he may have an opportunity of making an objection. That is provided for in this new proposal. But it relates to those who desire to contend that the charges provided for in the draft scheme are unduly low. Unless the charges were unduly low, the man would not be prejudiced, for he would not be subjected to improper competition, unfair competition; and, if he was not in the scheme, of course it would not affect him at all, because he can make his own charges. On reflection, I really think that those words "unduly low" afford to any man who is prejudiced by the charges of the scheme an opportunity to lodge his objection and to be heard. [think that the words of Lord Gifford and the Earl of Rothes, if I may refer to them here, are much too wide. I do not know how to define charges which operate to the detriment of any such persons. That is an exceedingly wide phrase, and I am afraid that I cannot accept it, willing as I am to do all that is possible to, meet the case. And I think the proposal I have made fully does that. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ LORD GIFFORD moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after "low" "or that any terms and conditions relating to those charges would operate to the detriment of any such persons." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would like first of all to thank the noble Viscount for going a long way to meet us in this matter. There is very little difference between us, but I do think that there are instances where "too low" would not meet the position. One case I would like to instance is that where a road transport undertaking was running alongside a railway. In order to protect the railway a minimum fare might be made over that particular route—it being a route partly run by the Commission and partly by an independent operator—and thereby the passengers would be driven from the road to the railway.
§ There are other instances which I could give, such as that there might be some provision with regard to the age at which children are carried free or half price. If there were certain conditions with regard to the carriage of children or workmen at preferential rates, I do feel that the situation would be covered by the Amendment which we have put forward. I do not think it will make a great deal of difference, but it does cover the odd case where the question of low fares is not absolutely the point, and where the independent operator would be prejudiced if a certain scale of fares were allowed. I wonder whether we could reconsider some wording a little bit wider than "low." Although the noble Viscount does not like our wording, and considers it too wide, I do not think "low" does quite cover it. I do not know whether he would like me to take my second Amendment now, or to leave it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe will take them one at a time.
§
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 6, after ("low") insert the said new words.—(Lord Gifford.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONPerhaps I might be permitted, though actually this very limited Amendment is before us, to deal with the general position. I know the Leader of the House has taken an enormous amount of trouble over this and so, if I may say so, have I. Yet I think we both find ourselves in some difficulty. We 360 all want the same thing, and whether we have it, in the curious jumble of legalities that apply, I do not know. So far as the gentleman who complains that the fares fixed are too low is concerned, I think he is completely covered; he can go and say: "You have fixed the fare so low that you have put me out of business, and I cannot do it. "Quite frankly, I am much less interested in the gentleman who says that the fares are too low than I am in the gentleman who says that they are too high. I am looking at this from the point of view of the person who is to be carried. I shall not be exercised in my mind if fares are low, but I shall be if they are unduly high. It may well be, too, that there is someone who is willing to carry me, and who can carry me and still make a profit, at a fare a great deal lower than that which is being fixed. I want him to have the opportunity of doing that, and I want to have the opportunity of being carried. I am sure that both sides here want to meet that.
May I now clear one or two things out of the way? I understand that this does not touch road haulage at all. We are not concerned here with the operator who carries things, the Commission or the permitted road haulier; he can charge whatever he likes. Here we are concerned only with fares charged for passenger road transport. Passenger road transport will come before two bodies. In the first place, it will come before the scheme-making authority. The Commission's job is to take an area and say that passenger road transport within that area shall be run by certain people, and to put up a scheme. I think I am right in saying that the scheme has to be put up by the Commission. The Commission do not necessarily, and probably may not at all, concern themselves with fares. They concern themselves with what roads are to be operated by buses (I use the convenient term) and who is to run the buses. I know, of course, that this Amendment relates to charges.
The result of the scheme will be to settle who shall run passenger road transport over a large region. There may be two sets of people running that road transport —(a) the Commission and (b) a number of other permitted undertakers, who will be embraced in a co-ordinated plan. I am not sure whether under a scheme fares are fixed. I think not. What I am sure of is that under a charging scheme there 361 is a possiblity that fares may be fixed for passenger road transport in that region by the Transport Tribunal; or the Transport Tribunal may give a discretion to fix fares under the scheme, whoever may be the authorities. Let me take the simplest case of all. If you are to have co-ordination you must have co-ordination of services, and probably co-ordination of charges. The Commission having framed their schemes, which cover all England, and provided passenger road transport for all England in a number of different regions, are entitled to say to the Transport Tribunal: "We propose as part of our charging scheme that the fares charged on buses running on these different routes in these different areas shall be so and so—2d. a mile or whatever it may be."
Someone may wish to take exception to that. We have already agreed that the licensing authorities will be subject to any ruling given by the Transport Tribunal and to the provisions of any scheme which has been approved by Parliament. But suppose that the Transport Tribunal is entertaining an application by the Commission who are the only people who can put forward the scheme that the bus fares over a particular area shall be twopence or threepence a mile. Two sets of people are affected, the people who are to be carried in the buses and other undertakers. The passengers say that these fares are too high, as hitherto they have been carried at a penny-halfpenny a mile. The consumers—and I mean really representative bodies of consumers—are intended to have the right of audience before the Tribunal about fares. Equally, there may well be a bus company permitted to operate under the scheme who can operate at a penny-halfpenny a mile. They will say, "Why should they be paid threepence?" I want to make it quite clear that both the public and the permitted operator who wants to work at a lower fare shall have the right of audience before the Tribunal in order that the Tribunal may be seized of that before they fix fares. I tried to put that to the Leader of the House previously and we were both rather puzzled. I think he was under the impression that the operator and the public were not prejudiced because the independent operator can charge what he likes. I am sure he can when it is goods, but we are not concerned with that. I really think the noble Lord is wrong here.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONNo.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI shall be glad if he is right. The Tribunal is to say what fares are to be charged to passengers. Does the noble Viscount mean that the Tribunal will say what fares the Commission are to charge but not what fares are to be charged by other operators? Apparently the answer is "No"; I am very glad. It seems to be rather an odd form of co-ordination. We have agreed on a clause, and after a great deal of argument the noble Viscount convinced me that he was right about the pooling of receipts, but it is a very odd pooling of receipts if the Commission are to charge threepence and other operators are to charge a penny halfpenny.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONWe are not pooling receipts.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONWe are not pooling receipts? Is the noble Viscount sure? I think he is wrong. I am sorry to subject him to this sort of cross examination. We all want the same thing and want to get it right now. We objected to the pooling of expenses. He convinced me that we had to pool expenses, because when You put all in a composite scheme, and one gets the rough and one the smooth, that would not work fairly unless there were complete pooling of expenses and receipts. I hope I have made myself clear. What I am extraordinarily anxious to be sure of is this: that both the public who think the fares are too high and the operators who think they are too high and who would like to operate there, if they are to be bound by the Transport Tribunal, should have a right to complain of the charges.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMay I suggest to the noble Viscount that at the moment we are considering the Amendment to the Amendment? I rather think these observations relate to the Amendment. Would it not be better to dispose of the Amendment first?
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONWith great respect, I did ask if it was convenient, because I did not want to prejudice the particular Amendment. I thought it was convenient to deal with both. I am not the least concerned with the Amendment, but I did not like to thrust it out of the way. I wanted to be sure that, if the 363 Transport Tribunal had the power to fix these fares for everybody, then both the public and the operator should be able to go there. If that is not done then the Commission can charge what fares they please.
§ 9.2 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAMThere is just one point which perhaps I had better deal with now, although it is on page 96, line 40, and is not the Amendment to the Amendment. It is a rather complicated point, which I endeavoured to put before your Lordships in the Committee stage. I am not sure that it is covered by this Amendment but it may be. It is that a through rate charge might be partly made up of charges for lighterage services provided by the Commission at a rate which did not represent the true economic level of the services offered. It is for that reason that I put in the rather complicated wording in my original Amendment, which read as follows:
Similar to or comparable with services or facilities which are ancillary"—and these are the important words—or subsidiary to the services or facilities to which the scheme relates.I would be glad if the noble Viscount could give an assurance that a dock authority would be able to appear before the Transport Tribunal on the ground that part of a through rate charged by the Commission could not be justified at the economic level.
THE EARL OF ROTHESMay I say one word on the Amendment to the Amendment? The noble Viscount said he thought the wording of the Amendment to the Amendment was too wide. With great respect, may I suggest that the words "unduly low" in his Amendment are too narrow? I say that for this reason. Suppose that the Commission suddenly took it into their heads to say that whereas all children had previously travelled at half fare up to twelve years of age, all children should now travel half fare up to sixteen years of age. They would attract the children, and, their relations and friends as a consequence. That would not be unduly low, but it would, to use the noble Viscount's own words, "be prejudicial to the business of the other operator." It is to cover a case of that sort that I suggest that the 364 term "unduly low" should be widened. It may be that the words which stand in the name of my noble friend and myself are too wide, but I do suggest, with great respect, that some suitable words should be found to cover a case such as I have ventured to mention.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMay I make a suggestion in reference to the Amendment to the Amendment and to what the noble Earl has just said? May it not be right for it to run;
or that any terms and conditions relating to those charges would operate unfairly to the detriment. …"?Some conditions, I dare say, do operate to the detriment. But the object here is to get a fair situation. It is not at all unknown in this sort of legislation to introduce that word "unfairly" It is used in railway legislation when they talk about "undue preference." I should have thought what my noble friends mean is "would operate unfairly to the detriment of any such persons."
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI will do my best to answer the questions. With regard to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton's point, as both he and I know, we have spent a considerable time over this conundrum both in my room and outside. I became convinced that, after all, my words fully cover the case. May I just refer your Lordships to the opening words of the Amendment?
Any body representative of any class of persons providing for hire or reward services or facilities similar to or comparable with the services or facilities to which the scheme will relate.…That is to say; they are services or facilities similar, although they are not in the scheme. The Commission can only make their fares and so forth applicable to the scheme. They have no authority to authorize the fares that are outside the scheme.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThat is the charges scheme.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONThe first words of Clause 76.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThat is right. Therefore, the person who is outside the scheme can surely not be hurt if you put the fares up. He will be hurt only if you cut them down because he is outside. It is providing facilities "similar to" and, therefore, he will not be 365 damaged by putting them up, as the noble Viscount suggests, because he is outside the scheme and he will make hay; he is not going to be prejudiced by that. So that. I still claim that the words there, so far as the "unduly low" are concerned, are right; if the fares are too high, the people to complain, of course, would be the users—and quite rightly. And the Bill provides opportunity for the users to complain.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONClause 78, subsection (2), paragraph (a).
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThey would be the people who would complain if the fares were too high and, therefore, I think this Amendment meets the two cases. The other man who is providing facilities outside the scheme will be at an immense advantage, because he is running much more cheaply, and all the operators will be prejudiced if the level is lowered too much. I think it does fairly meet the case. With regard to the modifying words suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I have not had notice of them and I should naturally wish to consider them with his authority. But I really think that my Amendment covers the case.
Take the case of carrying school children of a certain age at a cheap fare. Suppose that the scheme provides that they carry children, we will say, up to sixteen at half-fare. If they think that that is a reasonable fare, they are fully entitled to do so. But supposing the other man says: "No, I only carry them up to the age of fourteen at half fare." Very well; then he has a complaint; he says that between the ages of fifteen and sixteen you are putting your charges too low. He says: "I carry them at half fare only if they are under fourteen; you are carrying them at half fare up to sixteen; therefore, I have a complaint, and the complaint is that the fares are too low between fifteen and sixteen."
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI am convinced on this point by the noble Viscount. I have gone into this a good deal. He has found me a rather stupid pupil but a very willing one, and he has now convinced me that he is right.
LORD TEYNHAMCould the noble Viscount give me an answer about the through rates, whether they are covered?
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe answer is "Yes."
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, would the noble Viscount perhaps consider some such wording as that put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon? I feel that that ought to be a compromise which might possibly lend itself both to His Majesty's Government and to those on this side of the House. There is only one other thing I would like to know. The noble Viscount has said that the independent operator would be quite free to charge what fares he likes.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThat is outside the scheme.
LORD GIFFORDIt is outside the scheme? I do not think that is altogether correct, because he would be subject to the Traffic Commissioners and surely there would be complaints if the independent operator were charging a different fare from the Commission. The Traffic Commissioners would probably have to act and force him to come into line. I think that is so, but if the noble Viscount could consider some wording as suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I would be most happy to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI will look at it, but quite honestly I cannot see any possible way in which the man can be detrimentally affected.
§ On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
§ LORD GIFFORD moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "and the Tribunal may, if they think fit, agree to hear the body with respect to that representation." The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is a separate matter, and I think the object of this Amendment is fairly obvious. Under the Government Amendment as drawn, the Tribunal has a discretion to hear or not to hear the body who is putting up the case in respect of its representations. There are no such qualifications inserted in the Bill with regard to either types of persons who wish to make representations. I really think it is reasonable that the Government Amendment should not give discretion to the Tribunal to allow that body to decide whether or not to hear representations, and I hope the noble Lord will agree to the deletion of these words.
367
§
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 6, leave out from ("section") to end of Amendment.—(Lord Gifford.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI do not think I can accept this Amendment because the noble Lord will see that in the following clauses I do my best to meet the case which was suggested. It is fully set out in the following clauses. You must give the Tribunal an option to say whether it is an unnecessary or trivial thing.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 45, after ("heard") insert ("and any such body as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection whom the tribunal may have agreed to hear").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 4, at end insert ("and shall not hear any such body as is mentioned in the said last preceding subsection except with respect to a representation made by them under that subsection").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 79:
§ Alteration of charges scheme.
§ (3) As soon as may be after the time for lodging objections and representations has elapsed, the tribunal shall hold a public inquiry into the application and shall at that inquiry hear the Commission, the applicant and any such body or other person as are specified in subsection (1) of this section, and may then make such order, if any, with respect to the matter of the application as they think fit:
§ Provided that the tribunal shall not be bound to hear any body or other person, other than the Commission and the applicant, who have not duly lodged with the tribunal an objection or other representation with respect to the application.
368
§
VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
(3) Any body representative of any class of persons providing for hire or reward services or facilities similar to or comparable with the services or facilities to which the scheme relates who desire to contend that the alteration sought for in the application would cause the charges made under the scheme to be unduly low may lodge a representation to that effect with the tribunal within the time and in the manner specified for objections and representations under the last preceding subsection, and the tribunal may, if they think fit, agree to hear the body with respect to that representation.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that in regard to Clause 78, which provides for confirmation of charges schemes, Clause 79, which relates to alterations in the charges scheme, and Clause 80, which deals with the review of schemes, there were a large number of Amendments in the Committee stage, some concerning individual persons and some bodies of persons. Your Lordships very kindly agreed to give me an opportunity to look at the whole case to see how we could provide for persons who were bona fide affected being given a right to be heard. Your Lordships will remember that there is a provision in Clause 79, under which, as it stood at first, the power to make representations was limited to the users referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 78. It was urged in the discussion in Committee that people who perhaps were in the same line of business and who might be prejudicially affected ought to be given the chance to be heard. I undertook to look into that particular point, and it is that class of case which is dealt with in my Amendment. Other people doing the same kind of business are to be given a chance to make their representations. In order to save time, perhaps I may be allowed to say that the same remarks apply to Clauses 79 and 80. I am afraid I am unable to accept the modifications which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, wishes to make, so I hope he will not repeat his observations. This Amendment does provide that persons in the same line of business shall be able to be heard. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line so, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords I think I understand what is proposed, but I do not quite understand the reasons for the distinction. What are you providing? Subsection (3) says:
As soon as may be after the time for lodging objections and representations has elapsed, the tribunal shall hold a public inquiry into the application and shall at that inquiry hear the CommissionThat is obligatory—the applicant and any such body or other person as are specified in subsection (1)"—that would become subsection (2). That is a compulsory provision; they shall hear any body representative of any class of persons using the services within the scheme. So far, the, tribunal is required to hear. Now you have introduced your new subsection (3), which does not provide that they should hear any body representing any class of persons; it only provides that they shall hear any such body as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection whom the tribunal may have agreed to hear. It is not clear to me why there should be a distinction. I assume that the Commission are not likely to open up a frivolous objection, so I should think this is probably right. There is no question of refusing to hear; they have got to hear. Why have they not got to hear the people referred to in your new subsection (3)? I find it very difficult to understand why you should in the last case qualify it by saying, "I am not bound to hear you and in the circumstances I will not hear you."
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI think the distinction is quite clear that the users, who are the other people referred to, have these Users' Consultative Committees, and all the rest of the apparatus provided by the Bill. It is quite evident that, coming through the exercise of these Consultative Committees, it must be of an authoritative type. In this case the words that I have in here are perhaps a little too elastic, but I think you must have provision for the Tribunal not having to hear cases of odds and ends which are not important. I think they must be given some such safeguard as is provided for in those words, and I am quite prepared to consider the words.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI cannot speak again, but I wish you would consider the words, because it is "any body representative."
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONYes, I know, and that is why I am making my suggestion to have another look at the words. Since the words are that it is "a body representative," it would not be any trivial matter.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 9.22 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThis Amendment is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 15, after ("section") insert ("who desire to be heard, and any such body as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection whom the tribunal may have agreed to hear").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThis also is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 22, at end insert ("and shall not hear any such body as is mentioned in the said last preceding subsection except with respect to a representation made to them under that subsection").—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 9.23 p.m.
§ Clause 80 [Review of charges schemes]:
§
VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, after subsection (3) to insert—
(4) Where—
the body may lodge a representation to that effect with the tribunal under this section, and the tribunal may, if they think fit, agree to hear the body with respect to that representation.")
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, This is a little different in wording because it reviews schemes, but really it is the same thing. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Addison.)
§
Then we come to a group of paragraphs which really tie all these up to one another and lead to definitions which are fairly self-explanatory except perhaps in regard to what are called "major components." In subsection (5) we have definitions of "chassis" and perhaps paragraph (b) calls for a word of explanation. I understand that there are contrivances now in which the body and the chassis are one thing. The body is not manufactured separately from the chassis; they are all one construction. It is to make sure that even that form of activity is limited, that this paragraph is put in. I confess that unless they had been explained to me privately, the words would not have conveyed very much to me. I understand, however, from those who are thoroughly acquainted with the business that they do what is necessary. The paragraph begins:
in relation to a vehicle in which the framework to which the major components are attached forms an integral whole with the body structure, …
and so forth.
§ I understand that by that is meant this sort of body-chassis. I believe this process is utilized sometimes in the manufacture of buses and such like vehicles. But these things are now similarly excluded.
§ I come to subsection (6) of the proposed Amendment which arose out of an Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, on which we promised to consider adaptation of the words. This gives effect to that undertaking.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI think it does. It was a good point.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe point was that where someone is concerned in a business taken over, directly or indirectly, he should similarly be brought within the limitation. I am glad to hear that the noble Viscount is satisfied that we have genuinely given effect to the undertaking. The whole group of Amendments stand together, and I think that I can fairly say that after prolonged negotiation they represent an honourable understanding with the industries concerned. I hope your Lordships will accept them as carrying out the undertakings given in Committee. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("tons") to the end of line 41.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the House on an admirable chain of Amendments, and to thank him sincerely for the great trouble he has himself taken over this matter. I would also thank the Department. We felt that the position was unsatisfactory as it had been left. The Minister had given a pledge that he would not manufacture any chassis at all except for experimental purposes and then there was the involved possible qualification of that by reason of subsection (3). The plain common sense of it was that he was not going to make chassis at all. On the other hand, so far as pledges went he was left completely free to make all the bodies he liked in the world. Both the Leader of the House and I thought that that was not a very sensible arrangement, and that it would be much better if those undertakings could manufacture a reasonable amount of what they were going to use, whether chassis or bodies, and that what really ought to be done was to arrive at a fair working compromise. Thanks to the Leader of the House, the net result is that we have an extremely practical clause before us in which everything is covered. There is a limitation on what should be manufactured which seems to be a fair and reasonable one and one which applies all along the line.
I must add one word of particular congratulation that this curious composite article has been covered. I should not have thought it was a major component. I thought a component meant a part and that a major component meant a larger part. What this means is a complete whole and, though I certainly do not quarrel with what is intended to be done, it seems to me rather an odd definition. What we really mean is not a major component but a unitarian vehicle, but if the draftsman likes this rather odd definition and makes it perfectly clear that "major component" means the whole vehicle however constructed, I am satisfied. I think the House and the Leader of the House have done a very good job of work.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I add my thanks to the Leader of the House for so fully and generously meeting the points which I 373 are concerned exclusively with passenger carrying. The noble Lord wishes to take out the word "passenger" and bring them in in relation to everything else including freight charges. This clause is drawn especially to give them locus in respect of passenger services. It would be a great mistake to take out that word. It would leave it open, quite unnecessarily and we think wrongfully. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
§ LORD ADDINGTONI would like to ask whether it could be made clear in Clause 79 that a local authority can be brought in to make representations regarding charges. Perhaps the noble Lord will look into that, and assuming that he will be good enough to do so I will not press this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 83:
§ Transitional provisions as to charges.
§
83. The Minister may at any time, if he thinks it expedient so to do with a view to ensuring a sufficient revenue to the Commission, to any of the bodies specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, to any railway company to which a schedule of charges is applied under the Railways Act, 1921, or to any light railway company to which subsection (2) of Section seventy-two of that Act applies, by regulations authorise the Commission, the body or the company to make, in respect of any services or facilities provided by them the charges for which are regulated by any statutory provision, charges additional to those in operation under that provision:
Provided that this section shall not apply—
§
LORD MORRISON moved, in the proviso, after the first "that" to insert:
before making any regulations under this section, the Minister shall consult with, and consider the advice of, the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal, acting as a consultative committee.
(2) Subsection (1) of".
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that in the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, moved an Amendment which would have imposed upon the Minister,
374
before he made regulations authorizing additional charges, an obligation to submit a draft of the regulations to the Transport Tribunal who would, after hearing the Minister and bodies representing users, either refuse to confirm or confirm with or without alterations. This would have transferred the ultimate powers of decision from the Minister to the Tribunal. Your Lordships will remember that considerable discussion took place, and afterwards the Amendment was withdrawn when the noble Leader of the House had agreed to consider a modified suggestion made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The noble Marquess made his suggestion in these terms:
It is that at any rate there should be some statutory duty on the Minister to ask the views of the Tribunal. That is not going so far as to have a statutory duty to abide by the conclusions of the Tribunal, but I think he should obtain the expert informed views of the people devoted to this question.
§ The Amendment gives effect to that suggestion. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 23, after ("that") insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI am very much obliged. I think it does exactly carry out what is proposed. The words are better than those in my Amendment, and I gladly adopt and support them.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 9.32 p.m.
§ Clause 84:
§ Transitional provisions as to exceptional rates and fares of the Commission.
§ (2) Where, in the opinion of the Commission, any exceptional rate which under the provisions of Part III of the Railways Act, 1921, is in operation on the date of transfer in respect of any traffic is unduly low by reason of the competition of road haulage undertakers, canal carriers or persons engaged in coastal shipping, the Commission may at any time increase that rate up to not more than sixty per cent. of the standard rate for the time being in operation under the said Act, and section thirty-eight of the said Act (which prescribes the procedure to be followed as to alterations of exceptional rates) shall not have effect in relation to such an increase:
§ Provided that, if any trader is aggrieved by the raising of any exceptional rate under this subsection, he may appeal to the Transport Tribunal, and if the Tribunal are satisfied that the Commission were not justified in raising the rate under this subsection, they 375 may order the lower rate to be restored and the Commission shall give effect to that order.
§ LORD MORRISON moved, in the proviso to subsection (2) after "restored," to insert "from such date as they may determine." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee Lord Rochdale asked me whether the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 84 would enable the Transport Tribunal to order the restoration of a lower rate from the date on which it was increased or only from the date of the Tribunal's order. The Amendment makes it clear that the restoration may be from such date as the Tribunal may determine. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 3, after ("restored") insert the said words.—[Lord Morrison.]
LORD ROCHDALEMy Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken on this matter. This Amendment partly meets my point. At the same time I do not think the Minister has been over-generous in his attitude. It Seems to me that the position might still arise where a trader who has a contract running at the time when the rate was raised or beyond the time when the Tribunal issued their decision, would be seriously affected. The trader will be uncertain as to what rates will be put up and when rates may be put up, and if later on the increase cannot be justified it is rather difficult to conceive of circumstances where that restoration should not be as from the date when it was originally raised. I realize that with this present Amendment the Tribunal have a degree of latitude and on the understanding that the Tribunal will use that latitude fairly I will not say anything more about it
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 86:
§ Overriding provisions as to exercise by Commission and Transport Tribunal of their powers as to charges.
§ 86. Neither the Commission nor the Transport Tribunal shall do anything in the exercise of their respective powers as respects charges and the submission, confirmation and alteration of charges schemes which in their opinion will prevent the Commission from discharging the Commission's general duty to secure that their revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue taking one year with another, or which in their opinion will prevent the Commission from giving effect 376 to any direction of the Minister under any provision of this Act; and it is hereby declared that the duty of the Commission to give effect to such directions as aforesaid includes a duty to make such applications and to do such other things in relation to the making or alteration of charges schemes as are required in order to give effect to any such direction.
§ LORD ROCHDALE moved to leave out all words after "another." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down during Committee stage but was not moved, as it was not clear at the time what would be the effect on the Amendment by the Government's deletion of Clause 81. I put this down again as I am still far from happy that the effect of the clause as it stands will not be to prevent the Transport Tribunal exercising their proper function as a free judicial body. It seems to me that the Minister could issue a direction saying that no rates were to be granted below a certain level, or that exceptional rates were to cease, without giving the traders an opportunity of being represented or of the Tribunal giving an unqualified judgment however reasonable the traders' case may be. Such a direction might actually be given during a hearing by the Tribunal and could have the effect of making it difficult for the Tribunal to give a considered judgment of the facts before them.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 12, leave out from ("another") to end of line 19.—(Lord Rochdale.)
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, you will remember that an Amendment was carried against the Government in Committee stage which added to Clause 4 a proviso
that the Minister shall not give to the Commission a direction in relation to any matter the effect of which, taking one year with another, will be, or will be likely to be, that the revenue of the Commission will be less than sufficient for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, unless the Minister shall at the time of the giving of such direction notify the Commission that it is given in the interests of national security.The question now arises, therefore, whether there is any purpose in keeping in Clause 86 the words to which the present Amendment relates. The answer is, "Yes." The effect of transport charges on the economic life of the country is so great that the Government, with the best knowledge of economic needs, 377 must retain some power to influence them in the national interest.The limitation which has been put upon the Minister's power of direction neither removes the need for, nor destroys the usefulness of, the provision in this clause. Two examples may be given of the possible use of directions: The first is that the time may come when from all the information at their disposal the Government anticipate that an immediate economic recession is probable; they may wish to take all preventive measures in the national interest, and particularly in the interest of full employment. In such circumstances, the Government might wish to require a reduction in the general level of transport charges, and this would not be precluded by the limitation mentioned above, if, say, the Commission had adequate reserves which could be used for the purpose. The second example is that, in the interest of full employment, the Government might wish to require the Commission to give special treatment (within their financial resources) in the matter of charges to development areas, or to particular industries temporarily in a depressed condition. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALEMy Lords, I appreciate the Government's point of view in this. The detailed reply of the noble Lord was a little difficult to follow but, under the circumstances, I do not propose to press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 90 [British Transport Stock]:
§
THE EARL OF DUDLEY had given notice that he would move, in subsection (3), at the end to insert:
Provided that nothing in any such regulations shall impose any restrictions as to the disposal of such stock
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a legal point which I moved in the Committee stage of the Bill. Since then the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has given considerable thought to the matter. He has been good enough to write me a long letter, for which I would to thank him, which sets my mind, and the minds of those who advised me, completely at rest. In the circumstances, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
378§ Clause 94 [Sums which are to be chargeable to revenue.]
§
LORD ROCHDALE: moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
Provided that in making provision for redemption of capital the amount to be set aside shall assume that the assets in respect of which such provision made shall be regarded as having a life of not less than eighty years from the date of transfer or the date of acquisition of any asset whichever is the later date.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised that the matter which underlies the Amendment I am now moving has not been previously raised during the course of this Bill through your Lordships' House. Frankly, the purpose of the Amendment is to seek some indication of the Government's intention.
§ Clause 94 lays down certain things that the Commission shall do; and in particular there are three things: The Commission shall, first, make proper allocations to general reserve; secondly, they shall make proper provision for depreciation or renewal of fixed assets; and, thirdly, they shall make proper provision for the redemption of capital. Those of your Lordships who, like myself, in all matters of nationalization feel that the central authorities—in this case the Transport Commission—should have the maximum degree of autonomy, like an independent board of directors, would have no objection to the first of those two points. But it seems to me that the provision for capital redemption—which, incidentally, is mandatory by the present clause—as well as for depreciation or renewal of the fixed assets is providing twice over for the same thing. It would seem now that the Commission are bound to provide for redeeming out of revenue the whole of the British transport stock to be issued on the date of redemption fixed for that stock.
§ As I understand it from statements that have been made in another place, that is likely to be during this century—that is to say, somewhere about fifty years time. The transport charges are already showing signs of rising, and this extra charge, provided from revenue after deduction of Income Tax, would, I suggest, result in a crippling further charge on industry, both as regards the home trade and the export trade. I do suggest that no commercial undertaking ever makes provision 379 for redeeming all its issued capital. It may make provision, for redeeming a debenture issue, or it may, in very exceptional cases, make provision for redeeming an issue of redeemable preference shares; but not the whole of its capital. However, if the Government think that some provision to meet capital contingencies by way of a redemption fund is necessary, then I would submit that the rate should be extremely low, not more than one quarter of one per cent. per annum on the issued stock, and that, my Lords, is all that this Amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Rochdale.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I have consulted the Treasury and the authorities on this, as the noble Lord would anticipate, and I think that I cannot do better than read what I am specially authorized to read in respect to this matter. It may be stated categorically that it is the Government's intention that the redemption of the Commission's capital should take place over a period extending well into the next century. This will be dealt with in regulations to be made by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury under subsection (3) of Clause 90, and it may well be found desirable to leave room for elasticity in regard to the length of the period and the amount of the annual provision. It can be said, however, that the over-all period is not likely to be less than, say, eighty years. That is an authorized statement, and I hope it will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD ROCHDALEMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply; it has cleared the position between us very much. In point of fact, this period of eighty years is in keeping with the figure of one quarter of one per cent. per annum that I mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 9.43 p.m.
§ Clause 95:
§ Accounts.
§ (2) The said annual statement shall be so framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information as respects the principal activities of the Commission, and the Minister 380 and the Treasury shall exercise their powers under subsection (1) of this section accordingly.
§ (3) The accounts of the Commission shall be audited by an auditor or auditors to be appointed annually by the Minister and in accordance with a scheme of audit approved by him and, if the Minister so directs, the accounts of the Commission as respects any part of their undertaking specified in the direction shall be separately audited by an auditor or auditors so appointed as aforesaid.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, these two Amendments are to meet Amendments moved by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in Committee. They are consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 34, at end insert ("and"). —(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 38, leave out from ("Treasury") to the end of line 45.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
VISCOUNT SWINTON had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (2) to leave out all words after "so framed as to" and to insert:
conform with the best commercial and modern transport practice and distinguish between the provision of transport for the carriage of goods and passengers by rail, the provision of transport for the carriage of goods by road, the provision of transport for the carriage of passengers by road, the provision of transport for the carriage of goods by inland waterways, the provision of port facilities, and the provision of hotels, hostels and other living accommodation and places for refreshment, and show separately the results of each such activity and include a Trading and Profit and Loss Account and a Balance Sheet in relation to each such activity.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I would formally move this Amendment to put myself in order, but I do not think that my Amendment is as good as that standing in the name of the Leader of the House, provided that the Leader of the House can add certain words to his Amendment. Frankly, I owe him an apology for not having put my Amendment to the Amendment on the Paper; it was an oversight. On the other hand, as the noble Viscount well knows, the other day we carried on for quite a long time after he left us, and the words in the Manuscript Amendment of which I have given notice are very familiar to
381
his Department. I am not sure that even they are wholly satisfactory.
§ What I think I had better do, therefore, is not to move the Amendment and then let the noble Lord move his Amendment. If I may, I will then move my Manuscript Amendment to his Amendment which gives further particularity to it. He can either then accept that or give me what I think he will be able to do, an assurance of the intention of the separation of the accounts, which is what we all want. I think we all should work together here—it is rather like several other matters which we have been on today—on finding the most convenient way of doing what we all want.
§
VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subsection (2), after "Commission" to insert:
and, in combination with the periodical statistics and returns rendered by the Commission, to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each such activity.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, says that this was the subject of considerable discussion between us in my room, and I know that he discussed it afterwards with the officers of the Departments. I am much obliged to him for the consideration he has given to it. I am advised that the requirements set out in the Amendment that I move in my name, that it should be "in combination with the periodical statistics and returns," would involve a separate compilation of data, returns, statistics, details and so forth from the different services, which is what the noble Viscount requires in his Amendment, where he wants the receipts and so forth, as distinguished between the different services—passengers, goods and all the rest.
§ I am advised that in some cases it would be almost a physical impossibility—at all events it would be exceedingly difficult—to disentangle the fares which are quite legitimately overlapped. Part of the journey might be by train and part might be by bus. But there would have to be statistics as to the passengers, returns and all the rest of it, both upon the rails and upon buses, so that they would emerge eventually in the returns rendered by the Commission. If this Amendment is accepted the matter will be provided for in the Act, and the Com- 382 mission will be required, so far as possible, to comply with these statistics and returns, so as to show the operating results of each of the activities which the noble Viscount insisted upon, and which I think is perfectly fair, I do not profess to be an accountant—it is not my business—but I have been advised, as the noble Viscount well knows, by skilled accountants, and I am advised that this is entirely reasonable. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 3, after ("Commission") insert the said words.—(Viscount Addison.)
§
VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting at the end
and such separate financial results shall be shown in respect of the following activities; namely, railways activities not otherwise mentioned, road haulage, road passenger transport, inland waterways, port facilities, hotels and catering.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as the noble Leader has said, I think we are on exactly the same point here. We want, as far as possible, separate accounts kept in regard to each undertaking. We want to know in regard to each of these activities whether it is showing a profit or a loss. I have no complaint myself that if there is a profit on one part of the business it should come in to relieve the loss on the other. That is a perfectly proper business transaction. But what is essential is that not only should those who are conducting this is enterprise know, but that the pubic should know whether a profit or loss is being made on the different lines of activity, be it road passenger transport, road goods haulage, railways, hotels, inland waterways, docks, and so on.
§ It would appear to be the obvious thing to say that there should be completely separate accounts rendered by each of these. But you cannot render a separate balance sheet of each undertaking, because the capital structure must necessarily be a composite one. I am much obliged to the experts who have been good enough to discuss this with me. There are two difficulties about having a profit and loss account for each activity. The difficulty you find in trying to specify either a profit and loss account or a trading account is this. There is not only the difficulty which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House pointed 383 out—which I do not think is the biggest difficulty—that you might have through fares. The London Passenger Transport Board, I agree, is in a class by itself. It is a composite undertaking, where everything is jumbled up (rather like the Allies in the war), and I do not think you can "unjumble" it. But for the other things I do not think it would be particularly difficult where you have a through route quoted, and someone goes partly by train and partly by bus.
§ What is much more difficult is the apportionment of capital charges. You cannot, I think, make a proper trading account, certainly not a profit and loss account, without bringing in what ought to be allowed for depreciation and so on. To do that you would have to know the apportionment of the whole capital assets and the depreciation of physical assets as between the different undertakings. That I think the Commission will probably come to in due course; indeed I think they will have to decide, honestly and fairly, what are the physical assets which belong to each branch of their undertaking and what should be the proper depreciation of these; and they should then be charged up to the particular undertaking. I think that is right. But it is obviously not a thing you can do by to-morrow morning; it will take a certain amount of time—and some of the business has already been jumbled up, because the Commission have taken over a number of concerns. When they come to amalgamate the whole transport systems of every kind in the country into one single undertaking that will mean probably a new assignment or a new division of the physical assets, and the consideration of what are the proper overhead charges to the different branches and undertakings.
§ If we lay this down in an Act of Parliament a separate profit and loss or trading account will have to be kept in respect of each of these undertakings. I know that the reputable and skilled accountants and auditors who will be responsible for these figures will feel, and rightly, that they have got to interpret this Act of Parliament very strictly. They would interpret a profit and loss account or even a trading account if we call it that, in the very strictest terms of accountancy and in accordance with the best principles of accountancy. They 384 would probably feel that they had to go through the whole apportionment and sub-division, and so on, of the capital structure and everything else. Therefore, reluctantly, I came to the conclusion, as we have got to pass a clause which will operate from the start, that in fairness to those who will have to work this we should not put in that separate balance sheets would be required, or separate profit and loss accounts or trading accounts.
§ On the other hand, I am most anxious that there should be no doubt that, as far as it is physically possible with fair accountancy, they should show year by year exactly what is the financial position of each of these undertakings separately. It was for that reason that I wished to add these words. I felt that I had to put these words in, because there are odds and ends which come into railway business, penny-in-the-slot machines, and so on, which are not inland waterways or anything else. They would have to come into the general railway accounts. The other things are all perfectly clear: road haulage is quite clear; road passenger transport is quite clear; so are inland waterways and port facilities; and so, I think, are hotels and catering. Frankly, I would like to have those words at the end of the Amendment proposed by the Leader of the House.
§ He may well tell me that that is a refinement of what he has already provided for in his Amendment, because his Amendment, though it is short, is very positive: "in combination with the periodical statistics." And I think his clause about statistics lower down is altogether admirable— "and returns rendered by the Commission to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each such activity." If he can tell me, as I am sure he will be able to—and indeed it may be that I am not separating it sufficiently and that the separation may be more rather than less—that at any rate these activities which I have specifically sought to mention here will be treated as separate activities, then I will defer to his responsibility in this matter and the great care which I know has been brought to bear upon it. I will accept the thing as it stands. I think it should be on record, however that, whether we name them or not, these particular activities will be the 385 subject of separate returns. I beg to move.
§
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
§ LORD REAMy Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, may I express my uneasiness at the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that it is not possible to include depreciation charges, and so forth, because of the size of the undertaking? In all well managed undertakings that are being taken over by the State, by some means or another they do find it possible to take into account obsolescence and depreciation, and if we are not to take those into consideration in the Government statement, then we come back to what I feared, that we shall have statistics and returns which will not give us a true picture, in the commercial sense, of whether the operations are being conducted at a profit or loss. I hope my noble friend did not mean anything quite so definite as that.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONIf I may answer that, I did not at all, of course. We must have depreciation, and complete depreciation. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but what I said was not that there should not be depreciation, and full depreciation—of course there must. But I thought that as these returns had got to be made and they have got to start on them, and be ready to render them at once, it might take them some time to decide exactly how the assets which have to be depreciated between the different branches of these undertakings were to be apportioned. Of course, depreciation must be there, and it would be their duty to apportion the assets appropriately to the different activities.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI did not have that misunderstanding myself. It was clear to me that obsolescence and depreciation must be provided for in any case. With regard to the main Amendment of the noble Viscount my difficulty all along, as I have been advised, is with regard to the practical possibility of the precise or semi precise separation of the accounts in the way suggested. Although there must 386 be a vast amount of business in which the accounts clearly relate either to road haulage, road passenger transport, or railway carriage of goods, and so on, yet there is such an immense amount overlapping between one and another that to require this statutory discrimination would I think, be putting upon us more than we could be expected to achieve.
I have a number of illustrations of overlapping on the sheet in front of me, which has been provided by the Department. There is one relating to cross-channel services. There ships and railways are concerned, and there might even be also the bus in London which is used for taking people to the train. Then there are cams where cartage collection and delivery service is a part of the comprehensive charge. I am advised that the noble Viscount's purpose can be met, and will be met to a very great extent, but that we should be ill-advised in accepting a statutory instruction of this kind because it must, of necessity, emerge that there is a vast amount of overlapping and so on, which you could not sensibly discriminate in the way required. So I would give the noble Viscount my assurance on these lines. I know that he knows we have honestly tried, with the advice of accountants, to go as far as we can in giving him what he wants. Therefore If would ask him not to press his Amendment. I think that what we have proposed, will give a sufficient display to show how the different activities are faring; and that is what we want to know. I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied with the words of my Amendment, and will not seek to go into the precise discrimination which—although his Amendment has qualifying words— would really be entailed thereby. I hope that he will think that the Amendment which we have devised goes to the full extent of what is practically realizable.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. It is quite clear that here we do mean the same thing. It is clear that all the activities which I have mentioned will, in fact, be dealt with in separate accounts, and there may be others which will go into the separate accounts. I am quite sure that we are going to provide properly for obsolescence and depreciation. I am convinced by the noble Viscount that, having been very precise in the general directions, we should be wise not to try to par- 387 ticularize further. We might find that by particularizing we had precluded certain special accounts which we would wish to have in. I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount for the way in which he has gone into this and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 4, leave out ("subsection (1) of").—(Viscount Addison,)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
VISCOUNT ADDISON moved at the end of subsection (4) to insert:
(5) The Commission shall compile and render to the Minister such periodical statistics and returns relating to each of their principal activities in such forms and at such times as the Minister may direct, and the Minister shall lay a copy of any such statistics and returns before each House of Parliament:
Provided that, in giving any directions under this subsection, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of requiring the Commission to compile and render statistics and returns on a basis which, in his opinion, is reasonably comparable with that of the statistics and returns required at the date of the passing of this Act to be rendered by railway and canal companies by or under the enactments mentioned in the next succeeding subsection.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is tabled in fulfilment of an undertaking given, and it should be considered in connexion with the first Amendment to Clause 95. It is to provide the statistics as set out. That was the undertaking given during Committee stage.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 20, at end insert the said sub-section.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI think this is an excellent piece of drafting.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 10.7 p.m.
§
LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, after Clause 95, to insert the following new clause:
Where any British transport stock is issued under this Act as compensation in respect of
388
securities or other property held subject to a trust it shall be lawful for the trustees to sell such stock and notwithstanding anything in the relevant trust instrument or in the Trustee Act, 1925, to invest the proceeds of the sale not only as authorized by the trust instrument or the Trustee Act, 1925, but also in any security described in the Sixteenth Schedule to this Act.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a third attempt to obtain some mitigation of the hardship that will be caused to beneficiaries of trusts under the terms of compensation of the present Bill. The hardship is undoubted and I need not dwell on it. It is admitted, whatever defence is possible. I quite admit it is not easy to find a remedy on the spot. But there is a difference between a beneficiary of a trust and a man with free capital, because he has the right to realize his transport stock and take the chance of finding a better investment, but the trustee and beneficiary are bound by the narrow terms of the present trust law. I admit that the last attempt I made was defective in more than one particular, but especially because it did not apply only to those who first received the transport stock but also opened the possibility that trustees might enter the market afterwards and indulge in what would really be speculation quite improper for them.
§ After my former attempt to supply a possible new schedule to carry out the purposes I had in view, I was reminded by a friend that there was a very clear precedent for what I had in mind, and with one slight modification I made my proposal in the precise terms of the precedent, which is to be found in the Coal Act, 1938, where the trustees of an interest comprising mining royalties were allowed very liberal chances of re-investment—much more liberal than I myself would have suggested. I have taken pains to find out exactly what was in the mind of the two Houses of Parliament. I find to my great surprise that there was no debate at all. The proposal was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham (who I am sorry is not here), then Lord Chancellor, in two sentences and not a word of dissent was uttered. It was in the form of an Amendment in this House and then it went to another place; and equally when the Attorney-General of that time made the proposal, also in two sentences, not a word of opposition was vouchsafed. It was rather strange, because the present President of 389 the Board of Trade, Sir Stafford Cripps, was there in great force and, if I may use words in the vernacular, was "throwing his weight about" in denunciation of the Government and the coal owners; but he had not a word of objection to make to this proposal, and nor had anyone else.
§ I confess that I cannot understand the argument which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, put forward on the last occasion, that the amount of compensation concerned at that time was quite different from the present, because it was then very small. My noble friend Viscount Swinton, I think, remarked in Committee that that was merely the argument that the traditional housemaid put forward to atone for the meagre consequence of her lapse. I cannot see what argument there can be based merely on the amount involved. It is true that then compensation was paid in cash; but there again I cannot see what the difference is, for the purpose of justice. between compensation paid in cash and compensation paid in stock which can be realized. I quite see that it is a very inconvenient thing for one Act to modify a Public General Act, but it is a balance of inconvenience, and I submit that the inconvenience in this case, it may be to the Treasury or it may be to the draftsman, is not comparable to the injustice—I put it as high as that—done to beneficiaries. In view of the precedent of the 1938 Act, and of the really crying need to afford some mitigation to beneficiaries of trusts, I beg to move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 95, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Rankeillour.)
§ LORD BEVERIDGEMy Lords, the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, and myself is fundamentally different from the Amendment moved on the Committee stage, as he has pointed out, in being limited to the sale and subsequent investment of stock first received by the trustees as compensation. I think the Amendment as moved by the noble Lord in Committee was subject to the criticism made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that it would mean amending the whole of the trustee legislation through the Transport Bill, because it would have been possible under that Amendment, for trustees who wished to get extended powers, just to buy a parcel 390 of transport stock and then sell it again and, of course, the Stock Exchange would have seen that there always was a convenient parcel which passed from hand to hand, setting the trustees free from their trustee obligations. But this is not that Amendment at all; this is absolutely limited. The words make it quite clear that it is limited to the trustees who first receive stock in compensation for securities or other property held. If the words are not clear enough, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, and certainly I myself, would be willing to use any other words which make it absolutely clear.
The Amendment, by limiting the concession to the first recipient, avoids making the Transport Bill a means of amending the whole of the Trustee Acts. It follows the precedent of the Coal Act. What reason is there for disregarding that precedent? What are the differences? There is one difference, of course, that we have a Government of a different political colour; but none of us thinks that that ought to make a difference, and I am quite sure that the noble and learned. Viscount on the Woolsack does not make that difference. It is the business of all Governments to protect the interests of trusts, which means, of course, watching the interests of the beneficiaries of the cestui-que trusts in the changed circumstances of to-day, and protecting them from hardship and loss, if possible.
The second difference is that the amount of compensation on this occasion has been fixed by the Government itself, one of the parties to the transaction, and not by independent arbitration. That is an additional reason for seeing that hardship is avoided. It strengthens the case for going beyond the precedent of the Coal Act; it does not weaken the case. Therefore there is this difference: that it was not clear whether compensation given under the Coal Act would lower materially the incomes of all the people who received it, whereas it is quite certain that the compensation proposed under this Bill will lower materially the income of all people who receive it, whether they are beneficiaries under trusts or not, and that means that there will be most serious hardship. That I suggest is another reason for pressing to the utmost, or for going beyond if necessary, the precedent of the Coal Act and not for falling short of it. 391 Finally, the amount is much larger. In so far as the amount involved is larger, if there be an injustice, it only makes the injustice larger and more widespread. That all strengthens the case for this Amendment. The Government themselves have recognized that people will be very badly hit by this compensation. They have said that those who must keep their income up at all costs if they can should sell and buy annuities. But trustees cannot do that; the only way in which a trustee can be enabled to do it is by some such measure as is proposed here. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that this is not an Amendment of the Trustee Acts placed in the Transport Bill. It is settling the terms upon which compensation shall be paid with the minimum of avoidable hardship to the people who receive it.
Further, I would suggest that you cannot write off this proposal by saying that there can be an Amendment of the Trustee Acts in general. Who thinks that it is possible to get an Amendment of the Trustee Acts in general before January 1, 1948? That is when the compensation is going to be paid. That is no answer at all, even if there is a case for such amendment of those Acts. In any case I do not know why the Government should want to add still further to their programme of legislation. We all realize that they have a very sufficient programme already. Why mix up the question of compensation, and of fair treatment of the recipients of compensation who are going to be expropriated under this Bill, with the general question of trustees? I venture to say that to use that argument seems like looking for an excuse to avoid taking the simple line of remedy which was taken by the Government in the Coal Act of 1938, and which could be applied here. I beg to support the Amendment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, it is quite true that this Amendment is better than the Amendment submitted last time. I pointed out some very obvious defects in the Amendment then moved, but I did not base my opposition on those very obvious defects. I went to the principle of the thing, and I resist this Amendment on principle now. The principle, as I said last time, is this. A Transport Bill is a completely inappro- 392 priate vehicle in which to make very far-reaching and important changes in our law in this regard. It is, with great respect to the noble Lord who last spoke, quite idle to say that this is not a far-reaching and important alteration in our law in this regard. There are literally hundreds and thousands of trusts wherein the trustee has the right to dispose of his money as specified, or the investment has to be by the trustee by the use of the simple phrase "upon trustee securities". Rightly or wrongly, he has done that. If you completely rewrite (because that is the effect of this Amendment) the list of trustee securities, that means to say you are ripping up what all these testators for years past have done, and you are treating their bequests as of no effect whatever.
I am bound to say that I regard this Amendment as a very far-reaching Amendment, interfering with all these trustees. If we are to do that at all we should do it only after very careful consideration. When you come to consider an Amendment of the Trustee Acts it is quite inappropriate, in my submission, to do it in this Transport Bill, and I could not possibly accede to this Amendment. It is true—and I agree that it is perhaps the exception which proves the rule—that in 1938 the same thing was done. It was a bad example. It was a fact that the royalty owners there were going to be paid a sum of, I think, £66,000,000, or something of that sort, in cash. It may have been thought that they would have difficulty in finding suitable trustee securities to buy with their cash in the market, and perhaps that is why it was done. But we are supplying the trustees with a trustee security. The coal royalties were a wasting asset which the Greene Tribunal valued as a 7½ per cent. risk, and it was argued that some widening in the trustee field was reasonable in that case. But my distinguished predecessor, in the year 1938, the Lord Chancellor of the day, was at pains to deny that the provision was intended to maintain the income of trustees owning coal royalties, and that is the very object with which this Amendment is moved—one which the then Lord Chancellor expressly disclaimed.
The total compensation on coal royalties was about £77,000,000 or £66,000,000. The compensation for rail- 393 ways alone will be over £100,000,000. In such a wide field it would be hard to cater for the new demand for trustee securities while maintaining due standards of capital safety, nor would it help trustees to maintain their income if securities in the proposed new schedule were added to the trustee list; for by reason of scarcity of supply, the moment they got trustee status the market price, which is already not far away from the gilt-edged rate, would approximate to it.
Finally, since the 1938 Act was passed, the advance of cheap money has meant that all but newly issued commercial debentures are standing generally at high premiums. If they were added to the list complicated legal provisions would be required to restrict trustees from investing in such securities in order to protect beneficiaries from the risks that flow from the conditions that are attached to a number of commercial debentures providing for premature repayment at par by drawings or in a liquidation. That is the view which the experts who instruct me on this matter have formed. I myself, on the previous occasion, informed your Lordships that I was sure it was wrong to do this by means of a Transport Bill instead of considering the whole matter from the point of view of the Trustee Acts, and in those circumstances I regret to say that I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I should like to point out that the Trustee Acts are being rewritten substantially by this Bill as it stands. The effect will be to divide trustee securities into those securities which remain and those which are exchanged for Government securities. A large number of those taken over will seek to go into the higher market; and those which are not taken over will necessarily be at an additional disadvantage compared with others. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, made a very clear case in regard to the churches when he explained that a meeting took place in January and an inquiry was made, but the answer did not come back—although the matter was urgent and although a promise had been made that the answer would be given before the Committee stage in another place—until May 7. It is a fact that it was on May 6 at 11 p.m. that the Third Reading took place in another place, and the answer 394 came back on May 7, the following day. This leaves a suggestion that criticism of the effect on the churches was deliberately barred from discussion in another place. I think, for that reason, that there is strong ground for suggesting that some action should be taken to assist the position of the trustee in this way, if not in any other.
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMy Lords, I listened with great interest to the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, but at the same time I felt they were exactly the same arguments as last time, with the exception that he was not able to bring what I may call the speculation argument into play, because that has completely gone. I feel that it is a grave injustice that this case is not met, and met now. What are the prospects of a general alteration in the Trustee Acts being made before January 1 of next year? Extremely small. But the hardship is imminent and immediate; the possible remedy is doubtful and remote. I certainly do not propose to withdraw this Amendment. If necessary I must submit to its being negatived. But I do want to place on record that here is an opportunity for mitigating the admitted hardship of many innocent people and that that opportunity has been missed.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived