HL Deb 10 July 1947 vol 150 cc438-55

ORDERS GIVING EFFECT TO SCHEMES

PART I.

2.—(1) A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be published—

  1. (a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the scheme affects England, Scotland, or both; and
  2. (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3.—(1) If there are no objections which the Minister is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn, the Minister may make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications, if any, as he thinks fit, being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(2) Where any such objection is made and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall cause in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local Inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect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 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—

  1. (i) the specific grounds of objection; and
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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- 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (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

  1. (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.