LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 29 July 1947)

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I would like to say a word on this, because I think there is an element of principle 683 here, quite apart from the details. First of all, I would like to make it clear what the effect of this is, that all the municipal transport undertakings in Scotland, all the private passenger road transport, and all the hauliers will in fact come under the direction of London. These, at the present time, are run by responsible organizations which control them entirely in their own locality. The second point I would like to make is, that this is in fact the right Amendment, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 5, subsection (9) (b), which says that the Executives will be the employers. It lays down that all persons under the Commission will in fact be employed by the Executive. I will say, further, that nobody at any time in the discussion has questioned that this Amendment is desired by the great body of people who live in Scotland. At no period of the discussion has that been questioned.

I would be the first to acknowledge that popularity is not necessarily a basis of legislation. I am sure that His Majesty's Government would agree that good government is the first duty of any Government. Whether a measure is popular or not has only a limited bearing on whether it is conducive to good government. When one comes to examine the reasons which have been given for disagreement with this Amendment, I think one may take it that the Minister's reasons are twofold. The first is that it is anomalous, and that it would cut Scottish transport away from the rest of the United Kingdom. With great respect I submit that that is completely misrepresenting this Amendment. It would not cut off Scottish transport. It would leave it still subject to the Transport Commission and subject to whatever is delegated to it. Further, the Amendment is not anomalous. It can be quite clearly seen from the wording of Clause 5 that any powers whatsoever can be delegated to any Executive. I challenge the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to deny that if this were simply a Road Passenger Executive it would be 100 per cent. on all fours with the London Passenger Transport Executive. It is, therefore, a complete misrepresentation to say that this is anomalous. It lies geographically in exactly the 684 same line as the London Passenger Transport Executive.

Another reason which the Minister mentioned—and I think that this was his real reason—was that he wished to promote integration and co-ordination. What does integration and co-ordination mean in practice? I am going to submit that in practice—and we have seen this in many other Bills which have passed through this House—it means placing very large powers under a narrow oligarchy in London. This I suggest is characteristic of a very large number of Acts which have gone forward. The desire for power, the lust for power, is a very human feeling. Extremely few people who have had the opportunity have not taken power when they could. There is no doubt that His Majesty's Government are anxious to keep as much power in the hands of a small number of people as they can. And that is what is happening now.

I submit that this Amendment embodies an element of decentralization, a process which I feel is gaining great popularity, and the importance of which is gradually being realized in all sections of this House and outside. One notes that, in this connexion, there has already been a very big change from the view which was taken twelve months ago. I mean by decentralization broadening the sphere for individuals to do creative work—making it wider and wider for more people who can do it. It also means, in my view, diffusing responsibility as widely as possible. If I may, I would like to draw an immediate example in this respect from this House. In this House our procedure is the responsibility of every noble Lord present, and it is a curious thing but we very rarely get into procedural difficulties. Our procedure runs exceedingly smoothly, I think, and diffusion of responsibility is not unconnected with it, I consider that it is a pity, whilst we recognize that some measure of diffusion of responsibility is necessary, His Majesty's Government, so far, have seen no means of carrying it out, and, so far, have given no reason for not doing so.

It is clear that there is no point in pressing this Amendment. We know that a Transport Executive can be abolished under Clause 5 at any time. Equally, however, I think it is right for the members of this House to express their views 685 on this matter .as they have done, with great clarity. I would like to take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords in all parts of the House for the support which they gave me in moving this Amendment.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

My Lords, I have no desire to detain you for more than a very few moments. I would like to join with my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk in expressing gratitude to those noble Lords who were good enough to support us before in your Lordships' House. Now that this Amendment has been sent back from another place we would not of course expect support in making this a constitutional issue. But I believe that the contentions which we have put forward in respect of this particular matter will prove to be right in the end, and that at no very distant date. Nevertheless I wish to repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, which is that we roust emphasize that the feeling in Scotland is very strong about this. Those noble Lords who come from north of the Border feel extremely strong about it, because as a result of bitter experience—if I may be allowed so to term it—we believe that the system which is to be achieved under this Bill will not work.

I can, I think, give your Lordships an example indicating how this is likely to work out by referring to your Lordships' House and the work which is being done in it to-day. If the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will allow me to do so, I would especially refer to his case. At the same time I would like also to pay a tribute to the great work which he has done on behalf of Scotland this summer. May I say that not only has he added lustre to his own name, but that he has enhanced the reputation of your Lordships' House by the excellent work that he has done. He is an example, and an outstanding one, that may be quoted in connexion with this matter. He has been obliged to stay in London most of his time to do this work, and he has admitted to me that, inevitably, as a result of doing so, he has lost: touch to a certain extent with Scottish affairs. There are other noble Lords, including myself, who are sometimes called the "thousand league booters," who spend a great deal of our time travelling the hundreds of miles between here and Scotland. We find it 686 extremely difficult, and I admit for my own part that I do not always do my duty properly. I spent three nights in the train last week, and if I were going to do my duty properly this week l should probably have to spend three nights in the train again. But it is too much to expect one to carry on in that strenuous fashion. I am not an old tram but neither am I a young one. I am over fifty and I cannot continue in that way. Now I think you will find that this sort of thing will apply in respect of these boards. You will not get the best work on behalf of the board and on behalf of Scotland.

With regard to the reasons which have been given for rejecting the Amendment in another place, may I say that we do not think very much of them? I that without rancour or bitterness. I maintain—sorry though I am to say it—that the record of His Majesty's Government has been one of putting Party first and country second—shibboleths have come first and practical politics have had to take a second place. In view of that tendency we, in Scotland, most strongly feel that we should get a delegation of control of our domestic affairs. I thought: I sensed—though perhaps I was a little too quick in doing so—a slight awakening in His Majesty's Government to this pressure from the North, in the words which fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Morrison.

For what it is worth may I say that, in my view, His Majesty's Government should realize that this is an issue that is going to face them in the future? It is not only from Scotland but also from the North of England—as I think was mentioned in your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—that this present will come. It is going to come from the North of England, from Wales and from other parts. I suggest that His Majesty's Government should without delay take steps either to set up a Royal Commission, or something of that nature, to try to go into this matter and to see how they can best meet this difficult situation. His Majesty's Government have got to face the position sooner or later. If you proceed to delegate to the people of Scotland a measure of what is their rightful business you will find that you will hold Scotland instead of losing her—if you have not lost her already. If you stick to 687 the other way you merely have an unwilling, stubborn and unhappy partner. Surely you do not want that.

If I may perhaps make use of a simile may I say that what you have done in India—which is, of course, a far bigger issue—will, I believe, result in something very big coming back? I believe that you will find that when you get unity in India—as I believe and hope that you will—it will be clear that you have performed one of the greatest acts of statesmanship, probably, in the history of this country. The action that you took was in effect a throwing off of the ropes rather than trying to bind India tighter. In a similar way, with regard to my own small country of Scotland we believe that if you act on similar lines great good will come of it. I have no wish to be unkind, but I cannot help feeling that perhaps you threw off the ropes in the case of India because you did not know what else to do. In other words you have pursued a policy of living from hand to mouth and from day to day and, not through any particular act of vision, you have stumbled on a treasure that might prove very valuable to us for our future conduct with other small States. And if we found the way rather by luck than by good management, could you not pursue that course?