Lords Sitting of 10 July 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Earl of Lindsay—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Motion for the Second Reading of the Public Offices (Site) Bill, and for the House to be put into Committee on the Fire Services Bill (which stand appointed for to-morrow) be advanced to this day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.— (Lord Chorley.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cherwell would have said a few words upon the Third Reading of this Bill, but he is obliged to be elsewhere, and he has asked me to make these few observations, in which I concur. He feels, and we feel, that if administered reasonably, as no doubt it will be, this Bill may in the long term be of considerable help in our drive for increased production. Like so many other Bills it has, I think, been improved in its passage through this House. It is common ground that the development councils which are to be set up under this Act can only serve a useful purpose
398
if there is a reasonable measure of desire for them in the industry. For this reason, we are glad that the Government accepted the Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Cherwell, which shows that there is no intention of setting them up unless a substantial proportion of persons engaged in business in the industry and of those employed in the industry desires them. We are glad also that the Government have inserted an Amendment safeguarding, so far as possible, firms from the risk of leakage of their secret processes through the medium of these councils. The Amendment laying down that the number of independent members should not exceed the number of members representing the employers and the employed is also one which we welcome.
I would venture to add this, and I should be glad to know if Lord Chorley agrees. The Government Amendment, inserted at the Report stage, saying that the Minister should consult interested organizations before appointing members of the development councils might, perhaps, be held to mean that the Minister should not consult appropriate organizations as to the independent membership of the Committee. I trust that this is not the intention of the Amendment, and that the Minister will be left free to consult these organizations. I gather from what the noble Lord silently indicates that he concurs. I imagine that the Minister would usually wish to consult the organizations not only as to their own representatives but also about the independent members he intends to nominate. I make these few observations really at the request of Lord Cherwell who has taken so great an interest in this Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the observations which he has made on this Bill. We are also very grateful to Lord Cherwell for his assistance in connexion with a number of these Amendments. I think that as amended this Bill has the support of noble Lords opposite, and I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount that if it is administered with good will on all sides it may well be a landmark in the development of British industry.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRANSPORTS BILL
Further considered on Report (according to order).
Clause 99:
Provisions as to pension rights.
(3) Regulations made under this section shall not be invalid by reason that in fact they do not secure that persons having pension rights are not placed in any worse position by reason of any such amendment, repeal, revocation, transfer, extinguishment or winding up as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection, but if the Minister is satisfied or it is determined as hereinafter mentioned that any such regulations have failed to secure that result, the Minister shall as soon as may be make the necessary amending regulations.
Any dispute arising between the Minister and any person as to whether or not the said result has been secured by any regulations made under this section shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for his or their determination thereon.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this section, regulations made under this section may contain provisions authorising any person who, being a participant in any pension scheme to which the regulations relate, becomes a member of the Commission or of an Executive being treated as if his service as a member of the Commission or of an Executive, as the case may be, were service in the employment of the Commission, and the pension rights of any such persons resulting from the operation of any such provision shall not be affected by any provision of this Act which requires that the pensions, if any, which are to be paid in the case of members of the Commission or an Executive are to be determined by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury or by the Commission with the approval of the Minister and the Treasury.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (3), to omit the last five words "his or their determination thereon," and insert "determination, and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment, the first on to-day's Marshalled List, which stands in the name of my noble friends the Earl of Dudley, Viscount Ridley and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as well as myself. I may point out, in order to save time, that Amendments in these terms are also down in connexion with
400
Clause 100 and Clause 102. If I may say what is in my mind, I dare say this will cover consideration of all three, though we are now dealing only with the Amendment called by the Lord Chancellor. Clause 99 deals with the provision as to pension rights; Clause 100 with the special provisions as to pension funds, and Clause 102, when we come to it, with the very important question of compensation to officers and servants in connexion with the transfer. All these three topics raise this question and those who are at all familiar with the process of the consolidation of public undertakings know it very well.
What is the fair and proper way in which to decide what is to be the pension position of a man who necessarily changes his employer when he ceases to serve the railway company and becomes a servant of the Transport Commission? And, again, what is the fair and proper way in which his case will be decided if there is a dispute as to the compensation he ought to receive, supposing as a result of this change there is loss of office or he is prejudiced in any other way? I go at once to the illustration which those who know our railway law will have thought of, but which is in the most remarkable manner departed from in the drafting of this Bill. In 1921 there was a great previous amalgamation of railway companies. There were hundreds of them and they were reduced to four, I think, on the whole, to the great advantage of everybody. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, here because he will be very familiar with this matter. It is a matter of the greatest importance to railway servants and officers when there is a transfer to a new organization. In the Act of 1921, in the Third Schedule, there is a provision which I have every reason to believe worked very well, and indeed it is sometimes called into operation even to-day. It is headed "Existing officers and servants." For the convenience of your Lordships I will summarize it in a few sentences. The provision is that where there is a question of pension rights or compensation there is to be appointed a standing arbitrator or board of arbitration by the Lord Chancellor, and if there is a dispute between a claimant and the new body—at that time it was one or other of the four companies, to-day it is the Transport Commission—that dispute

401
should be settled by this arbitrator. There was an appeal to the abitrator so that the matter might be finally resolved.
I can speak with my own knowledge here; as it happens, I have had a little to do with this in the Law Courts in time past, and I think it has operated excellently. I am sure the great trade unions embracing railway servants will certainly say it has been a great shield to their rights. Because there is another way in which these things may be done: by saying, "You shall not have any arbitration; there will be no provision by Act of Parliament." In the one case, the men are to see every document supplied by the referee; in the other, there will be nothing approaching that kind of what I call fair play. There will simply be a decision by the referee. He will be nominated by the Minister and that is the end of it.
The question raised by my Amendment is, which of those two methods is right? If I may direct your Lordships' attention to the words of the Bill, you will see in how striking a way it departs from the principle and precedent and method which has always been employed and was especially introduced in the Railways Act of 1921. Clause 99 says, first of all, the Minister may make regulations for
"(a) for providing pensions to or in respect of—

(i) persons who are or have been in the employment of the Commission or any body in whom there vests or to whom there is transferred any undertaking or part of an undertaking under any of the provisions of a scheme or order made under this Act."

Of course, many of your Lordships know this great pension organization, this system set up in every great railway company by arrangement between themselves and those who serve the company, involving contributions from employer and men. The administration of this great pension organization is very necessary to the fair working and good working of the whole concern, and when it is transferred to a new undertaking, it is absolutely essential to have proper provision as to how, in the case of dispute, the men's rights to pension or compensation shall be fixed.
The way it was done in the Act of 1921 was to say that there must be a standing arbitrator or board of arbitration and the Arbitration Act applied. The way it is done here is this. If your Lordships look
402
again at Clause 99, in the middle of page 112, you will see that the last paragraph in subsection (3) begins:
"Any dispute arising between the Minister and any person as to whether or not the said result has been secured….
And if your Lordships look a little higher on the page, you will see that the result to be secured is that the man in the new position shall not be placed in any worse position than he was in the old position, and he shall still have his equivalent rights, and not something else. Subsection (3) goes on, after "secured," to say:
"by any regulations made under this section shall be referred to"—
to what shall he be referred?—
"a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for his or their determination thereon."
I do not doubt that the Minister of Labour would discharge his duty here as carefully as he could but the point is that the decision of that referee may be a decision within the Department—it is final. The method can be that the papers of a particular case are selected, and are sent along to the referee with the comments of the Minister of Transport and his officials. There is nothing whatever to secure what in other actions we call "a man's rights''; that is to say, that he should know what is being said against him, and, that if there is a real dispute, the facts should be tried out fairly between the two sides. There is nothing whatever in this position which would cover that at all. If, indeed, there does arise—as there might arise, for instance, on these regulations that are going to be made—a question as to what a regulation means, there is nothing whatever in this to secure that he can have any arbitration which the Arbitration Act will give him, or the right to have a question of law decided by a High Court Judge.
Exactly the same thing is true of Clause 100. I am not seeking to argue all three cases at once; I merely use it as an illustration. A particularly remarkable one is in connexion with compensation. I only use it as an analogy. If your Lordships will look at subsection (3) of Clause 102, you will see there:
"Regulations made under subsection (1) of this section—

(a) may prescribe the procedure to be followed in making claims for compensation, and the manner in which and the persons by

403
whom the question whether any or what compensation is payable is to be determined; and

(b) may in particular contain provisions enabling appeals from any determination as to whether any or what compensation is payable to be brought, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, to a referee…."

There is no magic or mystery about using the word "referee"; it merely means a person to whom the matter is referred. He is not necessarily especially qualified for the purpose, although I assume that every effort will be made to get a proper person.
But is it really right that, because we have now passed from days like 1921, and we have in power a different Government with different principles, to say, in reference to the dispossessed railwayman, or in reference to the man who fears that his pension rights are not being fairly provided for: "If you dispute it the matter shall go to a referee, and that is the end of it." I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships quite without any idea of appealing to one Party—though I appeal most definitely to the noble Lords opposite about this—Is it not right in such cases, where a man's whole position depends upon getting fair justice, to do what we seek to do in this clause, and following clauses, by this Amendment? I do not really care very much about the word "referee"; a man is neither more nor less qualified because you call him that. Even in such matters as popular athletics there are good referees and bad referees, though I understand if he is bad enough he may receive rough treatment either from the crowd or from the players. Nothing of that sort can happen here of course. Let us keep the word "referee" if it is any good to anybody. But we seek to add to subsection (3) a short paragraph which I will read, without actually removing the word "referee":
"and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination."
The effect of that would be that when this referee has before him a dispute between a man and this new Commission, and he finds that the man is saying: "I
404
am not getting my equivalent rights," the referee would not be able to decide the matter in his office. If there were a real dispute, he would have to do what is done to this day by an arbitrator under the Railways Act, 1921—he would have to hear it. I do not mean to say he would have to hear it with all the trappings and wigs, and that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, arbitrators, and those who appear before them, do not wear wigs. There is many a leader of labour industry who knows perfectly well how such an arbitration is conducted. A great point is that it is conducted perfectly fairly, and each side has got to know everything which the other side seeks to put before the arbitrator. If there is a dispute about a fact, the fact is decided by having the necessary people before the arbitrator, and proper questions are put to those people; and if there is a real dispute as to the meaning of, say, a regulation—and there are going to be heaps of regulations here, with the odd position that they are all going to be made after the measure is passed, and we do not know what they are at the present time—that is something which ought to be decided by a High Court Judge.
Let me give the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, if he will allow me, one analogy with which I am sure he is familiar. It so happens that I had a good deal to do with this in a former Government. At the beginning of the last war questions arose as to what was the proper war pension to award to a man who had received an injury in the war. At first, that was decided in the Ministry of Pensions, entirely as an administrative act, and the Minister of Pensions did his best. But some of your Lordships will recall the outcry that arose. It was said: "This is not fair. The Ministry of Pensions are deciding that this man cannot have a pension, when he ought to have a pension according to the law." When I was Lord Chancellor one of my duties was to devise a scheme of Pensions Tribunals, which should be Pensions Appeal Tribunals, at the top of each of which we put somebody who was qualified by being a barrister or solicitor, or something of the kind, and there were other members, too. Vast numbers of cases which had been decided against the applicant in the Ministry were, on appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, decided in favour of the applicant. To that

405
extent, everybody thought things were going very well. The Ministry of Pensions—an excellent Ministry—contributed all they could in the way of information, but the fact was that in a number of cases people had not got their rights. But it has not stopped there.
Now the demand has arisen—some of your Lordships have taken part in sustaining it—that if the War Pensions Tribunal goes wrong on a point of law, it ought to be the case that it should be decided by a High Court Judge. There is a very distinguished and accomplished High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Denning, who has delivered quite a number of decisions, in which he has tried to put this thing right, and I am sure has given great satisfaction to those concerned. It cannot always be decided one way or the other way, but, at least, we can try to get it right. All that I am asking, together with those who are associated with me, is that we should have something of that sort in connexion with the claims of these railwaymen or railway officials who are losing their jobs because they are not wanted any more and are therefore redundant. I imagine there cannot be as many officials wanted in many Departments—let us say, for instance, the Legal Department—if you have only one organization, as were wanted when there were a great many. There are certainly vast numbers of people employed in this industry of transport who are acutely anxious to know whether they are going to get under the new dispensation rights which are equivalent to their old rights.
I address myself particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, who is so persuasive and emphatic and understands this subject so very well. Does anybody really deny that it will be a great hardship on these people if they have simply to take the decision of a person who is nominated by a Minister and called a referee and then be told to go away? It is plainly the case that we should follow the method which was followed to the general satisfaction of everybody—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, will agree—when the railways were amalgamated after the 1914–1918 war, when it was expressly provided by Act of Parliament that these claims in case of dispute should ultimately be decided by a standing arbitrator or body of arbitrators, with the result that it has been essen-
406
tial to the decision reached that both sides should be properly heard and that there should be no question of the matter being finally and for ever determined by a single referee who may be anybody you like. On the other hand, if the case needed it, it should be decided according to what is commonly called justice in this country, which means hearing both sides, if necessary on oath, reaching the facts without any private communication to the Judge and if need be—which does not very often happen but which sometimes happens—if there is a point of construction or law involved, having that matter determined on appeal.
That is my case. I hope I have made it in clear terms. I meant to put it in firm terms but at the same time I hope in moderate terms, because, if I may for a moment speak of my personal feelings, I do feel most deeply and sincerely that it is not right that we should put this great mass of people finally at the disposal of a gentleman, however eminent, who is called a referee. They ought to have what they had under the Act of 1921, the ordinary right of securing that their compensation or their pension in cases of dispute is really determined by a better process. I will not say more, and I hope very much that, however deeply the framers of this Bill may have thought, "This is no doubt the system; a referee will do," your Lordships' House will say it will not do, because we are bound to see that decent justice is done to people who have these serious claims. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"Page 112, line 27, leave out from ("for") to end of line 28, and insert ("determination, and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination").—(Viscount Simon.)
3.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I add a word or two to what the noble and learned Viscount has said upon this really important point? It does seem to me to be yet another illustration of the present-day tendency to prefer what I may call the more surreptitious forms of justice to the more normal forms to which we have been accustomed in the past. I think that tendency is one greatly, to be deplored. When lawyers, or those

407
who have passed their lives in the law, intervene in this type of argument it is sometimes apt to be thought that they are only seeking to perpetuate the more elaborate aspects of the law. The last thing that I want is that every application under this particular procedure should be a State trial, but at the same time I am somewhat suspicious of the kind of fireside justice which it is more commonly sought to administer to-day.
All that is asked for in this Amendment is that the normal procedure should be observed. That normal procedure has grown up by a process of trial and error over a great many generations, and it is the one to which the applicant himself has grown acustomed, to which he looks forward to receiving, and which he expects to receive, when he presents his case before any tribunal charged with the administration of justice in this country. The illustration the noble and learned Viscount gave—of which from more than one angle I have a certain amount of secondhand experience—is a matter which very strongly confirms, in my submission, the argument now being addressed to your Lordships. It may be said that the procedure devised in this Bill is speedy and inexpensive. It may even be said that it has been used in other walks and that it has not proved too unsatisfactory. But in my view, I am afraid the fact that the administration of justice may be cheap and rapid is not satisfactory if it fails at the same time to be just. If this procedure may have been adopted in other fields without too audible complaint, the reason for that may be that the procedure itself, by providing no form of appeal and making the decision final, succeeds in strangling the normal method of complaint against that procedure. I very much hope that His Majesty's Government, on consideration, will find themselves in a position to accept this very vital Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, this is primarily a legal point, and it is with a good deal of trepidation that I follow the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess who have just spoken so strongly and so ably. I only want to tell your Lordships that this is a point of principle which is most important to the railway officers and servants upon which they feel very strongly indeed. As a railway
408
director I support their point of view, but I would remind your Lordships that it covers not only railway officers and servants but all employees transferred under this Bill. In the absence of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, on the Committee stage of the Bill, I had the misfortune to move this Amendment in this place, and I am afraid I did not cover the ground nearly so adequately as he has been able to do to-day. But I did extract from the noble Lord, Lord Charley, the promise that this matter would be looked into very carefully by the Government between the Committee stage and the Report stage. I hope very much—in fact I feel certain—that in view of the strength of our arguments the Government will accept these Amendments.
All we are asking for is that the decision of the Ministry of Labour referee should be reviewable in the courts by way of case stated—that is to say, that there should be some appeal from the decision of the referee. Really, that is not an unreasonable thing for which to ask. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the Committee stage of the Bill said:
"The situation under this Bill, and other Bills of a similar nature which are being introduced for the purpose of nationalizing certain of the basic industries of the country is on quite a different basis from that under the Railways Act of 1921, which was a measure purely for the purpose of co-ordinating a number of privately owned railway companies."
I cannot see what is the difference, and I hope that whoever is going to answer this afternoon will elaborate that point. What can be the difference between the one and the other? It is a question of fairness. If I were the Ministry of Labour referee I would far sooner know that there was a further court of appeal from my decision. No man is perfect in his judgment, and there will be some very difficult decisions to be made. It is surely only fair to the referee himself, as well as fair on these officers and servants, that these cases should be reviewable in the court of law. I think this is an Amendment that the Government should accept.
There is one more point I would like to make, which I do not think the noble Viscount made. There is a difference, as I am advised, between Clause 102 which deals with compensation, and Clauses 99 and 100, which deal with pensions.

409
Whereas Clauses 99 and 100 provide for the determination of disputes by a claimant under the Pensions Regulations to be settled by a Ministry of Labour referee, Clause 102 permits the Minister in dealing with claimants under the compensation regulations to appoint, without any qualification at all, any person he determines. It may be one of the Ministry officials. Listen to what the subsection says:
"(3) Regulations made under subsection (I) of this section—

(a) may prescribe the procedure to be followed in making claims for compensation, and the manner in which and the persons by whom, the question whether any or what compensation is payable is to be determined."

The Minister is able, under that subsection, to appoint anybody he likes, one of his own officials, as referee, and the officer or servant has got to abide by the decision without any reference whatever to a court of appeal. I think the claim we make is a very reasonable one, and I hope noble Lords will support it to the full.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I would like to support this Amendment. Like the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, I would not attempt to follow the noble and learned Viscount who moved, in view of the legal aspects of the question; but again, like the noble Earl, I feel strongly that it is very important for us to see that all these cases are properly dealt with. We had a lot of discussion on the Committee stage on these three clauses. We had an Amendment on Clause 100 which was thought to put the railway employees in a rather better position than others brought in under this Bill; but as the Amendments now are, they cover all the employees of every industry which comes in. One cannot but feel anxious to know that there is a possibility of appeal. The existing system shows very carefully how this is to be done. I think it is common knowledge that it still is being done in a number of cases. Appeals are still being made as a result of the 1921 Act, and no doubt there will be quite a number following on this Act.
I would like to refer to Clause 102 dealing with compensation. There was a debate on that also on Second Reading. It was then said on behalf of the Government that discussions had been held
410
between the Government and some of the trade unions who were interested in this matter on behalf of their members—very properly, I have no doubt. But this goes a little further in that it covers the whole range of employees, and officials of all kinds who are not members of trade unions. Their interests had not been covered by such a discussion, and it is perfectly proper to make the point that the whole thing has not been adequately or completely dealt with. This is rather a different point, because we then asked to widen the regulations made under Clause 102. We wanted to put into the Bill some of the detailed wording which comes out of the Third Schedule of the 1921 Act. That is proposed to be done in the further Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount. I hope the Government will be able to meet us on these Amendments.
3.17 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I regret that we are not able to accept this series of Amendments. I promised at the Committee stage in answer to an appeal by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that we would, in fact, in the light of the discussion and of very urgent representations which were made by noble Lords opposite on this matter, look into it very carefully. The Ministers have now done so, and discussed it. As a result of this careful deliberation they have come to the conclusion that the method provided by the Bill is the most satisfactory for dealing with this type of case.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Satisfactory to whom?
LORD CHORLEY: Satisfactory from the point of view of everybody concerned —except possibly the legal profession.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I hope the noble Lord will not make that kind of comment. It is a rather cheap insinuation. I think we made it quite clear that we were supporting this Amendment from a very real conviction and not for any other reason at all.
NOBLE LORDS: Withdraw.
LORD CHORLEY: I certainly withdraw anything that noble Lords may regard as insinuations. I was not intending to say any such thing. Quite obviously, the arguments put forward by

411
noble Lords this afternoon are very important arguments. They propose to carry the argument rather further than it was taken at the Committee stage, in particular the argument of the noble and learned Viscount, who dealt with matters which were not then put forward. But as I have said, taking this matter by and large, the arrangements suggested in the Bill are the most satisfactory for handling this problem. The noble and learned Viscount based his case first on the arrangements made under the Railways Act of 1921, which, he said, had worked very satisfactorily, and I have no doubt that that is true; but that Act dealt with a rather different situation from that which now exists. That was an amalgamation of a number of private companies.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: What is fair in one case must surely be fair in the other?
LORD CHORLEY: This is one of a series of measures dealing with a range of basic industries; and it does seem to the Government that the two situations are not the same. The noble and learned Viscount also suggested that this system of referees was, as he called it, a new system—some sort of a hole-and-corner method of dealing with a perfectly genuine grievance of an employee under one of the companies concerned. With respect, that is not really so, because this is a system which, in one way or another, has been given a pretty careful trial over a number of years. It is quite true that the trade unions, who do represent the bulk of the people concerned with those businesses, have been consulted in relation to this matter and they take no exception to the method which is laid down in this Bill.
After all the Electricity Supply Acts, and the great problem of unemployment insurance—a matter which has been dealt with very successfully under umpires from whose decisions there is no appeal—have been administered not only without complaint, but with real satisfaction to the men, and indeed the women concerned, over a period of very difficult times, as your Lordships know before the war. If that system could be administered so successfully and with such satisfaction to the people who were acutely concerned with it, then
412
surely there is no ground for saying that under this Bill, and under all the other Bills which are equally well administered a similar success will not be possible. This hearing before a referee is not a hole-and-corner method.
Then, of course, there is the question of the appeals, which was very closely argued during the Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley. The reply to that was that it seemed better to secure a quick decision—a quick and inexpensive decision—rather than to have protracted litigation going backwards and forwards to the Courts, with the whole thing kept in the melting pot for a substantial period of time. It is obvious that the sort of arrangements will be made which have been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service under the Electricity Supply Acts. Under these arrangements a referee with not only considerable legal experience but also—which, I submit, is more important —with experience of industry and the industrial background against which this administration will take place should be appointed.
In those circumstances, I do suggest to your Lordships that the arrangements made in the Bill are, on the whole, the most satisfactory. I cannot really draw any distinction between different clauses. The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, did draw a distinction under Clause 102, subsection (3), but he omitted to refer to sub-paragraph (b), under which the referee who will take appeals will be appointed not by the Minister under this Bill, but by the Minister of Labour and National Service.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, if I may say one word, I have been in conference with my right honourable friend and his officers concerned, and perhaps I might offer a suggestion which would provide a way out of this matter. The case has been stated by the noble Lord as to the view of the Ministry on the matter, but we are greatly impressed by the case which the noble and learned Viscount has put. He, with myself, would regret that this matter should be settled by Division if that can be avoided, but, at the same time, it is desirable, I think, that further opportunity for consideration of the matter should be made available. If we can agree that the Amendment should be accepted on the understanding that we may, in another place or in some other

413
way, have to suggest perhaps some modification, I would suggest that we should accept the Amendment now and cut short the discussion on this and other Amendments accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the Leader of the House for the suggestion that he has put forward. We do think that the case for this Amendment is extremely strong, and we welcome his proposal that the Amendment should be inserted in the Bill. We fully realize that the matter will have to be considered in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 42, leave out ("the Minister and").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VSCOUNT ADDISON VSCOUNT ADDISON moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) Nothing in this section shall authorise the making of regulations relating to an existing pension scheme which provide for the payment by any person carrying on an undertaking or part of an undertaking in which persons to whom that scheme relates are employed, being an undertaking which, or such part of an undertaking as, has not vested in or been transferred to the Commission or any body by or under this Act or any scheme or order made thereunder—

(a) of contributions in respect of the services of persons who are no longer employed in that undertaking or part of an undertaking rendered after they cease to be so employed; or

(b) of contributions in respect of persons who are employed in that undertaking or part of an undertaking in excess of the contributions provided for by the existing pension scheme."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is in consequence of an undertaking given to the Earl of Selkirk in Committee. He proposed an Amendment on these lines, to make sure that the obligation did not extend to persons to whom it ought not properly to extend, and my right honourable friend promised that he would give further consideration to meet the point. I think it is effectively met by this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for making this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.27 p.m.
Clause 100 [Special provisions as to railway and canal pension funds, etc.]:
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. It has already been accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 28, after ("referred") insert ("for determination").—(The Earl of Dudley,)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 30, leave out from ("Service ") to ("and") in line 31 and insert ("and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination").—(The Earl of Dudley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, this, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 31, leave out ("that decision") and insert ("such determination"). —(The Earl of Dudley.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am very grateful for the way in which the suggested course has been adopted, but I hope it will be made clear that the putting in of these Amendments for the time being is the act of the whole House, and not merely the act of the Opposition. It seems to me that in that form, when the Amendments come to be considered in another place, there may be some aspects which fall to be considered generally on their merits without risk of controversy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 7, leave out ("the Minister and").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 102 [Compensation to officers and servants in connexion with transfers]:
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 37, at end insert—
("(3) Any dispute between the Commission and an officer or servant as to whether any or what compensation is payable under this section or any regulation made thereunder shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for determination and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination").—(The Earl of Dudley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 40, leave out from ("compensation") to end of subsection (3)— (The Earl of Dudley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.19 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after subsection(3) to insert:
"(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather different matter, but I venture to hope very sincerely that we may arrive at the same unanimous conclusion about putting this Amendment into the Bill, as we have been fortunately able to do in regard to the last Amendments. This proposed new subsection arises out of the suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite, Viscount Swinton, which was made in response to the Amendment I moved on the Committee stage, seeking to put in a new clause, which would have preserved for the railwaymen something similar to the rights they have under the Third Schedule of the 1921 Act. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, was unable to accede to that but he was good enough to make a response to the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that draft regulations to be laid in advance might be a way out.
I have some ground for hoping that this will be acceptable to the Government, particularly on looking through once
416
again the proceedings of the Committee stage, because the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, in refusing to accept my new clause used these words:
"In the national health service, which is coming into operation soon, any person adversely affected will be eligible for consideration on regulations issued by the Minister. The same applies to the national insurance service, and also in regard to the mines nationalization. That kind of structure, to provide compensation, protection, safeguards, pension rights, and so on, by regulations, has become a common form. That has all been agreed and settled, and I think properly settled.''
And I am happy to tell your Lordships that in the National Insurance Act, 1946, there is precisely this provision for laying regulations in draft, so that the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, in resisting my former Amendment was in fact conceding the whole case for this one. In those circumstances, I do not think I need labour the matter very much, although it has been rather disappointing to us that this Amendment had to come from our side and not from the noble Lord's side. However, provided we get the Amendment and it is all settled that we can put it into the Bill, I need not waste your Lordships' time. If necessary, I could give your Lordships other very apt analogies for doing this, but, in the earnest hope that the Amendment will be accepted, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, we have discussed this, as my noble friend said we promised we would, and the Government have agreed to a scheme similar to the one under the National Health Service Act, that regulations shall be laid in draft, but I should make a little reservation as to whether the procedure should be the positive or negative procedure. There are some points which have arisen with respect to that which I should not like to be regarded as completely definite; but, for the time being, and subject to that qualification, I am glad to accept the Amendment and give the opportunity for which noble Lords contended that the regulations should be seen in draft before they assume their final form.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this would be a convenient form and I am very glad the Government have accepted

417
it. I believe we shall find that this is greatly to the advantage of everybody concerned and that actually it will mean a saving of time. One is always in the difficulty that even if one is not greatly concerned whether it is a positive or a negative Resolution, under our rather archaic procedure the order and regulations are made and they cannot be amended even if the slightest mistake is found either by the critics or by the Government Department themselves. I know from experience that, in going through a regulation again, one suddenly finds that one has lost sight of something; one has to withdraw the whole of the regulation and go through the whole procedure once more. Even if it is only the tiniest alteration that is required it cannot be made. The order has to be withdrawn and again presented, and again the statutory period has to run. I think it would be a very interesting experiment to see how this works. I have always taken the view that you could not put everything you wanted to about this into an Act of Parliament, and that you would have to deal with it by regulation.
It one lays regulations in draft, then there is the chance of going through them all and any points can be taken on which criticism arises. The Minister himself also has the chance of setting right any oversight that there may have been on his side. Then nobody divides about it; there is no question of the Government being defeated, or anything of that sort. The draft regulations are fully discussed and then taken away. The Department is given them, and the very next day the regulations can be laid with the time to run. I think it is a very practicable solution. I know it has greatly appealed to the Leader of the. House from the very start, and I am glad we are able to agree to it; I believe it will be to everybody's convenience.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103:
Compensation to officers and servants in other cases.
103.—(1) 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 which provides for the transfer of the whole or any part of any undertaking, and shall not give his approval to any agreement providing for the transfer of the whole or any part of an undertaking which,
418
under any provision of this Act, requires his approval, unless he is satisfied that appropriate provision has been or will be made by the scheme or agreement for the payment by the transferee in the appropriate cases and to the appropriate extent of compensation to officers and servants who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position worsened in consequence of the transfer in question.
4.46 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved in subsection (1), to leave out "officers and servants"and insert "persons." The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 103 deals with compensation to officers and servants, and the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that all people who come under this definition of officers and servants do in fact receive the compensation to which they would be justly entitled. I would like to say at once—because I feel there has been a little misunderstanding with the noble Lords opposite; I am reinforced in that view by the remarks that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the Committee stage—that this Amendment is not intended in any way to try to obtain compensation for a part-time director.
I must just very shortly give the structure of the passenger road transport industry. As probably most noble Lords know it consists very largely of groups of operating companies controlled by holding companies and those operating companies are quite independent companies but, in order to save expense, the holding companies have certain departments which serve the group as a whole. That is to say, there is a department, for instance, dealing with insurance; there is another department, the Chief Engineer's department, dealing with engineering problems for the group as a whole; there is another department which does the bulk buying for all the operating companies.
Let us visualize what would happen when these schemes come into being and the road passenger transport industry is gradually taken over. For instance, supposing the scheme was made whereby the Northern General Omnibus Company was taken over: that would, of course, take away part of the employment of the Chief Engineer's Department and also the insurance department. Probably, when one operating company was taken away, they would go on but gradually, of course,

419
it would become uneconomic to continue to run those departments, and eventually they would cease to exist. The people employed in those departments on full-time employment would cease to have jobs, or, at any rate, their jobs would become so small that their salaries would have to be reduced. Even when the whole of the road passenger transport industry was taken over, obviously the holding companies would still exist—B.E.T. and companies of that sort would still exist—which would never be taken over as such by the Commission.
But these particular people to whom I have been referring would, in fact, lose their employment and would be entitled to, and should have, compensation. The difficulty is that none of them is employed by any particular operating company that is in fact taken over. I, therefore, consider that the Amendment standing in my name is necessary in order to ensure that the class of people to which I have just referred get a proper pension. I do not know, but possibly the noble Lord opposite might like to put the wording in a slightly different way. He will, however, I think agree that it is only fair that those people should receive compensation on exactly the same terms as the direct servants of the operating road transport company. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 37, leave out ("officers and servants") and insert ("persons").—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gifford raised this matter in Committee, and it has since been considered; but I have to inform the House that in the view of the Ministry it would be a great mistake to substitute the word "persons" for the words "officers and servants" which are now in the Bill. "Officers and servants" is a specific kind of expression, and when you use it you know to whom you are referring. "Persons" may be any individuals, who may be performing any duty, no duty or very little duty. It has a very wide and peculiar definition, and we certainly do not think it is to be preferred to such a precise legal term as "officers and servants." We have every sympathy with the persons whom the noble Lord has in mind (I am calling them "persons" now, being slightly inconsistent) and if they are em-
420
ployed by any subsidiary company which is wholly owned by concerns we are taking over, they would, I am advised, qualify for compensation if they were injured by the transaction. But they must not be partly this and partly that. We have reason to fear that the term "persons" might be held to apply also to directors.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. It appears to me that he has got the whole thing in reverse, if I may so put it. What the noble Lord has said is that a company would be taken over and the people to whom I have been referring would be the people employed by the subsidiary. That is not the case I have in mind at all. The case I visualize is that in which the Commission would take over a subsidiary. That subsidiary might be, say, "The Midland Red, "the "Northern General" or the "Southdown." Now, the people of whom I speak are not employed by the subsidiary, but by the holding company, the big company controlling all those concerns. They are the type of people who deal with insurance, engineering problems for the whole group, and so on. The holding company —such as B.E.T. or Tillings—surely would continue to exist, but the subsidiary company would be taken over. In no sense are any of the people I have mentioned employed by the subsidiary company.
LORD WALKDEN: Whether it is a subsidiary company or a holding company, or whatever company it may be, that is taken over, seems immaterial in this connexion. If the persons whom the noble Lord has in mind are employed in undertakings that are wholly controlled by the concerns we are taking over, then those people, in the circumstances which he described, would be eligible to be compensated for injury which they might suffer. I beg him to accept my assurances that every fair and proper case would be properly covered. But we cannot undertake to have loose words inserted that might be stretched to cover people who have no real claim to compensation but who might thereby be encouraged to come along and seek to claim public money.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord opposite has said to the effect that the term "officers and servants" covers the

421
kind of people whom we mean better than the word "persons." They are the words used in many Acts of Parliament and they are the right words. But although my noble friend, Lord Gifford, has drafted his Amendment wrongly, I think he is on to a good point, and I want to be quite sure that it is covered. It will be recalled that we had some discussion on this matter both in debate and outside. We do not wish to bring in anyone who is not entitled to compensation, and I quite agree that "persons" could mean all sorts of people. On the other hand you might find someone who is purely an officer or servant, who is completely employed, full-time, in the business which is taken over, but technically and legally he is not an officer or servant of an undertaking which is, in terms, taken over. He may be an officer or servant of some entity which is created and owned by half a dozen units which, under the Bill, are going to be taken over, and there may be variants of that kind of employment. We want to be assured that that person, if he loses his employment (I am speaking of the man who has been a whole-time officer or servant in the structure of this industry), will be fairly compensated for injury. If he had been directly an officer or servant of one of the companies which is being taken over, of course he would get his compensation. Though the Amendment does not seem to me to be well designed to carry it out, what is desired to be achieved is what I have indicated. I shall be very grateful if between now and the Third Reading this could be looked at in order to make sure that the people whom the Government, as well as we, want to see covered, are, in fact, covered.
LORD WALKDEN: We are most anxious to be fair to everyone. If there is a person who is, so to speak, collectively employed by a group of companies, it seems to me there is a case for consideration. We will look into this to see what we can do to make sure that the operation of this clause is fair to all.
LORD GIFFORD: I am very grateful for that undertaking. I feel sure that there is no difference between us on this point. We all want to see that the people who are entitled to compensation shall get it. I would like just to make this final
422
point. It may be that some of these people will not lose their entire employment, but only half or three-quarters of it, because of part of the group being taken over. I think that the question of partial compensation ought to be considered in relation to such cases. In view of the assurance which the noble Lord has given me, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
"and is satisfied that such compensation is not less favourable to the recipient than that payable in a comparable case under the preceding section of this Act relating to undertakings transferred to the Commission under Part II of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this Amendment is self-explanatory. Its sole purpose is to make sure that the employees of the road transport industry, and other employees it the transport industry, are treated on at least the same basis as the railway employees are treated under the previous Part of this Bill. It is undoubtedly true to say that people employed in the road passenger transport industry are as secure in their employment as are those employed in the railway industry. They are employed for long periods whether by municipalities or by private operators, and it is only fair that when it comes to compensation they should be treated on a footing of equality with the railway men. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD WALEDEN: My Lords, I am sorry to say that we cannot accept this Amendment. Really, there is not a proper and adequate comparison to be made between road motor transport employees and the regular railway people. The railway people have had their position stabilized over 120 years. It has been regularized and it has been codified under one or two Acts of Parliament. In their case everything is pretty clear. In the case of the road transport workers matters are altogether different. Among the transport concerns which the Government will be taking over there will, undoubtedly, be some substantial ones, but there will also be small ones which run perhaps only

423
two or three vehicles. It may be that in some cases the businesses taken over will be those of small men who have not been running them for very long, and in such cases employees often have no great stability or security of tenure. The cases are altogether different. Different considerations arise, and different regulations will have to be drafted for each group of people. In the case of the dock people, for example, there are very different conditions to be taken into consideration from those which apply in the case of the railway people.
I think that your Lordships will follow the point more easily if I say that the railway people are comparable to established civil servants, postmen, clerical workers and others, who are recognized and established. The road transport industry is something which is comparatively new; it is different in very many ways from the railway industry and the position of its employees will have to be considered separately. I do not know whether there will be much difference, but we cannot guarantee that they will be treated on the same lines as the regular railway workers. I ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment, and I assure him that everything will be done to give fair play and every possible consideration to these people, from every point of view, when regulations are drafted.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, has said to the effect that there is clearly a difference between these two branches of the transport industry. During the Committee stage we said that some precedent was wanted to be taken as a basis of compensation and suggested the Local Government Act, 1933. On Committee stage it was said that an undertaking will be given for road transport as well as railways and I ask the noble Lord if that undertaking still stands. I do ask him in considering this to bear in mind that a very large proportion of the road transport industry, although comparatively new as compared with the railways, has offered very steady employment for a very large and growing number of people, many of whom have been employed for twenty and thirty and some for forty years. People who have served a very important modern industry for that length of time well and faithfully
424
deserve most careful consideration on the question of any compensation for loss of office that might arise.
LORD GIFFORD: My noble friend Lord Rothes has put it very clearly. It is not fair to say the road passenger transport industry is a new industry. It is old enough for many of its officers and servants to have been employed for a whole lifetime, and I feel that every consideration should be given to them. I hope the noble Lord will look into it again and see if we can get some definite basis for compensation. If he does that, I shall be very happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 [Procedure and enforcement of orders of arbitration tribunal]:
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, for the purpose of bringing Scottish procedure into line with English procedure in relation to proceedings which under this Part of the Bill are to be treated as Scottish proceedings.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 34, leave out from ("unless") to the end of line 37 and insert ("the Court of Session or the House of Lords give leave to appeal to the House of Lords, which leave may be given on such terms as to expenses or otherwise as the Court of Session or the House of Lords may determine").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, in accordance with the arrangement that has been made, may I suggest the House should now adjourn until six o'clock. We shall then proceed with our business without adjourning for dinner.
[The Sitting was suspended at five minutes before four o'clock and resumed at six o'clock.]
Clause 114:
Additional compensation to local authorities.
(2) The undertakings to which this section applies are—

(a) any undertaking of a local authority which falls to be transferred under Part II of this Act;

(b) any undertaking which, at the passing of this Act, is being carried on by a local authority, being an undertaking which could be transferred to the Commission or to some other body as aforesaid under a scheme under Part IV of this Act;

425
and the expression "the appropriate sum" means, in relation to any undertaking to which this section applies, such sum as may be specified in relation to that undertaking by regulations made by the Minister, so, however, that the total of all the appropriate sums for undertakings the activities whereof consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services does not exceed two and a half million pounds and the total of all the appropriate sums for other undertakings does not exceed two hundred thousand pounds.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "orders" for "regulations" ["regulations made by the Minister"] The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 114 deals with the compensation payable to local authorities. I would like to say that I think the local authorities have, by and large, come rather poorly out of this Bill altogether. I asked a question yesterday in regard to Clause 25, and the noble Lord who replied did not appear to be aware that that was the main clause under which the municipal authorities were to be transferred. I was endeavouring to get some information in regard to the nature of that transfer. This is the additional clause to that, in which certain sums are payable for special reasons. There is a global sum fixed of£2,500,000. What I am asking His Majesty's Government is that either they will accept some means of representation in regard to the way in which this sum is to be allocated or, alternatively, will accept this Amendment, which means to say that presentation of the case can be made by special Parliamentary procedure, in special cases, before a Select Committee of both Houses, or of one House.
When I raised this point in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said that he imagined the calculation was based on 1¼ per cent. of the gross takings. I submit that that is manifestly unfair in certain cases, because one municipal undertaking may have a much higher value than another municipal undertaking—they may, in other words, have similar gross takings for in fact two quite different qualities of service—and there is no consideration here for prudent management, which could be given. I think it must be clear that local authorities in different parts of the country have very different circumstances, which should be taken into consideration when this sum comes to be divided. It is no good expecting local authorities to agree, because
426
the sum is, in fact, grossly inadequate compared with the value of the assets which the Transport Commission are taking over. For instance, I think in this House it would be difficult to get an agreement on a division of one pint of beer, because it is quite inadequate for the consumption of all the parties immediately concerned. I do not think we could expect complete agreement among the local authorities, but there ought to be proper provision for presentation and hearing of the argument, because there are a number of special considerations.
I did ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, if he could tell me something about the considerations which applied to Glasgow. There the situation is unique. The case has been presented and, so far as I know, no recognition has been made. The transport undertaking belongs entirely to the Common Good of the City of Glasgow. It does not belong to the ratepayers as such. It is, in fact, a trust which is held for all the citizens of Glasgow, and must be used, under certain rules, for their benefit. The moneys which are in fact invested in the transport undertaking could have been used for any purpose. They could have been invested in Government securities, or could have been used for any purpose whatsoever. What it amounts to is that this trust money, which is being used for the benefit of all the citizens of Glasgow, is in fact being taken over by the Transport Commission, or may be taken over by the Transport Commission, to the extent of £10,000,000. That is a very considerable sum. What I am submitting in this case is that there should be laid down in this Bill a proper and orthodox procedure by which the special circumstances of this and possibly other cases can properly be presented for consideration when compensation is being dealt with.
The local authorities have not come very well out of this bargain. I do not know whether or not they are satisfied, but I do know that there is only one manner of agreement between His Majesty's Government and the local authority, and that is that there should be compensation. As to the global sum of compensation, there was no agreement. His Majesty's Government say there were negotiations. I submit that the negotiations in this sense were very similar to the word "consultation," in another

427
sense in which it was used in this House not very long ago. That is to say, they were told to come, and were asked their views, and then they were given the answer without any form of agreement. In these terms, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 35, leave out ("regulations")and insert ("orders").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I must say at the outset that I am a little surprised that the noble Earl should at this late stage of the proceedings in this Bill have raised the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the global sum. I do not think the Amendment directly raises that question. What I thought he was concerned about in the Amendment was as to the inadequate and improper method of the proposed distribution of the sum. It is to that point that I want to direct my remarks. The noble Earl, as he well remembers, and I well remember, raised this question before and, as he has rightly said, I then pointed out that, as I understood, the amount was based on 1¼ per cent. of the gross revenues of municipal transport and dock undertakings in Great Britain, on a five years basis. I can only say to the noble Earl, as I said before, that the Minister has given a most explicit undertaking to the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Association of Counties and Cities in Scotland that he will consult with those Associations with a view to arranging an equitable distribution of the global sums among the individual authorities. When a global sum of this character is involved, it seems to me that the principles of distribution must be agreed, and there is no one who can agree them better than the Associations of the local authorities concerned. If at some subsequent date some individual local authority were to seek, through special Parliamentary procedure, for a bigger share for itself, obviously this could only be at the expense of other local authorities. A share-out of this character is clearly a matter for agreement between the representatives of the local authorities, with the Minister holding the ring administratively, and is quite inappropriate for special Parliamentary procedure.
During the discussion in Committee on similar Amendments, the noble Earl asked
428
how the sum of £2,500,000 had been arrived at. I have already explained upon what basis it was proposed to allocate it amongst the local authorities concerned. I said in reply, if I may repeat it, that the global sum was arrived at after negotiation, and the Minister had given an explicit undertaking to the Association of Municipal Corporations and to the Association of Counties and Cities in Scotland that he would consult with those associations with a view to arranging an equitable distribution of the global sums.
With regard to the question of the Common Good fund of the City of Glasgow, which the noble Earl raised on a previous occasion and has now raised again, the only explanation I can give as to that is that the position is that if any item of the nature intended to be reflected in the £2,500,000 to compensation has hitherto been met out of the Common Good, a proportionate part of the Glasgow Corporation's share of such compensation will be available for allocation to that account.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said, but I must say that it is not very satisfactory. I am astonished to hear that he should have any doubt that the sum allocated to local authorities is inadequate. If I may make the point I made before, it is that the amount of assets in the Common Good of Glasgow alone is £10,000,000, and the total for the whole of the United Kingdom is £2,500,000. It is palpably obvious that the sum is totally inadequate to cover what would be called normally repayment for the undertakings taken over, but if the noble Lord is unable to give further information I can only regret it and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 115, to insert the following new clause:
Treatment of Travel Agencies.
"The Commission shall secure that, in the treatment, in like circumstances, of travel agencies, no discriminatory practices are introduced after the date of transfer as between travel agencies which are directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission and other travel agencies existing at the date of the passing of this Act, or as between such other travel agencies."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, moved an

429
Amendment which was discussed on June 12 and was withdrawn on the understanding that the Government would put down a new clause. The difficulty seen about the clause which the noble Viscount proposed is that any travel agency, whatever its size or date of inception, could claim precisely similar treatment to that afforded to any established agency. This might mean, for example, that whatever the credit facilities allowed to Thomas Cook & Son or any other reputable and established concern, these would have to be equally extended to anyone who in future cared to set up a travel agency run from a back room. The present Government Amendment is designed to secure that so far as existing travel agencies are concerned, the Commission shall not discriminate in like circumstances either between those agencies or between agencies which they control and other agencies. "In like circumstances" is taken from a corresponding provision in subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Air Navigation Act, 1947, which relates to the operation of chartered aircraft. The clause, as drawn, does not discriminate between British and foreign travel agencies, and this meets the point of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 115 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Morrison.)
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after "introduced," the words "or permitted." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure we are most grateful to the noble Lord for this new clause. I did mention this point when we were discussing an Amendment to Clause 13 which was subsequently withdrawn, and the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, kindly gave me permission to put down a small Amendment. The Commission will have everything the travel agent requires—that is to say, sleeping berths, reserved seats and, through Thomas Cook & Son, wagon-lits on Continental trains. It is only human nature that the ordinary officials of the company will try to keep these things inside the concern, and I think it is necessary, in order that the travel agency should get a fair deal, that the Commission should appoint an agency manager, or whatever it is, who will actually ginger up people inside the organization and see that the
430
organizations do get their fair share of sleeping berths. Therefore, I have moved that the words "or permitted" should be added after the word "introduced" in the third line, in order to ensure that the staff of the Commission give the travel agencies a fair share of all the things which I have just mentioned. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
In line 3, after ("introduced") insert ("or permitted").—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, the Government Amendment itself, as your Lordships know, was the result of discussions between Second Reading and the Report stage, and the words were agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, thought they needed strengthening somewhat and has put down this Amendment. I do not agree with what he said about human nature, and I assure him that there will not be any tendency to be unfair to anybody. The purpose of everybody in a responsible position is to see that the right thing is done, and if they do not live up to that they will soon be caught out. We have given consideration to the words which it is suggested we should insert to strengthen the clause. With great respect to the noble Lord the Amendment is really quite unnecessary. It is the Commission which shall secure that, in the treatment, in like circumstances, of travel agencies, no discriminatory practices are introduced. The business is the Commission's and to say "introduced or permitted" is quite unnecessary. The Commission would not permit themselves to do anything wrong; they are inhibited from introducing anything wrong and, therefore, the wording is quite all right. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I should reveal the fact that I am interested in this question because I am a director of the Wagon-lits Company, and its interest is to see that its services are dealt with fairly in this country. I am not entirely satisfied by the argument produced by the noble Lord, Lord Walkden. It is perfectly true, of course, that the Commission are not to be suspected of discriminatory practices of any kind—no one would dream of that—but, after all, it is taking over an established commercial organization, accustomed to the method of

431
competition and accustomed to keeping as much as they can in their own hands. In those circumstances, when the Commission are taking over existing organizations of a competing character, I do not see that the words which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, wants to insert would be by any means superfluous. They are not a reflection upon the Commission, but are merely to ensure that practices which have certainly gone on in the past are not continued in the future under the cover of the Commission, which may not be fully conscious of them. I think that this Amendment to the Amendment requires a little more favourable consideration.
LORD WALKDEN: I really do not think it does.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, for his remarks. I do not want to criticize, but certain organizations have the control of the bulk of sleepers and do not like disgorging them to the small travel agent. I feel that that may easily happen with the Commission. If the Commission really intend—as I am sure they do—to give the outside travel agents a fair deal, in order to do that they will have to appoint some official like an agency manager or department to carry that out. The Government have met us quite a long way on this matter, but I do not know whether they could give it further consideration. However, I shall not press my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I say one word? I think it is perhaps difficult to formulate the right words for what we all want to do. Frankly, I do not think it is possible, and I have been through this same thing in regard to civil aviation. I did there manage to arrive at an understanding with all the travel agencies in the country, whether they were big or small, which I was assured gave them complete satisfaction. The clause was drafted really on the lines of the letters written at that time, and I know that is still being carried out by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. But one is in this difficult position. If you frame your words very widely and in effect say, "I am going to treat every single travel agency exactly alike," that means that you have to give exactly the same facilities to everybody whether they are large or small.
432
There are in this country a number of well-recognized travel agencies who make travel their main business; it is their business. There are also (and it is proper that there should be for the convenience of the public) an almost innumerable number of people who conduct other businesses—some are bootmakers, some are grocers, some are co-operative societies, believe—who, as a little side-line, issue bus tickets or railway tickets, and so forth. It is quite convenient for people to be able to go in and get tickets at these places. But it would be impossible to say to people of that sort, "You are to have the same facilities for allotting sleepers (of which there are all too few) as the railway companies or Cook's." You say there is to be absolutely equal treatment, but it could surely not mean that.
What we want to be sure about, however, is that the Commission shall not favour their own creatures—that is the real point. I do not think you can really do more than say that the Commission shall do nothing which will prejudice the status quo of existing travel agencies. That, I understand, is the object of these words, and it carries with it the clear understanding that they will not give a preference to the agency which they own as against an agency which they do not own. That is what we need. I know the draftsmen have had a great many shots in getting this into the right form, and the words are about as good for the purpose as one can get.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Other provisions as to orders and regulations]:
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the series moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, this afternoon. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 48, after ("department") insert ("other than those made under section one hundred and two of this Act").—(Lord Ridley.)
LORD MORRISON: My Amendment is accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 120:
Penalties.
(3) Where any offence against this Act or any regulation or order made thereunder has been committed by a body corporate, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance, and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and in all the circumstances.
6.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
"Provided that no such person shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment if he shows that he had reasonable ground to believe, and did believe, that a competent and reliable person was charged with the duty of seeing that the provisions were complied with, and was in a position to discharge that duty."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I should be grateful if a few minutes consideration might be given to this proposal. If one looks at the clause, which deals with penalties, one will see that, as drawn, the penalties are severe and that they cover a wide range of persons. Subsection (3) says:
"Where any offence against this Act or any regulation or order made thereunder has been committed by a body corporate, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary, or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance, and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and in all the circumstances."
Your Lordships will see that the subsection provides that, generally speaking, the bodies that are to be dealt with for offences against the Act are bodies corporate. There are a great many things you cannot do to a body corporate. You cannot inflict corporal punishment; you cannot send to prison. Here we are dealing with very large bodies corporate and the net is drawn very wide. Having regard to the organization of these very
434
large bodies, is it really right to impose the penalty upon an individual because he is in one of these positions, if he had every ground for believing that there was a competent and reliable person charged with the duty of seeing that this particular provision was complied with, who was in a position to comply with it? That is a wider exemption than the one in the Bill; but is it not a right exemption?
You cannot have everybody in a great organization, every director, every general manager, every secretary, held responsible for every single thing that might be done by the corporation against the law. My suggestion is that we really ought to provide that no such person shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment if he shows that he had reason to believe that a competent and reliable person was charged with the duty of applying the provision to be applied, and was discharging that duty. Most corporations do keep one individual for the sole purpose of complying with the various Governmental forms and requirements. It would be undesirable to say that everybody who was a director, or general manager, or secretary of such an undertaking was to be treated as a criminal and imprisoned, or, at any rate, fined, when he has himself seen to it that there is a suitable person who is dealing with these things and who is able to deal with them competently. I should like to know what the Government have to say about this. As the matter stands at present it provides for penalties to be imposed on individuals who, fairly considered, cannot be regarded as personally responsible for what has gone wrong, in view of the fact that they have got a competent and reliable person who has been appointed for the very purpose of seeing that all requirements are carried out.
Amendment moved—
Page 527, line 46, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I gather from what the noble and learned Viscount has said that his objection is not so much to this clause as to the fact that the clause is printed in its present form, which is a form common in most legislation. A similar provision appears in the Borrowing (Control of Guarantees) Act, 1946, the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, the Exchange Control Act, 1947,

435
and a number of Bills before Parliament at the present time. Indeed, I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, only the other day stated on a similar clause: "I am really quite content with the clause as it stands, and express gratitude to the Government for having put it down." That was Clause 18.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, perhaps I might say a word. I personally take the view that the words of the proviso are narrower than the words of the clause. I think it might quite well be that you had an accounts department, and that the department was working very well, and you had come across nothing wrong at all. You would then, I think, comply with the words of the clause. You would be able to say that you knew nothing about it, and that you had exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as you ought to have exercised. That is to say, if you are a director of a company and you have had an accounts department working perfectly well for years, you would assume that everything was all right if you had some individual charged with the particular duty of seeing that the particular thing was going right. The Amendment is narrow, and I think it would be inadvisable to accept it.
I originated this clause in this form. I agreed it with my noble friend Viscount Maugham in one of the earlier Bills. I wanted to give a full and adequate protection, and I thought I had done it. I confess that I am inclined to think that the protection I have given is better than the protection the noble and learned Viscount gives. I keep in mind that it might have the opposite effect.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I dare say the Lord Chancellor is right about that, and I will only observe that one of the noble Lords whose name is down as supporting my proposal is the Viscount Maugham.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124:
Interpretation.
"local authority" means the council of a county, the Common Council of the City of London, or the council of a county borough; "meat" means carcases of animals, parts of carcases of animals, or offals of animals, being carcases, parts of carcases or offals suit-
436
able for human consumption, whether fresh, chilled or frozen, but not being carcases, parts of carcases or offals which have been cooked or subjected to any process other than skinning, trimming or cleaning;
6.34 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved to add the words "or the council of a county district the population of which at the last census exceeded 20,000" to the definition of "local authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a modified form of an Amendment which was moved in Committee on this definition of "local authority." It is an attempt to see that the councils of county districts preserve some of their functions and duties, which are rather apt to be diminished owing to this and other Bills before Parliament. Their functions under this Bill seem to me very largely to concern local matters, and the views of the people concerned are much more easily asserted and put forward by the councils of county districts than by the council of a county, whose members and officers are apt to be somewhat remote from the outlying parts of the county. In the Bill as originally worded the councils of non-county boroughs and metropolitan boroughs were included in this definition of "local authority." They were omitted at a comparatively late stage in another place, and that omission was extreme, I think. If this Amendment is accepted, as I hope it may be, it will only increase the number of councils concerned by sixty-nine above that which was in the Bill as originally introduced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, but I must congratulate him on his pertinacity. I think we have made quite a number of Amendments to the Bill in response to his proposals, but we cannot accept this one. The county councils, the county borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London are included, and a county council can, and will, consult the representatives of the district councils on any matters which are of common concern. They are on the Consultative Committees and, in fact, they are scattered practically all over the Bill. There are representatives of local

437
authorities on various bodies, and I must ask the noble Lord not to ask us to split this up any further.
LORD ADDINGTON: I thank the noble Viscount for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. There is nothing like trying.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in the definition of "meat," after "frozen," to insert "or which, though subjected to processing, remain of a perishable character." The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I also took the next Amendment standing in my name, to add lo the definition the words "which substantially reduces the perishability thereof." During the Committee stage an Amendment was moved which set out the definition of "meat." It appears that this definition really only covers fresh, chilled or frozen meat, and does not include what is known in the trade as, I believe, open packed meat products. This Amendment is merely designed to cover this point. I am sure that open packed meat products, although they are processed, are not in any way cured, or pickled, and are quite as perishable as fresh meat. I hope, for that reason, His Majesty's Government may be able to accept this very simple Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 7, after ("frozen") insert ("or which, though subjected to processing, remain of a perishable character.")—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is a simple Amendment, and it is attractive by reason of its simplicity, but I am afraid I cannot accept it. I understand that "meat" is well understood, defined and provided for in the special class of vehicles which are designed for its conveyance. But this definition, I understand, would embrace in the term sausages, black puddings and all manner of contrivances of a like nature. I cannot accept a definition of that vague character. I am sorry.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of what the noble Viscount says, I do not propose to press this Amendment, and I do not move the other Amendment to which I referred.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CLAUSE 125 [Application to Scotland]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to Move.
Amendment moved—
Page 134, line 14, leave out subsection (12). —(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
ORDERS GIVING EFFECT TO SCHEMES
PART I.
2.—(1) A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be published—

(a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the scheme affects England, Scotland, or both; and

(b) in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned,

and shall specify a place where the draft of the order may be inspected, and copies thereof obtained at all reasonable hours, and the time (not being less than forty days from the publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, any objections to the draft may be made to the Minister, and the Minister shall consider any objections made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice.
Provided that the Minister shall not be required to consider any objection unless it comprises or there is submitted therewith a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds for any amendments, additions or modifications asked for, or any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.
3.—(1) If there are no objections which the Minister is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn, the Minister may make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications, if any, as he thinks fit, being amendments, additions or modification which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the draft as published.
(2) Where any such objection is made and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall cause in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local Inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto, and the Minister may, after considering the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held, make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit.
PART II.
11.The reference in subsection (8) of the said Section forty-seven to this Act shall be construed as a reference to the scheme.
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2, after "Minister," where that word occurs for the third line, to insert, "unless he considers any objection to be frivolous." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this was a point which, in the course of the Committee stage, the noble Viscount said he would look into. The main issue here is the nature of the objections to which the Minister is bound to pay consideration. As the Bill stands at present, he need not consider objections which are frivolous, or which are not set out specifically in writing. The object of the Amendment is to change the conditions from a negative to a positive sense. That is to say, the Amendment which I am moving now allows the Minister to refuse to consider any objection if it is frivolous. The proviso in sub-paragraph (1) goes on to say that the objections must be of a specific character, and the amendments, additions and modifications asked for, if any, must be set out in writing. The weakness which is felt about this is that the Minister might object, not because of the merits of the case as such, but because the objection was not sufficiently specific. That I think would be a poor reason for refusing to receive an objection. There may be merits in a case, although it is not stated specifically. In those circumstances I beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 148, line 48, after the second ("Minister") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this seems to me to be very largely a matter of drafting. I have looked through the two sets of words and, as I was not the author of either of them, I have been fairly impartial, I think. I confess that I prefer the way we have it in the Bill, because the next Amendment which the noble Lord is going to put forward is:
"Any such objection shall state—

(i) the specific grounds of objection; and

(ii) the omissions, additions or modifications (if any) asked for."

So that, according to the Amendment on the paper, the Minister has two reasons—first of all: "I decline to consider this because it is frivolous"; secondly, "I object to considering this objection because it is not in the appropriate form and it seems to me to come
440
to nothing." Under the Bill as drawn, an objector who considers that the Minister was unjustifiably refusing to consider an objection could go to the Courts, but, under the Amendment of the noble Lord, I very much doubt whether he could. For that reason alone, I prefer the words of the Bill. I confess, quite frankly, that, unless you assume that the Minister is going to act honestly, whatever words you use, I do not think you will be much better off. He can always ride off either by contending that the objection is frivolous or that it is not in a specific form, or he can close his ears to the whole thing and not take any notice of it. I think the Minister is honest. If you assume that the Minister is being honest about this, it does not matter very much whether you have one form of words or another; it makes very little difference. I prefer the words of the Bill for the reasons I have given.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said; it is only a matter of drafting. The points are substantially the same but there is this point that, as the Bill is drafted at present, the Minister can refuse to hear objections because they are not specific. However, if the noble and learned Viscount considers there is nothing very much in it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 3, after "thereto," to insert: "by a person who is not a servant or officer of the Minister." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must admit that this is something more than a drafting Amendment. This and the next Amendments in the name of the Earl of Selkirk are closely related, and the whole of them deal with the character of the inquiries and how those inquiries are to be conducted. The inquiries under this Bill are of great importance, and affect a very large number of people. I think that the only inquiries that are affected here are inquiries with regard to two matters. First of all, there are schemes for passenger road transport. The Commission are authorized to promote these schemes, which will cover a vast area and will affect a very large number of people. In the first place, the whole travelling public in the region will be directly affected. In

441
the second place, all the providers of road passenger transport in that area will be affected.
The second kind of schemes which the Commission are authorized to promote and which are the subject of inquiries are the docks and harbour schemes, which we debated at such length and on which we arrived, I think, at such a happy and satisfactory solution. There again great interests are going to be affected: all the users of the ports, the ship owners, the traders, all the people who run the ports, the stevedores, all the port labour, the traders who send their goods through the port, the carriers to the port itself, and, of course, the authority, be it a trust, a company, or a municipality which has been conducting that port. These are inquiries of great importance affecting a large number of people. In each case, whether it be passenger road transport or whether it be a scheme for docks, the Commission are the promoters; they promote the scheme. That is very much the way in which railway companies in the past have promoted a Bill, and the Government have been most careful to see that all persons affected shall have a right of audience and objection.
I would like to pay my tribute to the Leader of the House for the great care which he has exercised to make sure that in these inquiries, which are of such tremendous importance, all interests who ought to have a right of audience shall know what the scheme is and shall be heard. In those circumstances, I am not now going to talk about the technicalities of law or exactly what this kind of inquiry should be called. I base my claim on something much broader, which is the general character and importance of the inquiries. Here are schemes promoted by the Commission, and persons can object to them, whether they be the travelling public or whether they be the interests who supply the transport. The form of the inquiry, therefore, becomes one in which the Commission promote their scheme and justify it by evidence, and the objectors are on the other side. It is, in fact, the Commission against the objectors. Not only for that reason, but by virtue of the importance of this inquiry, I would say that this is (I believe this is the right technical term) certainly in its nature a quasi-judicial inquiry.
I think everyone would say that an inquiry of this importance must be very thorough in all respects. It must be thorough in the way in which the case is presented. I would equally say that it must be thorough if the objectors are to have proper attention paid to them; it must be thorough in the way the objections are presented; it must be thorough in the evidence which is called to justify an objection, and, of course, as the Lord Chancellor indeed said, I think, on the last occasion, witnesses ought obviously to be subject to cross-examination. I take it that everyone will agree that the kind of precedent for an inquiry of this kind, indeed the best inquiry, was one dealing with exactly one of these subjects which was the subject of a scheme —the great inquiry which led to the formation of the Clyde Port Trust. That was an inquiry conducted, I think, by Lord Cooper in which those who promoted the scheme for amalgamation quite rightly made out their case, and every interest was heard. That inquiry gave complete satisfaction; everybody felt that, whether they liked the proposal or not, they had had a fair hearing. By reason of the thoroughness of the inquiry, and the completeness and manifest impartiality of the Report which was presented and published, the Report carried conviction and the plan went through with, I think, common consent. It is also important not only that the inquiry should be thorough but that all concerned should be convinced of its thoroughness. The Minister certainly will want to have a most thorough inquiry when he comes to take his decision.
Now I Wish to take up a point which was made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. He said that in this matter what you really have to consider and what Parliament will ultimately have to consider is the decision the Minister takes, and that that is an administrative act. I entirely agree. When the Minister comes to take his decision, he is, in taking that decision, doing an administrative act, and he will go to Parliament and present his ideas and his proposals to Parliament. But when he comes to take his administrative decision, he will take it in the light of the report which has been made as the outcome of the inquiry. Just as it is true that the Minister's decision is an

443
administrative decision, so is it equally true that the inquiry and all that pertains to it is judicial or quasi-judicial and not administrative. Moreover, Parliament will certainly rely greatly on the report in deciding whether to affirm or reject a scheme.
In those circumstances I submit three things. The first is that the man who holds the inquiry should be an independent person. I am not seeking to put in any of those stipulations—I have forgotten what the exact words were which were canvassed last time—about being impartial and competent, although words of that sort do figure in various Acts. Nor am I going to ask that the Lord Chancellor should appoint the person who is to hold the inquiry. I think that the Minister is the proper person to appoint the man to hold the inquiry, and that he should appoint someone who is not one of his own officials. In saying that, I cast no reflection of any kind on the Civil Service. I have lived and worked with that Service throughout my public life, and I have the highest possible regard for it. I am quite certain that if a man who is an official is appointed to hold an inquiry he will do his honest best.
I do say, however, that in the case of a great quasi-judicial inquiry, with these vast interests at stake, with the whole travelling public concerned in it, with all the undertakers concerned in it, I would not, as a Minister, send one of my officials to hold that inquiry. I would insist that it should be held by someone who not only is to be regarded as impartial, but who is known to have nothing whatever to do with me. I am certain that that would be a wise thing to do, and I am certain that unless that is done, people will say that they ought to have what they call an impartial person to consider the matter. You will prejudice the inquiry unless you do that. It is as important to appear to be just as it is to be just. It will inevitably be said that the Minister is acting as a judge in his own cause. As the Donoughmore Report said, the first principle of natural justice is that a man shall not be a judge in his own cause. The Minister is going to take his decision presently on whether to adopt or reject a scheme or to adopt it with amendments and present it to Parliament, and he should rely upon an independent judicial inquiry when he
444
comes to act. I hope that it will not be said that in the arguments I am presenting, I am saying anything which casts aspersions on either the Minister or the Civil Service. I am doing nothing of the sort. This is a great principle and one which all of us, should we come to be Ministers, would be very wise to carry out.
My second submission is that the case should be clearly proved. Evidence must be offered, and that evidence must be subject to cross-examination. My third point is that the report should be published. Really, the argument for that seems to be quite unanswerable. The inquiry—I am glad to know that the Bill lays it down—is going to be a public inquiry. Witnesses will attend and will be cross-examined. As a result of this public inquiry, the greatest possible interest and attention will be centred upon the report when it is made, and it seems to me quite inconceivable that that report should not be published. I should have thought that that would follow as a matter of course. The Donoughmore Committee referring to Ministers' powers said, I think, that the second principle of natural justice was that a party was entitled to know the reasons why judgment was given for him or against him.
Surely as the result of this inquiry, the report must give reasons, and the report ought to be published to the whole world. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, said on a previous occasion that he saw difficulty in always publishing reports, and I would not ask for all reports to be published. You might well have a confidential report containing some reflections on people, which it would be very embarrassing to publish. I agree that that kind of confidential report clearly may not be suitable for publication, though I am sure that one should err on the side of publication rather than on the side of concealment. I am sure it is better to publish if you are in doubt than not to publish. When I was a Service Minister I adopted a rule—I do not know if I was right or wrong—that you must always show a man a report whether adverse or not. I thought it was going to be difficult to say what was an adverse report and what was not, so I made it a rule that all confidential reports about officers had to be shown to them. I think it worked very well.
As I say, I am sure that it would be wise to err on the side of disclosure and not lean to the side of non-disclosure. When a great public inquiry has been held it is inconceivable to me that the report should not be published as a matter of course. I am sure that when a scheme comes to Parliament with the Minister's decision taken in the light of the report—founded, indeed, upon it—one of the first things Parliament will want to see will be the report. And, of course, the Minister will, as a matter of fact, publish the report as an appendix to whatever scheme he puts forward. I have tried to put my points in support of this Amendment before you as clearly and reasonably as I can. I do not found my case on any technicalities at all, but on the importance of the subject and on the large numbers of the people affected, and I am sure that the course which I have advocated is the right course to take. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 149, line 18, after ("thereto") insert ("by a person who is not a servant or officer of the Minister").—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have been asked to reply in connexion with this matter, and I am afraid I must say at once that I differ fundamentally from the whole point of view which the noble Viscount has so very clearly and forcibly put forward. We have had this discussion several times. I agree that it is a matter on which there are two views—that is quite obvious. But I take the view which I am afraid I expressed quite definitely on this Bill and also on the Town and Country Planning Bill, that this is a very undesirable thing to do. May I say one or two words to show your Lordships why? I am very sure the noble Lord who has just spoken, if he takes some advice, will see there is nothing judicial or quasi-judicial about this at all. It is administrative all the way through. I do not think there can be any real doubt about that. That does not mean that an inquiry has not to be conducted fairly, but it does mean it is not judicial or quasi-judicial, in the sense of making it subject to various formal rules.
It is wrong to speak of the Minister as if he were judge in his own case, as the noble Lord has done. I think that is the underlying fallacy. The scheme is pro-
446
pounded by the Commission and is propounded to the Minister. When the Minister looks at the scheme and sees it satisfies apparent requirements, he then certifies it provisionally—only provisionally, in order that there may be an inquiry at which objections can be raised. The Minister is not in any sense a party to that controversy. The Commission will propound a scheme. The objectors will object. And the Minister stands above the two of them and it is for him to decide as a matter of administration what he thinks is the right thing to do.
Before I go on, I may say that I have heard more misquotation of the Donoughmore Report than I like to think of recently. The Donoughmore Committee in recommending that these reports should be made public were at great pains to make it plain that the recommendation would not apply to those matters where the inquiry was of an administrative character. I will read once more these words. I claim the Donoughmore Committee is strongly on my side. Referring to the recommendation that reports should be made public, they say:
"Our recommendation is to be considered as limited to those cases where a public inquiry of a judicial character has been prescribed by Parliament as a step in the process of arriving at a judicial or quasi-judicial decision. Our recommendation has no application to those cases where the Minister in the ordinary course of administration may arrange for some local inquiry or investigation, the better to inform his mind before he takes some decision which is within his competence as the head of an executive department. The ordinary process of administration may indeed be gravely impeded were the Minister to be tied down to any particular procedure and the fact that the Minister may be armed by statute with a general power to proceed by way of local inquiry in suitable cases makes no difference so long as the matter is in essence administrative."
I quite agree that in some respects the Donoughmore Report went too far with regard to quasi-judicial reports, but in this respect, this being an administrative matter, I claim that the Donoughmore Report is completely and absolutely in favour of the view which I am maintaining.
Now I would tell your Lordships why it is so important that these reports should not be made public. After very considerable experience of administration in this country I re-echo the words of the noble Lord as to the great admira-

447
tion which everybody has for the Civil Service, but I think it is essential, notwithstanding that fact, that a Minister should really be in charge of his Department. I think it is essential that a Minister should not get into the habit of lying back and resting too much on the decision of his civil servants. I think in cases of this sort the decision must be the decision of the Minister. The Minister must take all the steps he can by talking to his civil servants to inform his mind as to all the relevant facts, but when that is said and done it is not right that the Minister should simply say, "You recommend me to sign" and then sign. He must make his own decision. I am sure the noble Viscount would certainly agree to that.
VISCOUNT WINTON: I certainly would not argue about that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will see how dangerous this position becomes. If you are to publish the report, two grave consequences follow in matters of administration. First of all, if the Minister is human, the Minister will tend always to agree with the report rather than differ, because he knows the report is to be published and therefore will lay himself open to trouble and criticism if he takes a line which goes away from the report. If he follows the report his course is easier. My second reason: if you are going to say these reports must be published, there will be a grave danger of the report not being a real document at all; you will get some covering letter or some interview or something of that sort where the person holding the inquiry will feel himself free to say what he does not feel himself free to say in the report which has to be made public. I say quite frankly this would be a retrograde step. It would do harm and not good. We would do very much better to leave things as they are in the Bill.
As to the personnel for holding the inquiry, I beg your Lordships not to fetter the discretion of the Minister. It may be a case of almost national importance or one affecting only a village or small town. Those are relevant facts for the Minister to consider as to whom he should appoint to hold the inquiry. There would be cases, I should imagine, in which the
448
Minister would get some well known public figure. But there would be a very large number of cases where he would get someone inside his Ministry who knows the job and has great experience in this work and on whom the Minister can rely. And just as the Minister is impartial and not a party to the controversy, so also is the servant of the Minister equally impartial. There may be cases where you should appoint such a servant and cases where you should appoint a complete outsider. Do not fetter the discretion of the Minister.
I have tried to put my point of view as shortly as I can. I appreciate to the full the point of view of the noble Viscount. I know he wants to assist in these matters and I know that this point of view has existed for a long time. I have tried to put my point of view plainly and your Lordships understand why I, at any rate, believe this would be a mistake. I confess that the instructions which I have had from the Department are in accordance with the line I am taking, but I confess further that, if the instructions had been on a different line, I would have asked the Minister to re-examine them and withdraw his instructions in favour of my view. I need not waste time. There is here a real and genuine fundamental difference between our points of view and I do not think by further argument we are likely to convince each other.
7.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we all recognize the experience and sincerity with which the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has spoken, but I must confess I have found his reply rather shocking, if I may be allowed to say so. He said, with truth, that he has had great experience in administration. So also have I. I have held various offices. I must confess that I disagree in toto with what the noble and learned Viscount said. It seems to me that the purpose of this series of Amendments is one that is completely unexceptionable. After all, what do they really aim at doing? By removing suspicions, they aim at maintaining the prestige of future Governments in this country. That, I should have thought, was the most important thing there could be for all of us.
These inquiries which are to take place under this Bill are substantial inquiries. They are not little inquiries, such as the

449
noble and learned Viscount spoke of under the Town and Country Planning Bill. We had this same discussion then, and he talked about little inquiries as to the position of a bungalow, and matters of that kind, which would not be worth reprinting; they were of purely local interest—and not much local interest. As my noble friend Viscount Swinton has said, these inquiries are of a vastly different character. They are inquiries affecting thousands —even hundreds of thousands—of people, and vast sums of money. What is more, these inquiries are in any case going to be public. Certain of the arguments used by the noble and learned Viscount at the end of his speech might be put forward—although, even then, I do not think they would be very sound—about confidential inquiries. Evidence might have been given in confidence which it might be undesirable to issue to the public. But these are to be public inquiries. Anybody can go and listen to what is said at these inquiries. On what possible ground of principle can you be against the publication of the results—merely putting in black and white what has already been said, and what, so far as I know, may have already been printed in the newspapers? It seems to me that that is an incredible attitude for the Government to take up.
Moreover, there is a point to which the noble and learned Viscount did not refer at all, but which was mentioned with great force by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton: that is the importance of the publication of these reports to Parliament. The noble and learned Viscount said that this was a question for the Minister. But it is not a question merely for the Minister. These schemes will have to be approved by Parliament, and it is absolutely essential for Parliament to have the fullest information, both as to arguments in favour of the scheme and objections, if any, put up against it. Surely, to refuse to publish the reports is merely to deprive Parliament—which is, after all, the Legislature of the country—of information which it ought to have in its possession.
Then there is the basic argument, the argument of principle, which is vital: that justice should not only be done but should seem to be done. As the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said this afternoon, that justice should not be surreptitious. That
450
is very important. Fortunately, in our country over centuries now it has been the universal recognition that justice is done. But there are suspicions already arising, and those suspicions can be only fanned by the attempts of the Executive to conduct the affairs of the nation in private. I think it is inherent in the political philosophy accepted by noble Lords opposite (I do not wish to criticize it in any way but I noticed it in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, this afternoon), that they really rather resent any suggestion that there can be any fallibility in the state.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not bring this up as a Party question; it is something which I do feel. Noble Lords opposite seem to think that Government Departments and the State must always be trusted by the people of this country, without information being given. I think that was said in effect by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. He said that the Minister is not a party to any of these questions—he is the judge; he is the arbitrator. It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, this afternoon. We fully recognize that. I am not suggesting that the Minister would in any way be anything but completely honest and completely patriotic; but he is fallible, and his officials are fallible. It is essential, when really important decisions are to be taken, affecting large numbers of people and great interests in the country, that they should know the grounds on which those decisions are being taken and the arguments that have been used for and against. I beg noble Lords to believe that I am not desirous of introducing any controversial issue into this matter at all. It seems to me to be as clear as crystal, to whatever Party one belongs, that the Executive can only gain by the utmost publicity, and the attempt to take great decisions behind closed doors is bound to lead to disaster.
That is the reason why we press for the publication of these reports; that is the reason why we press for an independent inquirer. It is not because we think that an officer of the Minister is likely to be anything but as impartial as he possibly can. All of us who have had to deal with the Civil Service know that they have the very highest type of integrity. But it is

451
important that the public should feel that the matter has been submitted to an impartial person—a person who has no prejudged view. Those are the reasons why we feel very strongly about these Amendments. I should have thought that it would strengthen the position of the Government with their Bill to accept these Amendments. I am sorry to hear that they cannot accept them, and I am afraid that this is a matter, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, of great principle which we shall have to press to a Division. I would infinitely rather that a great principle like this should have been accepted by agreement than that it should have to be forced through the House by a Division.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I hesitate rather to speak on the grounds of experience, as the noble Marquess did, but it is unavoidable in this case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I really am very surprised at the line being taken by the noble Lords opposite on this matter. I took down the words of the noble Marquess. He said: "Taking great decisions behind closed doors." What are we really talking about? In the first place, we are talking about a public local inquiry—a public inquiry. There are no closed doors about that. Everybody can hear what goes on, and no doubt the local Press will report in full all the pros and cons, and the rest of it. Both sides will receive ample publicity. So far as the case is concerned, it is heard on both sides, at great length, and perhaps with wearisome reiteration. That is the first stage. What is the next stage? The man who conducts the inquiry makes a report of what he has heard. But what he has said has been in public; it has not been behind closed doors. He reports to the Minister what he thinks about it, and on the basis of that report, if he is so minded, the Minister makes an order. What happens then? The order is reported to Parliament, and the Minister has to justify, in the face of all the critics in Parliament, what he has done as the result of the report of that public inquiry. I cannot see where "closed doors" come in. I cannot imagine any better facility for making—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, he is arguing entirely on our side. If this inquiry has been in public, what possible objection can there be to publishing the report? He assumes that all this information will be in the possession of Parliament, but in the case of a local inquiry, reported in local newspapers, it will not be at their disposal. Those of us who have been in Parliament all know that. We are not asking that anything confidential should be published. We are asking that this report of the inquiry should be printed and issued to Parliament.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that makes it worse still. A public inquiry will no doubt be reported at great length in the local newspapers. I understand what the noble Marquess wants is that the whole of the proceedings, the cross-examination of witnesses and so on, shall be published at great length.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, the report. I am not going beyond the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am trying to to interpret what it is the noble Marquess really wants. I understand that he wants a report published of all that happened at this inquiry. That is a very different matter, and I will come to that. In the first place, there is nothing about "closed doors." That is the first thing I want to make quite clear. It is a public inquiry. Now the man who holds the inquiry—and I will come to the question of selection in a moment—makes a report to the Minister as to his impressions of the inquiry; what he thinks about this; what he thinks about that; whether he thinks this is exaggerated, or whether it is not exaggerated; whether it is fictitious and all the rest of it, which is exceedingly valuable to the Minister. But I am perfectly certain that the man could not make the report as he ought to make it if he knew that afterwards it was all to be published: of course he could not.
I cannot get over my astonishment that noble Lords who have had long experience, of Government office should make a proposal of that sort. It is absolutely unthinkable. I am perfectly certain that in the various offices which he has held the noble Marquess has many times had reports from his officers of events which have happened and which he wants to

453
know about; or he asks an experienced man—nine times out of ten one of his own officers in whom he has complete confidence—to give him a report about it. He would never dream of publishing those reports. Surely the noble Marquess must have received those reports.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the Cooper Report, to which reference was made, and which is an exactly similar report to those which are to be made under this was published. It did not lead to great embarrassment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am not suggesting that it did. As the noble Marquess knows, in a large number of cases somebody is called upon to make an elaborate investigation and publish a report. That is quite a different thing from a ministerial inquiry into a specific case
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 149, line 25, at end insert:
("(3) The person appointed to hold the inquiry shall make a report thereon in writing to the Minister, containing—

(a) his findings and conclusions as well as the reasons therefor, upon all the material issues of fact, liability or discretion involved in the exercise of the functions in respect of

which is held in public, and where a report is sent to the Minister of the man's views. That is what this is, and that is what the Minister wants for his guidance. I say that it would be destructive of the best interests of public administration if you had to insist that in all these cases the man's report must be published. That could not be done. It must be the Minister's responsibility. The inquiry is held in public, the Minister receives a report on what the loan thinks about it, and then he makes an order. That order is published; it is discussed in Parliament; that is the right way to do it. We could not possibly accept this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Cholmondeley, M.

Ridley, V.

Gifford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Simon, V.

Grenfell, L,

Swinton, V.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Templewood, V.

Hawke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hazlerigg, L.

Dundonald, E.

Addington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Altrincham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Llewellin, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Ashburton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Munster, E.

Belstead, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Rothes, E.

Carrington, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cawley, L.

Rochdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Templemore, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cromwell, L.

Teynham, L.

Hill, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Long, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Truro, L. Bp.

Kershaw, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ammon, L.

Merthyr, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Faringdon, L.

Pakenham, L.

Addison, V.

Henderson, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Hall, V.

Holden, L.

Walkden, L.

which the inquiry has been caused to be held; and

(b) his recommendations in regard to the exercise of the said functions;

and copies of such report shall be made available on payment of a reasonable charge therefor, to the persons entitled to attend the inquiry. The Minister may, after considering, such report, make the order either in the terms of the draft, or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 149, line 21, at end insert:
("(3) The Commission shall appear at any such public local inquiry in favour of the scheme and any objector may appear and tender evidence. Any person appearing in favour of the scheme or any objector appearing at the inquiry shall be subject to cross examination.
(4) For the purpose of this Schedule the person appointed to hold such public local inquiry shall have the same powers as are granted to the Minister by Section twenty of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is little more than drafting. Its effect is to bring in a few people who otherwise would not be in. Therefore I am sure your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 150, leave out line 23 and insert ("to any other express provision contained in this Act shall be construed as a reference to any other express provision for the payment of additional compensation contained in the scheme").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 12, leave out ("Sections fifteen and twenty-one") and insert ("Section fifteen; in Section twenty-one, from the beginning of the Section to the words 'Provided that' ").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL.
7.35 P.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a Second time. The Bill is very clearly set out, and I do not think there is any need for me to elaborate on it. Its primary purpose is to secure for His Majesty's Government, either by agreement or compulsorily, the site of the old Westminster Hospital opposite the Abbey. It is proposed to demolish the present buildings there, together with the old Stationery Office buildings on the adjoining site, and to develop the combined site as soon as possible. The Bill makes provision for the modification of the Westminster
456
Hospital Act, 1913, in respect of certain restrictions on building which were designed originally to protect the neighbouring Stationery Office buildings, now to be demolished. There is also a clause which exempts the site from the provisions of the London Building Acts, as the Crown is not bound by them and it is thought undesirable to create a precedent in this particular case. Finally, as the District Railway passes close to the boundary of the site, a clause has been inserted to provide statutory protection for the London Passenger Transport Board when the new building is erected.
Very careful thought has naturally been given to the best possible use which can be found for this site, with its many historical associations and its position, which is one of the most prominent in London. Before the war the present owner proposed to develop it for commercial offices, but I am sure there will be general agreement that it is in the national interest that the site should be developed in accordance with the recommendations of the County of London Plan, that Government offices should be concentrated as far as possible in the immediate neighbourhood of Whitehall and the Houses of Parliament. In the circumstances it is considered, and I think noble Lords will agree, that there is no more worthy use for this fine position than as the headquarters of our Colonial Empire. It is accordingly proposed to erect there a new Colonial Office, a building which, as I shall explain, is most urgently required. The pre-war headquarters of the Colonial Office in Downing Street have been occupied by them since 1875 and are now quite inadequate to accommodate a staff which have increased from 40 originally to a total now of 1.185. At present the staff are dispersed among six buildings in Central London, though it is hoped shortly to concentrate the majority of them in a group of leased offices in Great Smith Street. This, however, is only a temporary expedient and I think that noble Lords will agree that the only satisfactory solution is that work of such increasing importance as the administration of our Colonies should be centralized in one modern building as soon as possible.
The Ministry has been fortunate enough to secure the services of Mr. T. S. Tait as architect. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with his work, which

457
includes Adelaide House, the British Museum extension, and Lloyds Bank Head Office in the City. Mr. Tait is already closely acquainted with the possibilities and problems of this particular site, and thus a good deal of time will be saved in the preparation of plans for the new building. Noble Lords will be happy to know that the Minister of Works has undertaken to consult the Royal Fine Arts Commission at the outset and later on, when the plans have been more fully developed, both as regards the sketch plans and elevation. He is also very carefully examining the possibility of employing artists, sculptors and engravers, on both external and interior decoration, and in addition, of making use of schemes for certain rooms suggested by and representative of individual Colonies. I hope that I have said enough to justify the Bill. It will, as I have indicated, provide an opportunity to acquire an incomparable site at the very heart of the British Commonwealth, and to erect upon it an edifice that will at once be worthy of our Colonial Empire and of the noble companionship of its historic surroundings. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIRE SERVICES BILL.
7.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Commitee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HOLDEN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provision of fire services.
1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every fire authority in Great Britain to make provision for fire-fighting purposes, and in particular every fire authority shall secure—

(f) efficient arrangements for the giving, when requested, of advice in respect of buildings and other property in the area of the fire authority as to fire prevention, restricting the spread of fires, and means of escape in case of fire.

LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in paragraph (f) of subsection (1), after "requested," to insert "or as a result of inspections carried out under paragraph (d) of this subsection,". The noble Lord said: This is really a very simple little point. The intention is that where an inspection has been carried out by a fire prevention officer the officer shall, if as a result of his inspection he feels it to be necessary, make a report to the owner on the point of the condition of the premises which he has inspected. He is directed under this Bill to make such a report already, should he be so requested. I think it is probable that, in actual Let, if, say, any owner of a factory had his factory inspected by a fire prevention officer, he would very naturally put himself in touch with that officer and say: "What is your opinion of my premises? What are your views on its condition?" But there is no direction that such a report shall be made. I think, indeed, that even if the owner did not ask, there is every possibility that the fire prevention officer, or the inspector, or whatever you like to call him, if he found anything, would tell the owner what he had, in fact, found. However, the aim of my Amendment is to make it incumbent on the inspector to make a report to the owner of the building.
The present position with regard to the inspection of buildings, from the point of view of fire protection, is really very far from satisfactory. Of course, in London it is covered by the excellent London Building Acts, but apart from that it is covered principally by the Factory Acts. If you read the provisions of the Factory Acts in so far as they deal with fire prevention, you will, I think, inevitably come to the conclusion that the main preoccupation, and indeed very properly the main preoccupation, of the Factory Acts is the safety of the personnel. It deals mainly with things like escapes and so on. There is also, if I remember rightly, a Section 119 which deals with the endangering by their acts of other personnel by persons employed. But that is not really a very workable section, and it is one under which there have been prosecutions on only about ten occasions. It is well known that the number of factory inspectors at the present time is wholly inadequate. That I think is very generally recognized. Moreover, the in-

459
spection from the point of view of fire risks is really a very highly skilled and technical job; indeed, under the Factory Acts there are already provisions for certain specialized inspectors. I suggest that instead of having specialized fire prevention inspectors under the Factory Acts, those particular duties should be placed upon the inspectors who will be sent round by the National Fire Service. That, very briefly, is the point of my Amendment, and I hope that His Majesty's Government may see fit to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("requested") insert ("or as a result of inspections carried out under paragraph (d) of this subsection").—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD CHORLEY: I have some sympathy with the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has just moved to Clause 1 of the Bill, but I regret that we are not able to accept it. The inspections which are made under paragraph (d) of Clause 1 are intended to provide the fire officers with the information which they require for the purposes of their work in fire fighting, so that they may know the buildings which they have to protect, where the water supplies are available, and matters of that kind. Paragraph (f), to which the noble Lord has moved his Amendment, is really a new departure, in that it gives the owner of a particular property the possibility of asking for advice, and the paragraph provides that efficient arrangements shall be made in order that requests for advice of that kind can be met. The Amendment of the noble Lord seeks, in effect, to thrust advice upon the owners of these properties whether they want it or not.
We feel that these matters of fire prevention, which are dealt with for the first time in this Bill, are matters which will have to be built up gradually, and which, quite possibly, a few years hence will require comprehensive legislation. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be rather an unfortunate thing at the present time to go too rapidly with it, and to try to force advice upon persons who, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, will no doubt, when inspections have been made under the earlier paragraph, be only too anxious to ask for information and to accept the advice of the competent fire officers. To thrust it upon them and,
460
in effect, to suggest to them that something is going to be made compulsory at this particular stage, would defeat the very object which the noble Lord has in mind in getting a much more efficient system of fire prevention installed throughout the country. Therefore, I hope he will appreciate that, while we have much sympathy with the object he has in view, we do not feel that the particular method by which he is seeking to achieve it is likely to bring success. In those circumstances I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: Of course, I do not want to delay your Lordships longer than necessary, and I will withdraw my Amendment, although I think the reply of the noble Lord is almost wholly unsatisfactory. The fact of the matter is that I am not suggesting in my Amendment that these inspections should be compulsory. There is no question of an inspector going round to make a report for a set purpose. The point is that where he is asked—in cases, for example, where he has made an inspection in order to inform himself about the risks in a certain building—he shall make a report to the owner of the building, without committing the owner of the building to do anything about the report or anything else. However, there it is. It seems to me, frankly, that the opposition of His Majesty's Government to this Amendment is largely a disinclination to change the shape of their baby's nose. However, I withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I would like to point out that the Amendment does not, in fact, have the effect of securing what the noble Lord has just expressed as his intention. The words of it do not do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WALKDEN: The next is a drafting Amendment to improve the wording of subsection (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("have") in line 14, and insert:
"(2) For the purposes of such arrangements as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of the last foregoing subsection, any member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act shall, if authorised in writing by the authority maintaining the brigade."—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
7.40 p.m.
Clause 2:
Arrangements for mutual assistance.
(4) A fire authority shall not be entitled to receive any payment in respect of any assistance provided by them under a reinforcement scheme, so however that nothing in this subsection shall prevent provision being made in the scheme for apportioning between the fire authorities concerned, in such proportions as may be specified by or under the scheme, expenses incurred in taking measures to secure the efficient operation of the scheme.
LORD WALKDEN LORD WALKDEN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words down to and including "scheme," where that word first occurs, and insert "(4) A reinforcement scheme may make provision," The noble Lord said: It would be very convenient if we could take this Amendment which stands in my name together with the other Amendment on Clause 3. They are both small Amendments, of which the intention is to remove certain doubts. The purpose is to provide expressly that a fire authority should not make any charge for services rendered. It is designed to make it quite clear that the fire authority cannot be required to call upon owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur to make any payment in respect of services rendered. The Fire Brigades Act of 1938, which is now being repealed, provided for the abolition of such charges, and it was feared that some doubt might arise as to the intention of Parliament if the Amendment to Clause 3 is not made. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 16 and insert—("(4) A reinforcement scheme may make provision").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Supplementary powers of fire authorities.
(2) Before exercising the powers conferred by paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection in relation to any trunk road a fire authority shall obtain the consent of the Minister of Transport, and before exercising those powers in relation to any road maintained by a highway authority, other than the Minister of Transport or the fire authority, they shall obtain the consent of the highway authority maintaining the road; and—
462

(b) the said powers shall not be exercised except after consultation with the chief officer of police for the area in which the fire alarms are to be placed.

LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "chief officer of police" and insert "police authority." The noble Lord said: There is a little history attaching to this. I understand an Amendment to that effect was moved in Standing Committee in another place, but was withdrawn because the impression was given that these words would be deleted by the Minister who is in charge. Owing to some adjustment, they were re-inserted in a different place on Report stage, so the matter is where it was. The point really is that it is considered that it is not appropriate that any council should really consult an official, whether appointed by themselves or by somebody else, and the persons whom they really want the authority to consult are the police authority and not any specified person. There is no objection to consulting with the police authority; no doubt, the matter would come to that officer for report. It is a matter of principle in the matter of consultations between authorities and, although I think some similar words appear in the Act of 1938, it is felt that the position is not satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, leave oat ("chief officer of police") and insert ("police authority"). —(Lord Addington.)
LORD CHORLEY: Generally speaking, of course, I should agree with the argument put forward by the noble Lord but, on this occasion, really, it would be quite impracticable to accept this Amendment, because the effect would be to make it impossible for the particular job of work which is aimed at in this clause to be rapidly and effectively carried through. For example, just to take the London County Council area, the Secretary of State is the police authority, and it would mean that every little matter of this kind would have to be referred to the Secretary of State. In areas where the police authority is the standing joint committee, it would cause all sorts of difficulties. As the noble Lord has pointed out, there has been more than one Statute in which consultation with some particular official in regard to a technical matter dealt with

463
by the Statute has been provided for. In this case I should have thought this sort of small technical matter would be better dealt with by consultation with the police chief and the fire authority concerned. I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am glad that the noble Lord agrees that the principle that I brought forward is a sound one. In this case there seem to be reasons for not adopting the Amendment. In the circumstances I will not press it and I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WALKDEN: I beg to move the words printed on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 47, at end insert:
("(4) Save as expressly provided in this Act, a fire authority shall not make any charge for services rendered by the authority.")—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
7.35 p.m.
Clause 4 [County and county borough councils to be fire authorities]:
LORD WALKDEN: This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved to add to the clause:
"Where, on the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the population of a non-county borough, as estimated by the Registrar General, exceeded one half of the population of the administrative county comprising the borough, as so estimated, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the borough as if it were a county borough, and references in this Act to county borough and to non-county boroughs shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which sounds rather long, is meant to provide for two special circumstances where the population of a non-county borough exceeds half of the population of the whole county including that borough. It follows the precedent of Section 17, subsection (1), of the Police Act, for police purposes. There, just as in this case, the non-county boroughs lost their police powers in the same way
464
as they lost their powers as fire authorities. In the exceptional case where the population of the non-county borough is larger than that of the rest of the county to which the power would go, I understand they will retain the position of a police authority.
There are just two cases in point. The main one, perhaps, is Peterborough, where the population of the City of Peterborough is, I believe, 48,000, and that of the rest of the Soke of Peterborough only 9,000. Therefore, out of a total population of 57,000, the City of Peterborough contains 48,000, and it is thought that in that case the City should be the police authority rather than the Soke of Peterborough. The second case is that of Cambridge, in which the population of the Borough of Cambridge is 78,000 while that of the county including the borough is only 140,000. In other words, the population of the county, excluding the borough, is smaller than that of the borough itself. It is thought that in such cases the precedent of the Police Act should be followed, and the council of the non-county borough should be the fire authority. The principle seems to be the same and, therefore, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD FARINGDON: I hope that His Majesty's Government will resist this Amendment. As this seems to be a suitable occasion, I will ask His Majesty's Government to note certain observations I made on Second Reading when I really received no very adequate reply. This clearly is a case, like so many others, where the answer lies in combination. What I gather the noble Lord wants to do is to set up two authorities where in fact it is suggested under the Act there should be one.
LORD ADDINGTON: To switch the authority round—instead of the county being the authority the borough is the authority and absorbs the county.
LORD FARINGDON: I thought the noble Lord wanted to make two authorities out of one. As a matter of fact, what I wanted to press upon the Government was the desirability of encouraging com-

465
binations—I raised this point on Second Reading—and I do hope that the Government will give assurances that they will encourage such combinations before those schemes are made, because it is going to give local authorities great trouble if they have to make schemes now.
LORD CHORLEY: I think the point which has been made by Lord Faringdon really comes under Clause 5, which deals with schemes for combination of fire authorities; and I am very glad to assure him that my right honourable friend has very much in mind the extreme importance of schemes of combination of fire authorities. That was brought home very forcibly, as the noble Lord knows, during the years of the war, in which the autonomy of different authorities in connexion with their fire brigades very frequently led to great difficulties in wartime fire-fighting during enemy attack. So I can assure him that this is one of the matters which is very much in the mind of my right honourable friend, and he will take every opportunity of encouraging such combinations.
With regard to the noble Lord's Amendment: as he has pointed out it is modelled on a section of the Police Act of 1946, which was inserted with the express purpose of preserving the rights of the Borough of Cambridge and the City of Peterborough in connexion with their separate police forces. As I pointed out, I think, to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, a police force is really quite different from a fire force, and it is not right to press analogies between them. A fire service is really not comparable with a police service. It is a much more mobile service, and a more technical service. The arguments against small units, I think, are much stronger in connexion with the fire service than with the police service, though very necessary combinations of small police services which have been carried out under the Act, I am sure everyone will agree, have been successful; and they were certainly overdue.
Then again there is perhaps something to be said on the grounds of tradition and prestige for preserving an historic police force. But that argument certainly cannot be applied in relation to a completely new set-up of the kind that is contemplated under this Bill. It is possible—indeed I am not sure that a more correct word would not be "probable"—that
466
the present investigations of the Local Government Boundary Commission may easily affect these particular local authorities. In that case we should be inserting a completely useless clause in the Bill. Most important of all, under Clause 20 and also under the First Schedule and Clause 21, which go together, provision is made for consultation with county districts by the new county fire authorities in the preparation of their county establishment schemes. Under Clause 21, in particular, county districts have to be given representation on the county fire brigade committee. I think that bearing these important safeguards in mind, the noble Lord will agree with me that when the time comes it will be perfectly easy to provide that the City of Peterborough and the Borough of Cambridge will in fact play an effective and proper part in connexion with their local fire services, and that they should have no difficulty at all in getting their interest in the fire service adequately represented upon the committee which will play such an important part in the matter. In those circumtances I think the noble Lord will agree with me that an Amendment of this kind is hardly necessary.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I desire to ask my noble friend not to press this Amendment. Of course it is in general terms, and I must say that at first it frightened me greatly. It is not even confined in terms to Peterborough and Cambridge; had it been I should not have been quite so frightened. But it does open up a vista of an enormous increase in the number of authorities, and it does seem to me that the one hope of efficient working of this Bill all over the country rests in the fact that you are to have as few authorities as possible. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend. Lord Addington, will take the advice of the noble Lord who has just spoken and will be satisfied that there are other ways by which the City of Peterborough and the Borough of Cambridge may perhaps get their own way in the end.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am very glad to respond to the suggestion which has been made to me. I certainly did not wish to alarm my noble friend the Earl of Donoughmore, in any way. Probably arrangements will be made quite adequately under the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has

467
referred. On the face of it, however, it does seem rather absurd that power should be taken from a larger authority and given to one that is really smaller than the one from which it is taken. It may well be, as the noble Lord says, that adjustments will be made to boundaries, and even that these counties themselves may not remain independent fire units. In the circumstances, having raised the point and having heard the Government reply, I will not press the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Transitional provisions.
(3) The Secretary of State may after consultation with such associations representing local authorities as appear to him to be concerned by regulations make such transitional provision as appears to him expedient in consequence of the transfer to fire authorities of functions relating to fire services of the Secretary of State and of authorities which were fire authorities for the purposes of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938, and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this subsection) regulations under this subsection may provide—

(d) for the transfer to fire authorities of property, rights and liabilities vested, enjoyed or incurred on behalf of His Majesty for the purposes of the National Fire Service, for the carrying on by fire authorities of arrangements (including arrangements for the making of payments) entered into on behalf of the Crown for those purposes, and for the vesting in fire authorities of property used on behalf of His Majesty for the said purposes but vested in any authority being a fire authority for the purposes of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938;

(e) for the reimbursement of interest and redemption charges incurred, by an authority for the purposes of the said Act of 1938, in respect of moneys borrowed in connexion with property vested in pursuance of the last foregoing paragraph, for rendering the fire authority in which the property is so vested liable for the reimbursement, and for the determination by the Minister of Health of questions arising under this paragraph;

8.6 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved in paragraph (d) of subsection (3) at the end to insert: "and formerly used by them for the purposes of their duties as fire authorities." The noble Lord said: This
468
Amendment relates to Clause 13 (3). This regulates the transfer to the new fire authorities of property which is used by the National Fire Service but which belongs to local authorities that will not be fire authorities under the Bill. That is to say, it deals with property belonging to the non-county boroughs, and to urban and rural districts. As paragraph (d) now stands, the Bill deprives these small authorities of property which they purchased for some municipal purpose quite other than fire purposes, although, for reasons of emergency and patriotism, the National Fire Service or often the A.F.S., before the National Fire Service started, were allowed to use them during the war.
It is thought that such a transfer would be most unjust, and therefore the Amendment is designed to prevent such a result. But it will not prevent a transfer to the new fire authorities of the property which the smaller authorities acquire specifically for fire purposes. Under the Bill as at present drafted only two tests require to be satisfied in order to decide whether property owned by a non-county borough or an urban or rural district is to vest in the county council. The tests are: first, that the property is now vested (for any purpose whatsoever) in an authority which was a fire authority for the purpose of the Fire Brigades Act of 1938—that is to say a non-county borough, urban district or rural district. The second test is that it is now used for National Fire Service purposes.
There are a good many cases, but I will just quote two instances which illustrate the kind of injustice with which the Amendment is intended to deal. In June 1938, a non-county borough purchased house and grounds as a corporation estate at a cost of about £3,000. I understand that the purpose was to establish a museum. But they had not got that purpose fully carried out when the war broke out, so, the place being acquired and not being adapted to the use for which it was intended, the A.F.S. were allowed to use it during the war. It was later taken over and is still occupied by the National Fire Service. Another instance relates to a house purchased by a non-county borough just before the war for road-widening purposes. There was not time before the outbreak of the war to demolish the house or to proceed with the road-widening proposals and there again it was naturally

469
adopted by the National Fire Service for the purpose of a depot.
In both these cases, and no doubt many more where property required for demolition for slum clearance was unoccupied and used by the National Fire Service, that property would be acquired by the county council free of compensation. That is one thing this Amendment is intended to avoid. Without this Amendment the National Fire Service, owing to its vast expansion during the war, has many more properties which were used during the war, and are still used, than were originally required for the peace-time service. The new fire authority would not require all these extended properties, and the Amendment is intended to provide that any property acquired by former fire authorities for the purposes of the then National Fire Service should not be acquired, certainly not without compensation, by the new fire authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, at end, insert ("and formerly used by them for the purposes of their duties as fire authorities").—(Lord Addington.)
LORD CHORLEY: I regret I have to disappoint the noble Lord again. I think he has overlooked the fact that these regulations are entirely permissive. There is no question of automatically taking over these properties belonging to local authorities. The clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the local authorities associations before making regulations, and there is no reason why the regulations should not provide safeguards for dealing with the sort of property the noble Lord has in mind. I think he will agree that each of these properties ought to be dealt with on its merits. Many of them were depôts or something of that kind taken over by the National Fire Service during the war, and very considerable works have been carried out on them, works on which the whole efficiency of the fire service may depend, and it would really be rather absurd that they should be handed back to the local authority in the way this Amendment suggests. Moreover, apart from that aspect, the county council and county borough council which will be the fire authority have to face the task of building up their own organization, and in many cases the efficiency of their fire
470
service would depend largely on their being able to take over property of this very kind. On the other hand, there will obviously be properties which are no longer required, and there should be no difficulty at all about their rendition to the non-county borough or district council which previously had possession of them and is in a position to make vary much better use of them. I am sure the noble Lord, on reflection, will agree that since these regulations are permissive and proper arrangements can be made under them, there is no real reason why he should press this Amendment.
LORD ADDINGTON: If I can have an assurance that the transfer will not be automatic, and the regulations will cover all these properties used by the fire services, I will not press the Amendment now.
LORD CHORLEY: I will very gladly give the assurance that it is not intended to be an automatic transfer.
LORD ADDINGTON: I will not press the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WALKDEN LORD WALKDEN moved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (3), after "1938" to insert "which does not on the appointed day become a fire authority." The noble Lord said: It will be convenient if we take this Amendment and the one immediately following together. They arise from representations made by the county councils. Clause 13 (3) (e) as drafted did not empower the Secretary of State to transfer to the new fire authorities liability for paying the debt charges on appliances bought by means of a loan under the 1938 Act, in the case of those appliances which have been scrapped or which may have been destroyed, for instance, by enemy action. It would be wrong to leave with county district councils the liability to pay loan charges on fire appliances which are in fact no longer available, and these liabilities ought to be transferred to the county councils. At first sight this may seem rather odd, but such transfer is seen to be equitable when account is taken of the fact that the appliances will have been replaced by new appliances, and the fire service is to be transferred to the new fire authorities as a going concern without compensation being required to be

471
paid by county councils, either to the State or to the old fire authorities. The County Councils Association have been consulted about this Amendment and have agreed to the wording we have put down; therefore I am sure your Lordships will endorse it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, after ("1938") insert ("which does not on the appointed day become a fire authority").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WALKDEN: This is a consequential Amendment. I move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("for firefighting purposes, for rendering liable for the reimbursement the fire authority for the area including the area of the first mentioned authority").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WALKDEN: This is a drafting Amendment. I move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 30, leave out ("for that area or").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
LORD WALKDEN LORD WALKDEN moved, after sub-section 3 to insert:
"(4) Where property used and vested as mentioned in paragraph (d) of the last foregoing subsection cannot conveniently be severed from other property vested in the authority last mentioned in that paragraph, but not so used—

(a) the two properties shall either both be treated as used and vested as aforesaid or both be treated as vested as aforesaid but no so used, as may be determined by or under regulations under the last foregoing subsection, and accordingly both shall be vested in the fire authority for the purposes of this Act or both retained by the authority for the purposes of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938;

(b) where property is vested by virtue only of the last foregoing paragraph, arrangements shall be made for the use of the property by the authority for the purposes of the said Act of 1938, and where property is retained by virtue only of that paragraph arrangements shall be made for the use thereof by the fire authority for the purposes of this Act, and arrangements under this paragraph shall provide for the terms (including terms as to payments) on which property is to be used as aforesaid;

(c) notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing subsection, provision shall not be made by regulations thereunder for the reimbursement of interest and redemption
472
charges incurred in respect of moneys borrowed in connection with property retained by virtue only of paragraph (a) of this subsection.

Any question arising in connection with the operation of this subsection shall be determined by the Secretary of State."
The noble Lord said: This rather long Amendment arises from an assurance given in another place when the Bill was under consideration there. In the discussion on this Amendment, the Secretary of State expressed sympathy with the viewpoint developed by Opposition speakers, and gave the assurance that regulations to be framed under this clause shall provide that there will be consultation between the new and the old fire authorities as regards the property which is in use both for fire service purposes and other purposes of the county district council, and that, in the absence of agreement between the two authorities as to the appropriate course to pursue, the matter should be submitted to the arbitration of the Secretary of State. The Amendment to Clause 13 to insert an additional subsection (4) is necessary to give effect to the undertaking given by the Home Secretary. It has been fully agreed with the Municipal Corporations Association and I hope your Lordships will endorse it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Walkden.)
LORD ADDINGTON: The noble Lord has moved an Amendment which covers rather the same ground as the one I have on the Marshalled List. There is only one difference into which the noble Lord might inquire. I understand his Amendment would cover only cases where there are two buildings the use of which cannot be separated one from the other. The point which I think may not be covered is where a single building is used for two purposes. I would like him to consider the matter before the next stage and see whether the point my Amendment was intended to cover cannot be incorporated in the words he intends to use. The intention of this Amendment, which also comes from the municipal authorities, is to avoid certain difficulties that arise under Section 13 (b) of the Police Act. If the noble Lord will have a look at that point, I will not move the next Amendment.
LORD WALKDEN: I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we will look into it. I had rather hoped that my larger Amendment would fully meet his case, and enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ADDINGTON: There is just that small point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WALKDEN LORD WALKDEN moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
"( ) The provisions of the Police Act, 1946, as to the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from the council of an area ceasing to be a separate police area to the council of a county or to a combined police authority—

(a) shall apply, and be deemed always to have applied, to property, rights and liabilities of the first-mentioned council held or incurred in connection with pensions, allowances or gratuities in respect of whole-time service for fire-fighting purposes in the police force of the said area and in respect of service for such purposes (whether before or after the said area ceased to be a separate police area) falling, by virtue of regulations made under the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1941, to be treated for the purposes of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, as service in that force;

(b) shall not apply, and shall be deemed never to have applied, to any other property, rights or liabilities held or incurred in connection with the provision of fire services;

and (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of this subsection) the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the said Act of 1946 as to the treatment of pensions, allowances and gratuities granted before the date of transfer in respect of members of a transferred force shall apply, and be deemed always to have applied, to pensions, allowances and gratuities granted before that date to members of the National Fire Service whose service therein fell by virtue of regulations made under the said Act of 1941 to be treated as service in the transferred force."
The noble Lord said: The subject dealt with here is rather technical, and has relation to the position of ex-police constables who serve as firemen. It is bound up with another Act of Parliament. The facts are that the Amendment relates to a number of firemen—about 1,000 in all, I understand—who until the formation of the National Fire Service were police firemen. The police fireman was a policeman employed on fire-fighting duties. He had the full status of other policemen. He was a member of a police force. He was sworn in as a constable, and he held his superannuation rights under the Police Pensions Acts. When the National Fire
474
Service was formed, whole-time police firemen were transferred to the service and ceased to be constables. For pension purposes services in the National Fire Service was deemed to be service in the police force from which they were transferred. The Police Act, 1946, required the police forces of non-county boroughs to be amalgamated with the county police forces, and among the forces which thus ceased to have a separate existence were a number of forces which had included police firemen. The Police Act makes provision in such cases for the pension liability of the defunct police authority to be transferred to the new authority—that is, the county.
As, however, the police firemen were no longer members of the defunct force at the time of its amalgamation (although they were deemed to be serving in that force for pension purposes), some doubt has arisen as to their present pension position, and the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the pension functions of the defunct police authority were in fact transferred at the appointed day of the Police Act, April 1, 1947. Other property and liabilities held or incurred in connexion with the provision of fire services by the defunct police authorities have not been transferred to the county, although they will, of course, be so transferred on the appointed day of this Bill. We were advised that the insertion of the Amendment relating to pensions might cast doubt on the position as regards other property, and paragraph (b) was included to remove any doubts on that score. I think it covers both points adequately, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 3, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 26, agreed to.
8.23 p.m.
Clause 27:
Firemen's Pension Scheme.
(2) The Firemen's Pension Scheme (hereafter in this and the next following section referred to as "the Scheme") may provide—

(i) for excluding in the case of an injury in respect of which an award is made by a fire authority under the Scheme, any other right to compensation or damages from the authority in respect of that injury or the

475
consequences thereof, so however that no provision made by virtue of this paragraph shall affect any right under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance Act, 1946;

LORD WALKDEN: The Amendments to the bottom of the page are all drafting Amendments, and it might be convenient to take them together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 22, leave out ("provide") and insert ("include provision").
line 39, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment").
line 40, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment").
line 43, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment").
line 45, leave out ("of the service") and insert ("of service in employment").
Page 26, line 10, leave out from ("any") to beginning of line 11 and insert ("employment specified under").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WALKDEN: The next Amendment is a consequential Amendment on an Amendment we have already agreed in respect of Clause 13. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 14, leave out from ("authority") to ("of") in line 15 and insert ("by which a person has been employed in employment specified under paragraph (b) of this subsection or which has incurred any liability in respect of the payment of a pension in the event of a person's retirement from employment so specified"). —(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WALKDEN: The next three Amendments are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 17, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
line 23, leave out from ("employment") to ("paragraph") in line 24 and insert ("specified under")
line 31, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WALKDEN LORD WALKDEN moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (2) after "for excluding," to leave out all words down to and including "in respect of that" and insert:
"or modifying, in the case of an injury in respect of which an award is made under the
476
Scheme, being an injury sustained in the execution of duty in such circumstances as may be specified in the Scheme, any other right against the Crown or other authority in whose employment the injury occurred to compensation or damages in respect of the."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to provide injured people with an alternative remedy at law. It is intended to re-enact substantially an existing provision in the Fire Brigade Pensions Act (which is now being repealed), the point of which was that a fireman should not be able to prosecute an alternative claim for damages—for example, at Common Law, or under the Workmen's Compensation Acts—in respect of an injury sustained on duty, and at the same time to draw a pension under the Act in respect of that injury. The provision could not, however, be re-enacted without alteration, because the injured fireman in future must receive his injury pension under the National Insurance Scheme, which is the successor to the Workmen's Compensation Acts. There remains, however, the question of alternative remedies—for example, at Common Law—and the Bill, as drafted, was designed to exclude them. That is what we want to correct.
The subsection, however, is too widely drawn, and operates in cases in which it was never intended to be applied. An Amendment is, therefore, necessary. That being so, the opportunity is being taken to modify the subsection so as to allow the Secretary of State, when he comes to frame the scheme after appropriate consultations, either to exclude any form of compensation other than the injury pension or, alternatively, to abate in respect of the injury pension the amount of such compensation. The reason for this is that the Government have under consideration the whole question of alternative remedies, and it is intended eventually to introduce a Bill to deal with the matter. The Secretary of State must have sufficient freedom of action to make our scheme accord with the decision of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 44, leave out from ("excluding") to ("injury") in line 47, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FARINGDON: On this clause I would rather like to put a question to the noble Lord in connexion with certain remarks which I made on the Second Reading. I referred then to Fire Service gratuities. The point is one which I made at some length and I will not make it again. I have no doubt that the noble Lord on the Front Bench has a note of what I then said in connexion with the slight anomaly which arises here. Men who came into the fire service during the war and who have remained on in the fire service will draw a war gratuity which they can use to pay their arrears of pension contributions, whereas a regular fire service officer will not have received the gratuity and will, of course, have paid the contributions out of his salary during the war. It is suggested that it might be possible to treat war service in those cases as counting two years for one. I believe that in actual fact this is already possible under a fire service order, but it is only used nowadays in particular cases where it is required to facilitate retirement.
LORD CHORLEY: There is, of course, a good deal of feeling, and not unnaturally so, among firemen upon this particular matter. It results from a decision which was taken under the Coalition Government that certain types of men— policemen, firemen and others who were employed in their own occupations during the war years—should not be eligible for war gratuities on the basis that they were doing the jobs for which they had enlisted in the various kinds of service, whereas other men who were doing it specially as a war-time job would be granted gratuities. The grievance to which the noble Lord has drawn attention results from that decision, and it is one which cannot be righted by this two years' scheme in the way he has suggested. It would obviously be quite impossible to apply that particular remedy, which is on the face of it not a very satisfactory one, as I think most people will agree. Even if it were more satisfactory than I suggest it is, it could not be accepted with regard to policemen, railwaymen and other types of workers. That would involve a very wide range of men of one kind or another, and it goes far beyond the scope of a Bill of this kind. Therefore, whilst I recognize that the noble Lord speaks on behalf of men who feel keenly about this
478
matter, I hope that he will agree that there is no practical remedy for it.
LORD FARINGDON: It is very unsatisfactory, if I may say so, to be offered sympathy where what one really wants is a loaf. The noble Lord appears to appreciate the justice of the feeling which I have been expressing, but also to take the line that there is nothing to be done about it. The possible solution I offered was not one to which I myself was particularly attached, but I believe that there are even greater difficulties in the way of granting a gratuity. I do suggest that if His Majesty's Government recognize the justice of it they should find some method of righting it.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
8.35 p.m.
Clause 28:
Firemen's Pension Scheme to supersede other statutory schemes.
…if any person—

(i) who was a member of the former brigade immediately before the eighteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-one; or

(ii) who by virtue of having been a member of the former brigade was designated under paragraph (1) (b) of regulation 3 of the National Fire Service (Preservation of Pensions) (Police Firemen) Regulations, 1941, as a person in whose case those regulations should have effect; or

(iii) who immediately before the said eighteenth day of August was engaged in service or work in such circumstances that under the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1939, his service or work fell to be treated as a period of approved service in the former brigade; and

(iv) who in any case becomes on the appointed day or on the termination thereafter of such service or work as aforesaid a member of the former brigade,

gives notice in that behalf to such authority and within such period as may be specified by the Scheme, the Scheme shall have effect in his case, so long as he remains a member of the former brigade, subject to the said modifications.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (2), after "brigade," where that word last occurs, to insert:
"or in cases where since there is no vacancy he cannot return to his former brigade on signature of an undertaking to return at any time when a vacancy may occur."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises from a rather curious fact in this Bill. Where men have belonged to a

479
brigade in which the pension rights are more favourable than they are to be under this Act, if they return to their original authority the men will be entitled to benefit from the pension terms of that authority. The principal authorities involved here are, I think, London, Birmingham and perhaps Leicester and Leeds—but anyhow several of the county boroughs. Unfortunately, whilst no doubt the men concerned would be willing to return there are no vacancies for them. For example, I understand that there are about 300 men who desire to return to London, where, however, the establishment is complete. Again, I think there are some 44 men who might desire to return to Birmingham. It would, therefore, seem extremely unjust that a man should be debarred from the advantages of a pension scheme to which he has subscribed in the past by the fact that he cannot fulfil the terms under this Act which would entitle him to it. My Amendment is aimed at giving him these advantages on signature of a certificate to say that he is willing to return to his original authority at any time there is a vacancy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 17, after ("brigade") insert the said words.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord's Amendment is really founded upon a misconception, the misconception being that these firemen will not be able to return to their former brigades. Actually, all professional firemen will have the option of returning to their former brigades or, of course, of accepting a post in one of the other brigades. It may be that they will not be able to return to their old brigades at the rank which they had won in other parts of the country as members of the National Fire Service. Obviously, it would not be practicable that every officer should be given an option of returning to his old brigade at the substantive rank which he has since achieved. But he will have the option of returning to his old brigade, and he will have to make up his mind whether he wants to go back at a lower rank or retain his position at the higher rank in the brigade in which he served during the war years. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a reasonable option and really remedies the sort of
480
grievance which the noble Lord had in moving this Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: I take it that what the noble Lord has said is correct, but I must confess that it is somewhat of a surprise to me. Of course I had not suggested for one moment that officers would be able to go back at the rank which they had obtained. As we are on this subject, may I ask the noble Lord another point which arises on the question of returning to a lower post? It is felt very strongly by the officers of the service that they might well receive some compensation for loss of office in cases where they have to return to the rank they held before the war, because had they remained with their own authority there is no doubt that they would, in the natural course of events, whether in peace time or in war time, have obtained very considerable promotion. Because they may have gone into the provinces and there done quite invaluable work, they may have to go back to the rank which they held before the war, and this is a matter which does seem to them to impose a certain hardship.
First of all, perhaps the noble Lord could reassure me that he is quite satisfied that all officers can go back to their original authorities—which I confess surprises me a little—and secondly that the Government will consider paying some compensation if these men are to wipe out the whole of their service during the war years. I am not talking about the rank they may have attained, because it may be a considerably greater rank, but in a matter of seven years any man does expect to make certain advances in his career. To have to return to the same situation as he was in seven years earlier would, I suggest, impose very considerable hardship.
LORD CHORLEY: On the first point the noble Lord raised, I repeat what I have already said, and I give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. All professional firemen will have the option of returning to their former brigades. With regard to the last matter, I really cannot give him a categorical undertaking that nobody will suffer, but it seems to me that it is very unlikely indeed that there will be any cases of the kind he suggests. If there are one or two, obviously they will not be in a worse position than many men

481
in the Armed Services of the Crown who achieved high rank and have had to go back to civilian occupations at a much reduced one. These are men who have done distinguished service in many parts of the country, and I think there can be no question that practically every one of them will be given the opportunity of service in the new county and county borough brigades at a much higher rank than that which they originally held in the brigade from which they came. Obviously there may be exceptions to that, but I think we may take it that they will be very rare indeed.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Lord very much for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Supplementary provisions as to preservation of pensions, etc.]:
LORD WALKDEN: The whole of these six Amendments are closely related. They are all drafting Amendments. I am sure your Lordships will agree to them. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 31, line 16, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
line 23, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
line 24, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
line 25, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
line 31, leave out ("service or")
line 33, leave out ("service or")—(Lord Walkden).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 36, agreed to.
8.42 p.m.
Clause 37:
Application to Scotland.
(2) For any reference to the Minister of Health there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State; for any reference to a county borough there shall be substituted a reference to a large burgh within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1929), and any other burgh shall be deemed to be included within the county in which it is situate; the expressions "county" and "council" mean, in relation to counties combined for the purposes mentioned in subsection (7) of Section
482
ten of the Act of 1929, the combined county and the joint county council; for any reference to a county district there shall be substituted a reference to a small burgh within the meaning of the Act of 1920; for any reference to a combination scheme there shall be substituted a reference to an administration scheme; for any reference to statutory water undertakers there shall be substituted a reference to a local water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946; for references to the Water Act, 1945, and to Sections thirty-two to thirty-four and thirty-six of the Third Schedule thereto there shall be respectively substituted references to the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, and to sections nineteen to twenty-one and twenty-three of the Fourth Schedule thereto; for references to the chief officer and deputy chief officer of a fire brigade there shall be respectively substituted references to a firemaster and a deputy firemaster; and any reference to a fire authority shall, unless the context otherwise requires, he construed as including a reference to a joint committee constituted in pursuance of the provisions hereinafter contained.
(3) It shall be the duty of the councils of the counties and large burghs comprised in any one of the areas set forth in the Fourth Schedule to this Act to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State within three months after the passing of this Act a scheme (herein-, after referred to as an "administration scheme") for the provision in that area of the services required by Section one of this Act, and the Secretary of State may by order approve any scheme so submitted to him.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, leave out from ("thereto") to end of line 9, and insert ("for any reference, in relation to a fire brigade, to the chief officer, there shall be substituted a reference to the firemaster").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved in subsection (2), to leave out "for references to the chief officer and deputy chief officer of a fire brigade there shall be respectively substituted references to a firemaster and a deputy firemaster," and to insert:
"references to the chief officer or deputy chief officer shall apply to persons who in the past have held the positions of firemaster and deputy firemaster, these officers in the future to be known by the same designation as in England."
The noble Lord said: This is a matter which I mentioned on the Second Reading. I confess it is a Scottish affair, in which I tread rather warily, though, being wholly Scottish in my origins, I may claim some little right to speak; but in this case I am informed that the Scottish Office desire a change in their title.

483
I dare say His Majesty's Government have more information on the point than I have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, leave out from ("thereto") to the end of line 9, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. After all, "firemaster" is a very old term. If you call a man a firemaster you know what he is. If you call a man a chief officer he may be something in any other body—it may be the Navy or some other Service. I should say that if the Government wished to make any alteration at all they might call chief officers in England and Wales "fire-masters" and "deputy firemasters."
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, raised this question on the Second Reading. I should be interested to know on what evidence he based his statement, as the Scottish Home Department has no evidence that there is any such desire on the part of Scottish fire officers. The Scottish title "fire-master" has a long and honourable tradition behind it, and inquiries instituted since the Amendment was put down have failed to reveal any desire for the proposed change.
LORD FARINGDON: I entirely share the feeling of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and I would much prefer to use the word "firemaster". But this matter was put to me by the Officers' Association and I assumed that they had had contacts with the Scottish officers; therefore I put down the Amendment. I realize that the noble Lord has had inquiries made, but I will myself prosecute inquiries, and should I be convinced that there is such a demand—and I believe that people should be called what they like to be called—I shall put down an Amendment on the Report stage. With that proviso, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "within three months after the passing of this Act" and insert
"before the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-eight or such later date as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow."
484
The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as originally drafted it was contemplated that the administration scheme should be drawn up and approved by the Secretary of State within three months of the passing of the Bill, the establishments being determined thereafter. In terms, however, of the new Clause 20 and of the Second Schedule moved in Committee in another place, establishment matters are to form part of the administration schemes for the joint areas and the joint committees will have to submit that part in draft to the councils of all the small burghs in their areas. In these circumstances it seemed appropriate to extend the three months' time limit originally proposed for the preparation of administration schemes to the same limit as is proposed in Clause 20 for the preparation of establishment schemes by fire authorities in England and Wales—namely, January 1, 1948, "or such later date as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 17, leave out ("within three months after the passing of this Act") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to leave out paragraph (f) of subsection (4). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 44, leave out paragraph (f). —(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 11, leave out from ("in") to ("including") and insert ("connexion with the provision of fire services").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment and the next are drafting Amendments to correct the inadvertent restriction of the application of the sanctions against disclosure of trade secrets such as may be obtained in entering factories and workshops. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 13, leave out ("a factory, workshop or workplace") and insert ("any premises"). —(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 15, leave out ("in the factory, workshop or workplace") and insert ("therein").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 8, after ("grants") insert ("in respect of expenditure incurred by them").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(23) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the provisions of this Act are unduly onerous and unlikely to provide a satisfactory service, he may by regulation exempt, conditionally or unconditionally, any areas or portions of areas mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Act from all or any of the provisions of this Act."
The noble Earl said: If I may move this Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I should like to point out that there is a fundamental difference in this Bill between England and Scotland. Whereas the Bill in England is creating local fire authorities, it is not doing so in Scotland. I think the noble Lord knows that when this was discussed in another place there was criticism of the Bill from all sides. The two big associations, the Association of County Councils and the Convention of Royal Burghs, did not agree to the terms in which the Bill has been framed. It is true that their criticism was in somewhat opposite directions. Nevertheless they did not agree with the form which the Bill in fact took. We are not taking this matter very far here, but we thought that a wider measure of discretion should be allowed to the Secretary of State in applying the measure.
May I show the diversity of the Scottish aspect as compared with the English aspect? I ask your Lordships to look at Clause 5, which concerns a voluntary scheme of combination of fire authorities. If you look in the Fourth Schedule in which the combined areas in Scotland are specified, however, there is no question of a voluntary association at all. How the
486
northern combination, consisting of Zetland, the Orkneys, the Outer Hebrides, and the crofting counties, will form into effective areas in three months' time, I do not know. All this Amendment is trying to do is to bring some wider latitude into a Bill which is, in fact, not an agreed one. I would like to move the Amendment with this alteration: taking out the word "exempt" appearing in the third line, and inserting the word "modify".
I think that the burden of this Bill on certain of the outlying counties will be very heavy. In the seven crofting counties it will cost £35,000 a year to run. That means an 8d. rate. The rate is already extremely high and I do not think an increase is necessary or right. The position may improve next year. No doubt it may be improved by Government grant. But this Bill should stand on its own merits. Finally the scheme itself has really a very limited value to outlying places. It will be of value to Inverness, to Dingwall, and to Fort William, but to the Feat areas of the country in outlying places it is of no value at all. Access is very difficult, and when you do get to the place there are no hydrants. It will also be a heavy burden on the taxpayers, and will bring great difficulties. If the Government will allow this wider measure of discretion to the Secretary of State it will give satisfaction, and I think, in the circumstances, it is justified. I beg leave to move the Amendment as it stands.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I should like to support what my noble friend has said. I confess that I could not have supported Lord Lovat, and I do not like the word "exempt," because "exempt" is a hard and fast word, and if you exempt anything you must cut it out. I would not like to leave out the Highlands, because I know, from my experience during the war, how extremely keen and able some of the fire services were in even the most remote parts. It is quite true that there are a large number of places there that cannot really be served at all. There are, of course, some in other parts of Scotland, but those are the places which I think my noble friend Lord Selkirk would like left out of the Bill at the present time,

487
but I would not like it. I would appeal to my noble friend, Lord Morrison, to produce an Amendment on the Report stage which is like this Amendment but has not the word "exempt." One cannot alter the word "exempt" to "modify" without making the whole Amendment ungrammatical.
I would like to point out that there are places at the present time in the Highlands which cannot possibly be helped by the fire service. On the other hand, the whole hydro-electric scheme, which is costing £30,000,000, was planned, I understand, to help factories to be built and people to be employed in the Highlands; and there may come a time when the Highlands will be vastly more populous than they are now—in fact, that is what we are all looking to in Scotland—and those places will obviously want a fire service. There may be places, therefore, which we do not want exempted in the Bill, but we would like the noble Lord to produce something which would take away the hardship from these crofters who have no possible chance of using a fire service, at the same time modifying it so that if, as we all hope, prosperity and factories and towns come to the Highlands it will still be possible to reimpose the fire service in those districts. I would ask if it is possible to help in this way to some degree.
LORD MORRISON: I think we are fortunate in that the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, who played such a useful part in fire prevention in Scotland during the war, should have been able to come and join us in our deliberations. He has been very candid. He has said that he does not like the word "exempt," and neither do I; nor, I think does the noble Earl, the Earl of Selkirk. It looks as if a part of Scotland is backing out and leaving certain counties high and dry, without any provision for fire protection. The problem is as to whether, under the present Bill, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to take full cognizance of the variations that exist in Scotland by having a sufficiently well modified scheme. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that there had been criticism throughout Scotland and in another place. I have read those criticisms, but it would not be a Scottish Bill if there were no criticism! In my brief experience of
488
being connected with Scottish legislation, I have come to take it as a matter of course that there is criticism, and violent criticism, on all subjects; and there must be something seriously wrong with the Bill if there is no criticism, however small, going on.
It seems to me that we are in agreement on this point: that it would not be in the best interests of the citizens of these areas that they should have no fire protection at all. They have as much claim to protection as the inhabitants of the big cities. If that proposition is accepted, I suggest that what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, asks for might be effected under the Bill as it stands, by Clause 1, subsection (1), where fire authorities are required to provide such fire services as may be necessary to meet normal requirements, and by Clause 1, subsection (3) where the Secretary of State is empowered to prescribe standards of efficiency, which may vary according to the requirements of, and the facilities available, in different kinds of locality.
The future fire authorities in the Highland counties have already indicated to the Secretary of State their view that special arrangements ought to be made to meet the particular requirements of their areas, and they have been assured that the Secretary of State will have those requirements particularly in mind when making regulations under Clause 1, subsection (3) The effect of this Bill as it stands is, in fact, to require the Highland authorities, in combination, to provide such fire services as the circumstances of the area justify. The noble Lord has pointed out how difficult it will be to get them to enter into voluntary combination or co-operation. I know that perfectly well, but you cannot allow the public to suffer merely because local authorities, month after month, go on failing to agree. There comes a time when somebody has to step in and make them agree, unless the particular area is to be left entirely unprotected.
I would like, if I may, to say one word—although I did not spend the war years in Scotland—in relation to something which was borne upon me in London, and that was the importance of fire prevention. It is at least as important as fire extinguishing; in fact, it is easier to prevent a fire than to put it

489
out, and it does seem to me that, as a nation, we have failed very much in the past in not concentrating our efforts on fire prevention. We found it necessary during the war to do that, of course, but it was rather remarkable how many fires were caused by people having large stocks of combustible materials lying about on their premises. I think in areas like Sutherland, where the population is something like seven per square mile, it is silly to talk about fire engines and that sort of thing, but a good deal of the work could be done, at no great cost by fire prevention appliances, even if they consisted only of buckets of water and sand provided at the right place.
The noble Lord has pointed out that a figure of £35,000 has been mentioned. A suggested cover scheme has been put to the authorities in the Highlands of Scotland which would involve the maintenance of a station run on a full-time basis at Inverness. That scheme envisages fifteen stations manned on a part-time retained basis—that is to say by part-time firemen receiving a small retaining fee—in the main centres of population in the area; and twenty-six stations, manned wholly by unpaid volunteers, in the area in which the provision of some degree of fire cover seems to be desirable. Steps are already being taken for a modified form of manning, and these have been put up to the fire authorities. The Secretary of State will be very ready to consider any further suggestions which these authorities may make in the direction of revising standards of manning. It is impossible at this stage to give definite figures as to the cost, for the simple reason that it will depend upon the nature of the proposals submitted by the joint committee under Clause 20, as well as upon the standard of efficiency insisted upon by the Secretary of State. No useful purpose can be served by the Secretary of State insisting upon a scheme which would place a crippling charge upon the area.
In reply to the financial case, I only want to say that the Government have indicated—the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said this in a cynical way, but perhaps he did not mean it!—their intention to secure, by a review of the financial relations between the State and local authorities now in progress, that Government assistance is given to those areas
490
where the need is greatest. It can confidently be anticipated, therefore, that under the new arrangements for Exchequer assistance to local authorities the very special needs of the Highlands will be taken into account. The object of the new finance schemes will be to give the needy areas like the Highlands such assistance as they require to maintain their local government services on an appropriate standard without placing an unreasonable burden on the ratepayers. If effect is given to this principle there is no reason why fire services on a standard appropriate to Highland needs should involve the ratepayers in an oppressive rate burden. The Highlands cannot have it both ways. If they are to be relieved of any obligation to supply a fire service, they can have no case for special Exchequer assistance for local government, which is justified only by the necessity of providing essential services without undue expense to the ratepayers in these low valued areas. I suggest that this Amendment means putting the clock back. During the war, under the excellent work of the noble Earl, the area was better covered for fire protection than ever before. Possibly, Scotland would have preferred nationalization to continue! In any case, that cannot be, and I can only say that I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, but, if between now and the next stage the noble Earl would like to have consultations on the matter with myself and the Departments concerned, I shall be very pleased to take part in them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his very helpful statements. A great deal of information is, in fact, new and I am sure that it will be welcomed as some idea of what is intended. There is no doubt that there is considerable anxiety about these matters. Whether or not it is justified I do not know, but those who do know are worried about it. I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord has appreciated this point, and I will accept his offer to discuss whether some other Amendment can be put forward. I have in mind some such words as:
"modifies the application of this Act in such areas as he may think wise."
I will draft it out; something of that sort may be acceptable. I would endorse what the noble Lord said about fire pre-

491
vention; so far as I know, there is not one word about fire prevention in this Bill from beginning to end.
LORD CHORLEY: This is the first Bill which really does introduce fire prevention.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
9.5 p.m.
Second Schedule [Application to combined fire authorities of provisions as to establishment schemes and management schemes]:
LORD WALKDEN: The Amendments to the Second Schedule are purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 42, after the second ("scheme") insert ("or management scheme, as the case may be").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 46, leave out ("section") and insert ("Schedule").—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there will be no meeting for public business tomorrow. The next meeting will be on Monday next, July 14, at 2.30 p.m.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVER- NOR'S ALLOWANCES AND PRIVI- LEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1947;
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (GOVER- NOR'S SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1947;
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (HIGH COURT JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1947.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.

NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD SEA DEFENCES BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the said Bill.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at nine minutes past nine o'clock.