Lords Sitting of 9 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

TRANSPORT BILL.
4.5 P.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD MORRISON: On behalf of my noble friend, Viscount Addison, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill, I desire to call attention to a matter with regard to which I have given private notice to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. In a sentence, I want to enter a protest against what I, and I think some of your Lordships, consider the entirely insufficient reasons which were given to your Lordships for the presentation of this Bill, and against the completely unsatisfactory (as I thought) answers to the criticisms which were given. If the noble Viscount replies that the proper way for your Lordships to indicate your disapproval of a Bill, or your disapproval of the reasons which were given in support of it, is by voting against it on Second Reading, I must point out that, as I understand it, the reason your Lordships gave it a Second Reading was not on its merits, but because we considered the Bill which had
280
come to us from another place, supported, to some extent, by a mandate from the country, was one to which it was our duty to give a Second Reading. I think this is a somewhat new point, and one which is worth calling to the attention of your Lordships.
But the fact that we gave the Bill a Second Reading does not diminish in any way the duty which lies upon your Lordships' House to probe into the circumstances of the Bill, and to try to extract from the Government the most complete information about it and answers to any objections we have to put forward. The duty of your Lordships' House has always been that of a revising chamber, but I venture to say that, in the situation which is before us to-day, we have one, if not two, new duties put upon us. The first is the duty of elucidation, because nobody can say that this Bill was fully elucidated in another place. I am quite certain we shall have numerous questions to put to the Government about the Bill, questions which the guillotine rendered it impossible even to put in another place, still less to have answered. In addition to the duty of revising and of elucidating, there rests upon your Lordships more than ever the duty of education—the education of the country, and, I might perhaps venture to suggest, to some extent the education of noble Lords who sit behind the Government. I venture to say that this great Constitution of ours is developing before our very eyes. In the centuries that have gone by it has developed to meet the changing needs of circumstances, and I am quite confident it will continue so to develop in the future.
Turning to the Bill, I would point out that the noble Viscount and other noble Lords on the Front Bench told us that the reason for the Bill was that to-day transport must be run by a monopoly and that a monopoly must be in public ownership and not in private hands. In the course of my remarks I ventured to put forward the argument that there was a perfectly good alternative. Obviously I cannot go over the ground again, but I suggested it would be better, instead of acquiring the ownership, for the Government to retain control and for the competition between rail on the one side and road on the other, with the traders' "C" licences in between, to be main-

281
tained. In his reply, the noble Viscount referred to the alleged inadequacy of the Liverpool Street Station and said he had some notes on what he called my "apologia," but he did not give your Lordships the benefit of his reflections upon it. He ended that part of his remarks by saying that this Bill was clearly necessary—and that was that. The noble Viscount may say that if I was dissatisfied with his reply I ought to have interrupted him. I did not interrupt the noble Viscount because in the early stage of his remarks, in answer to an interjection from one of my noble friends opposite, he asked that we should not interrupt. If the noble Viscount would prefer that I should interrupt him, he has only to give me a hint, and on future occasions I will do my best to oblige.
If the noble Viscount says that there are difficulties and dangers inherent in the plan which I put forward, I would like to call his attention to the fact that these are nothing compared with the difficulties and dangers inherent in the Bill to which your Lordships have given a Second Reading. I only wish to mention three—they were mentioned in the Second Reading debate, and none of them, I submit, was replied to adequately. The first is the danger of lethargy and stagnation in the public transport services of this country which will inevitably result from the establishment of this vast monopoly. There will be no competition, and before very long the whole public service will descend, as I say, into lethargy and stagnation. The second great danger to which this Bill opens the door wide is that of political jobbery, with large numbers of important appointments to be made by the Minister and, as I maintain, constant day-to-day interference in the running of the transport system. How very different from the system of public corporations which we have hitherto understood was advocated for the nationalization of transport by the Labour Party. The third great danger is the terrific centralization which is to take
place in this vast transport monopoly, with road, rail and waterways all in one hand. That centralization is bound to have the most maleficent effect, both as regards human relations with the staff and in the efficiency of the services. I venture to submit that those are all perfectly good Second Reading points, and not one of them was
282
adequately answered by the noble Viscount.
The fact is that the Government do not know what they are letting themselves in for in introducing this Bill. If I may say so, without disrespect to the noble Viscount, the bland optimism which he displayed on Second Reading is coming in for some painful surprises. If I may say so, too, he reminds me of an irresponsible small boy who finds himself in the switch room of some power station. The noble Viscount is going to pull a switch which he fondly hopes will send a great current surging through the transport system of the country. Let him beware that the switch he is going to pull is not that one which will completely fuse the whole works.
4.14 p.m.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. As he has explained, it is not the purpose of the Opposition this afternoon to stimulate another Second Reading debate, nor to raise again all the points that were discussed on that occasion. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, pointed out, there was one vital question asked on Second Reading—I think by nearly all speakers on this side of the House, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, himself—to which, in effect no real answer was given by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. We therefore feel justified in pressing the noble Viscount now for more definite information on the question.
That question, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said, is a very simple one. It is this: Why are the Government bringing in this legislation? What is the real motive behind the nationalization of inland transport? The country was given to understand by the Lord President of the Council, in a speech which he made some months ago—and it was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, on the Address—that the criterion of all proposals for nationalization was to be the efficiency of the industry. It seems to us, therefore, that it is up to the Government to make out the case for nationalization—to show, first, that inland transport has been inefficiently managed in the past, and, secondly, that it would be more efficiently managed under Government ownership.

283
As your Lordships know, I was not present at the Second Reading debate, but I have read it very carefully in Hansard. What did I then find? I found that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House made no real attempt to give a detailed justification of the proposals. He made no attempt to controvert the very powerful arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. All he said, on the main broad issue, was this:
"I think we can all agree that, in the main, discussion of the past two days has not really challenged the main purpose of the Bill."
From that I can conclude only that the noble Viscount's mind was not entirely on the debate which was taking place. I would not criticize him for that, because we all know how heavily over-burdened he is with work at the present time, but evidently he had not understood the gist of the remarks made. Secondly, he said that it was clearly necessary that this thing should be done, whereas the whole argument of the Opposition was that it was clearly unnecessary for this to be done. To treat noble Lords so lightheartedly as that is surely not fair to the House or to the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has so truly said this afternoon, the main function of this House is to educate public opinion, and if the Government have any case at all why do they not take us and the country into their confidence?
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, gave five powerful reasons why nationalization of inland transport would be disastrous in its results. I do not intend to re-open all those points but I would remind the House of one of them. I quote the noble Lord's words:
"By control, we can centralize policy and delegate administration, and the whole system can be kept human and free from political pressure. Ownership will create a vast bureaucratic monopoly"
—a monopoly, I may add, very susceptible not only to jobbery of the type to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh has referred, but also to political pressure. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House made no attempt to reply to this argument and yet to many of us it is fundamental. In our view State ownership is bound to lead this great transport industry into the maelstrom of political controversy, which, in our view will be fatal to its efficiency. The Minister and
284
the Government will be subject to perpetual political pressure.
No doubt some modus vivendi must be found to co-ordinate the activities of road and rail transport. I believe that in the debate on the Address the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, himself—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said the other day—pointed out that it is co-ordination, not ownership, that is the fundamental problem. But surely it is not beyond the wit of man to find some machinery not open to the dangers to which I have referred. It is not merely that the Minister is likely to become a sort of political Aunt Sally to the various interests concerned; there is the even greater danger that he will have far too much to do, and that he will be far too heavily over-weighted. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, attempted on the Second Reading debate to reassure the House on this point. He said:
"It is not the intention that the Minister of Transport, on behalf of the Government, should interfere with the administration of the Transport System or with the discretion of the Commission and the Executives."
But the fact remains that in a nationalized industry the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Minister. It is he who stands on the pinnacle of this great and, in our view, top-heavy structure which the Government are building up.
Does not the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, with all his Parliamentary experience, realize that if anything goes wrong it is on the Minister that Parliament will turn. He will not be able to deter Parliament by referring them to the members of the Commission. It is the Minister who will have to defend the Commission, the Executives, and everybody else; and he will have to do that in addition to all his ministerial and other duties. As a result, he will have to insist that all really important decisions shall be referred to him. I think any of us who have been Ministers know that difficulty. If there is an important
decision which we shall have to defend later on we must have our say in that decision; we cannot leave it to somebody lower down in our office. That will happen in this office just the same as in any other. Will that constant stream of questions which will have to be brought to the Minister for a decision make for efficiency in the industry? I cannot believe—and I hope to be for-

285
given for saying so—that it is the interests of efficiency which impel the Government to take this step. I still believe it is slavish adherence to a political theory; indeed, that is not only my view, but undoubtedly the view of so important a man as the present Minister of Health.
In a speech at Blaenau Festiniog only a month ago, on May 5, he said, quite frankly, referring to the iron and steel industry—but it applies equally, or even more, to inland transport:
"We are taking it over, not because it is inefficient, but because we think that it contains too much power to be left in private hands."
The right honourable gentleman said "We," and he was, presumably, speaking for the Government. In the light of those words we in this House and, I think the country, are entitled to ask: Where do the Government stand? What is the motive behind this; policy of nationalization? We are the more entitled to ask it in this House because the Minister of Health added in the same speech that the Government anticipated that they might have trouble with the Transport Bill when it came to the House of Lords, and he used these words:
"But if Labour faces up to the future and the House of Lords attempts to frustrate the Bill, we shall set their resistance aside. Speaking for myself, I would set the House of Lords aside anyway."
I think that is a little ungracious of the Minister of Health. The Labour Government have been in power for over two years up to now and the House of Lords has frustrated no bill on which the electorate are assumed to have expressed a view at the General Election. We are fully conscious that many of the electorate are beginning now to feel that they were a little precipitate when they made their vote. We have amended Government Bills and, if I may say so, by our joint efforts we have improved Bills when they have come here. We propose to take exactly the same action with this Bill. We shall examine it in a way which was not done in another place. We shall endeavour to amend it, where necessary, so as to make it more workable. I appreciate that even this rather moderate policy is unpalatable to the Minister of Health, who does not appear to believe very much in Parliamentary Government. I should add that, in any case, the speech to which I have referred was made at a May Day
286
celebration in his native country of Wales, where no doubt he felt on the top of his form and justified in letting himself go; and much must be forgiven for a May Day frolic of that kind.
But at the same time, before we proceed to the duties which the Constitution imposes upon us in this House, I feel we may fairly ask for the information, both of ourselves and of our fellow citizens, who are directing the policy of the Government today and what that policy really is. Are we to believe the Lord President of the Council, or are we to believe the Minister of Health? Is the criterion to be efficiency, or is it a mere desire for autocratic power? That is the question which was not answered by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, on the Second Reading, and in view of what the Minister of Health has said I feel sure that he will see the absolute necessity of answering it this afternoon.
4.25 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the I louse for more than a few moments, but in those few moments I should like to associate those who sit on these Benches with what has been said by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. We on these Benches also feel that we received a very inadequate reply to all the arguments which were put forward. I think that I myself may claim the distinction, in relation to the length at which I spoke, of having had the least reply of any noble Lords. We put forward from these Benches a view slightly different, but with the same object, as that of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—that one should have real competition between road and rail transport. The spokesman for the Government made no answer to that whatever. I think the Government rather thought that I had been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, but I shall have an opportunity of saying that that was no answer.
I am glad that we shall have an opportunity of suggesting, in this Committee, means by which effective competition between rail and road transport, on fair terms, combined with any necessary co-operation, can be brought about; and I hope that when these, propositions are made the Government will endeavour to answer them by reason and not by assertion of their will. For these reasons I want to associate myself with what has

287
been said about giving this House serious reasons as to what is best for the country —irrespective of political views and political doctrine—in transport.
4.27 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, as an old Parliamentarian listening to these speeches I have been asking myself into what form of procedure it seems to fit and, quite frankly, I find it difficult in my own mind to frame any sort of answer. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is not satisfied with the reply he received to his speech, but I have often been in that position myself. I think that large numbers of us who entertain a view, to which somebody who entertains a different view replies, are quite commonly dissatisfied with that reply. That is human nature, but I do not see that that is any particular reason for altering the general form of our Parliamentary procedure, and I am still perplexed as to the inner meaning of this—what shall I say—demonstration. I was exceedingly entertained and interested in the quotations which the noble Marquess made from the speeches
of the Lord President of the Council and the Minister of Health and, in one case, in certain animadversions upon your Lordships' House. But I do not quite see what is the connexion of those observations with the Transport Bill, and it was that which added to my perplexity.
I should have said myself—but I admit I am a prejudiced person, because I believe in this proposal—that the speeches on the Second Reading were exceedingly capable speeches. My noble friend Lord Pakenham and my noble friend Lord Walkden made speeches in favour of the principle of this Bill which seemed to me, as I read them again, exceedingly capable speeches, directed to the fundamental questions with which this Bill deals. Quite honestly, I am always most solicitous to do everything I possibly can to please the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I am sorry that he is displeased. But, as I have already said, the Second Reading debate was, in my opinion, at any rate, an excellent debate, and dealt with the case very fairly. So far as this particular proposal is concerned, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh,
288
seemed to be treading on rather a dangerous slope when he meditated upon the functions of this House with regard to the other. I am not pursuing that, but I should have said—and in this I am glad to find some reinforcement in what the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition said—that if the representative Chamber, with a large majority, in fulfilment of longstanding engagements and in execution of an undoubted mandate, passed a Bill, that was a good reason and not an insufficient reason. It was a very good reason indeed, at all events, for your Lordships giving the Bill a Second Reading with a view to examining it in detail. It is not part of the proposal itself, but it is a good reason.
I entirely agreed with what the noble Lord said as to the function of this House, and I think we are greatly indebted to the noble Marquess for all that he has done during the last two years to make it clear to everybody how this House does its work. It certainly improves Bills, and I think that he and I have had a hand together on certain occasions in improving Bills. I am following the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He said that he hoped that members of the Government would themselves be susceptible to further education. I accept that. I am an old man myself, but I always keep trying to learn. I hope the noble Lord will not shut himself out from that desire for education. I hope that he too will be willing to learn—even something about transport. I should have said that if there is any subject of the Labour Party's programme which has been debated in season and out of season for a generation, it is transport.
The noble Lord has forgotten, and the noble Marquess has forgotten (or he wisely omitted to mention) that the Leader of his own Party championed this proposal in 1918; and he had many good reasons for doing it. But this is a proposal that has been discussed in season and out of season for more than a generation. There is no doubt of that—and it was in fact supported by Mr. Churchill, so far as railways are concerned, in 1918. Now we are confronted with a gradual increase, by the circumstances of the case, in the growth of a great monopoly in transport. That has been going on during the last generation, and it is inevitable, in the course of the improvement in means of

289
locomotion, the development of road transport and so forth, that we should have more and more of a monopoly in transport. In the case of the big railways, 120 were consolidated into four under Sir Eric Geddes' proposals, and the process has gone on. The railways have acquired interests in various other concerns—and quite rightly; I am not blaming them for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, seems to forecast the necessity of the development of considerable competition between road and rail transport; in fact he extols it in his speech. We do not agree with him, but we think that these things should be consolidated and that all forms of transport should work together, should be harmonized and directed together. The necessity of harmonizing road and rail transport must have been realized by the railway companies themselves; if not, why have they acquired great road transport services? We do not want a glorious scramble; we want transport to be dealt with as a whole. The railway companies themselves seem to have taken the view of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, otherwise why did they acquire these road transport undertakings? The noble Lord admitted, indeed extolled, the necessity for public control. You cannot adequately exercise control unless you have ownership, and personally I do not believe control cannot be exercised at all in the public interest unless there is ownership. That is why this Bill is presented in the form it is.
The noble Lord forecast that if this great monopoly is set up there will be an immense development of civil servants, as well as of people carrying their own goods. The question I ask myself is, not what the situation will be in the future, but why has there been in the past this immense development of "C" licences? Why have hundreds of thousands of traders spent money in vehicles for transporting their own goods? It is because they have not been satisfied with the services otherwise available. Whether this Bill will make for a diminution of that will depend on its development. I hope it will be well developed and well managed, so that traders will be glad to make use of the public transport service instead of buying vehicles of their own. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think the case for this proposal has been abundantly made. I think, notwithstanding his dis-
290
appointment, that the speeches on the Second Reading were excellent ones, and to me anyhow were very convincing.
I do not wish longer to trespass upon your Lordships' time. For my own part I have never known a case argued more fully and better established. I hope that after this diversion your Lordships will now consider the matter in detail.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would the noble Viscount kindly tell us whether we are to accept the statements of the Lord President of the Council or the Minister of Health, because their opinions are diametrically opposed.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry I have not the quotation before me, so that I cannot express an opinion.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Could the noble Viscount give us a definition of "monopoly"? He quoted transport. According to my information, which may be incorrect, there are about 47,000 "A" and "B" Licences and about 140,000 "C" Licences. Does the noble Viscount consider road transport is a monopoly?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: What I said was that there has been an increase in the last twenty-five years, up to this year, in the monopoly of road transport. There were 200 railway concerns, which were consolidated into the four main ones; previously there had been even more. And what applies to them applies to road transport. I did not say there was a complete monopoly now because, of course, there is not, but there is a greatly developed monopoly.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Can the noble Viscount give any figures to show that the number of "C" Licences is larger than a few years ago?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think that the development of the internal combustion engine has anything to do with it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I should like to ask the Leader of the House one question. In Clause r it says that members of the
Commission shall be appointed by the Minister. May I ask whether that involves power of dismissal of each of the members of the Commission by the Minister?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think those points will arise later, when we reach the Committee stage. I hope the noble Lord will wait until then.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The Commission.
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, there shall be a public authority to be called the British Transport Commission (in this Act referred to as "the Commission").
(2) The Commission shall consist of a chairman and four other members, all of whom shall he appointed by the Minister from among persons appearing to him to be persons who have had wide experience and shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration, or in the organization of workers.
(7) The Commission—

(a) shall pay to the members thereof such salaries or fees, and such allowances, as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine; and

(b) on the retirement or death of any of the members as to whom the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine that such provision should be made, shall pay to or in respect of them such pensions as he may so determine.

LORD BEVERIDGE LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "four" and insert "not more than nine." The noble Lord said: I rise to move the first Amendment standing in my name. The object of this Amendment is, of course, the same as that of an Amendment standing in the name of another noble Lord immediately following; that is, to increase the possible size of the Commission. In the Bill, as it stands, the Commission are limited absolutely to five. This is a smaller number than is common to any business concern or any body of directors, and if the Commission are to be regarded as a business, a body limited to five is obviously wrong. From the discussion which occurred in another place, I understood the ground on which this number of five were to be exclusively engaged on committee work was that the executive work was to be done by the Executive, and that the Commission should be men of policy, like the candidates we used to have in the First World War.
There is a great deal to be said for having people who are not concerned in daily tasks in the right place, but I suggest that it is absolutely wrong in this kind of body, because transport must be the concern of the Minister and cannot be the responsibility of anybody else.
292
Therefore, the Commission ought to be regarded as a business policy, and not simply as a policy body of people not doing business. For that reason, I very much hope that your Lordships will in this House take a more accepting attitude and change the character of the Commission. These Amendments in my mind, and similar Amendments in the names of other noble Lords, are tied up with the position of the Executive. In our view on this side of the House, we think the Commission ought to be an executive body, in charge of everything which falls to it, and that the Executives to be appointed to it should be capable of breaking themselves up into committees. For that reason I think it should be enlarged. I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("four") and insert ("not more than nine").—(Lord Beveridge.)
4.42 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and might I suggest that the next Amendment to page 1, line 10, be also discussed? That Amendment is to increase the number of members from four to ten. The Bill as drawn requires that the members of the Commission shall have wide experience of transport, industrial, commercial and financial matters, in administration, or in the organization of workers. I suggest that it would be almost impossible to combine all those in a "Big Five," including a chairman. In the Transport section alone, it would be highly unlikely that one person could be obtained who is an expert in road and rail transport and docks and harbours. It is laid down in the Bill that the Commission are to prepare schemes covering road haulage, passenger vehicles, docks and harbours, all of which are matters of immense complexity, and I strongly suggest that the whole operation of the Bill will be defeated unless the Commission is enlarged beyond the very small number which is laid down in the Bill. The members will not be fully aware of the effects of the policy decisions which are made, and unless you give the policy makers someone who knows what the effects will be, wrong decisions undoubtedly will be made. I do consider that a very important point.

293
The Commission is not only a policy making body; it is a co-ordinating body. It will have to co-ordinate everything, and in fact it will be the largest hotel keeper in the world. It is not intended by this Amendment that all of the ten should be filled by whole-time members, because I know that it is essential that at least one or two of the Commission should have other interests as well and know what is going on, for instance, in the financial world. A further Amendment in my name seeks to insert a new subsection (3), and is designed to ensure that if the first Amendment is accepted, at least five of the members of the Commission and the Chairman should be full-time members. That is a very necessary provision in view of the work that will be carried out by the Commission. A third Amendment is designed to ensure that if the first Amendment is not accepted, all the members shall be full-time members in view of the vast amount of work they will have to carry out.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion that the Amendments on the first page of the Order Paper should be taken together, because, as he very rightly points out, they are all part of the same suggestion. I have discussed this point very carefully with my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, and on his behalf I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Lord Which I hope he will be able to consider. I think there is a great deal of substance in his contention that in a vast business like this the number of persons on the Commission is on the small side. We are all subject to human failings; one of them might be ill or off duty for some reason, another might have to travel, and one, as we know, will be on the consultative committee, which will take up a great deal of time when it gets started. My right honourable friend, therefore, proposes, and is agreeable to, an enlargement of the number on the lines suggested, but we hope the noble Lord will be willing to consider a little fewer than ten; I would suggest enlarging the Commission to eight.
I consider that the point the noble Lord raised in the new Subsection (3), that not less than five should devote their whole time to the affairs of the commission, indicates a very sound point. I am suggesting, however, that the mem-
294
bers of the Commission should number eight instead of ten. Therefore we might be able to accept the second Amendment if the number "four" is inserted instead of five. That would leave the Commission with four persons who might be part-time members in the way the noble Lord suggested. The words of the Bill require the Minister to select persons with wide experience in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration or in the organization of workers, and I do respectfully suggest that those words are wide enough. They are very wide indeed. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, attaches great importance to the fact that one of them at least should be a man of experience in commercial matters. I assure him that that will be so, and I give that undertaking. With that understanding, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to accept my suggestion. If he is I would suggest that the proposal might be altered in this way: Page 1, line 10, leave out "four" and insert "not less than four nor more than eight." That makes it eight. In place of the words lower down; I suggest the Amendment should read: "and of whom the Chairman and not less than four other members shall be required to render whole-time service to the Commission." That meets the whole-time point. I have supplied the noble Lord with a copy of the amended form and I hope he will be willing to accept it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think this is a very auspicious beginning to our Committee stage, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the practical and conciliatory way in which this point has been met. I do not suppose that any of my noble friends attach any sacrosanct importance to the figure "9" or to the figure "10," or even to the sacred figure "7." What we all wanted to be assured of in this were one or two things; the first being that we should have a body large enough to do its work effectively, for it is a tremendous task which this Commission have to undertake. Another matter on which we wished to be assured was that the Commission should be large enough to have both whole-time and part-time members. I agree that it may be important to have several members who are part-time and have special knowledge which may be of great value. We are aware of the value or a board of the

295
sort of knowledge that I mean. We have all known of a man of great experience who gives the benefit of experience to a board without being himself a whole-time executive member of the Board. In the same way, an elder statesman, like the Leader of the House, will give his assistance to a Cabinet Committee. While he does not himself assume executive responsibility, out of the wealth of his experience he contributes a great deal. I take it that all these points are met by the proposal of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but I should like to be clear about this. The Amendment which he has suggested is to the effect that there shall be a Chairman and not less than four or more than eight others. He said that that means eight in all. In fact, of course, it means nine.
I do not cavil at the words "not less than four or more than eight" because, clearly, from what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, it is the intention that there should be nine persons, out of whom there will be not fewer than four who will devote their whole time to the work of the Commission. The noble Viscount has given me in advance an undertaking which I think is implicit in the words of the clause as it stands; that is, that at least one member will be a man who has had wide commercial experience. In all these circumstances, and in view of the assurance which the noble Viscount has now given me across the floor of the House, I think that my noble friends on this side, and possibly also the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, will be content to accept this. I thank the noble Viscount warmly of the way in which he has met us.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before we leave this Amendment I wonder if I might ask the noble Viscount if he could give me some information which I think would help us in deciding about the right number: some information about how this set-up will work. We have been told that the Commission are a policy-making body. I think it is quite clear that policy over a very wide range will have to be considered not only by the Commission, but by the Minister, and also by the Executives. What I want to ask the noble Viscount to do, if he will—because it is vital to the understanding of this Bill—is to give us some information
296
as to what are to be the dividing lines of policy as between the Minister, the Commission and the Executives. I could give the Committee innumerable examples, but I think that a little later, when we come to the question of the Executives, we may have to go into some detail. If I may, I will give four examples: First, the question of staff relations. On the low level, such relations will clearly be a matter for the individual Executive; but on the higher level who is to attend to them, the Minister or the Commission? Or are the Commission going to do it after submitting the matter to the Minister? Then, as to rates and charges: Will these be a matter solely for the Commission? That is something I would like to know. My third example relates to the question of modes of traction. The whole question of tractive power is very much in the melting pot at the moment. We have a choice between steam, electricity, the diesel engine, the diesel-electric engine, and maybe others. In due course, doubtless, there will be jet-propulsion and atomic power. There are tremendous questions of policy with regard to traction existing at the moment. Who is to deal with them?
Then, too, a function which has been attributed to the Commission is that of co-ordination. How are they going to carry that out? The Executives, according to the Bill, are functional. How is functional co-ordination to be carried out by the Commission? I do not desire to take up unnecessary time, but your Lordships will see that without any information about the way this set-up is going to work it would not be right to part with Clause 1.
LORD BEVERIDGE: The Government have agreed to accept "Not less than four and not more than eight" which, of course means nine altogether. In those circumstances, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment, so that the Government may move the Amendments of which they have given notice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before that is done, I think the Minister should be given the opportunity of replying to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that the answers to a good many of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, addressed to me will necessarily

297
emerge in the discussions of the various Amendments that we have before us on Clause 1. With regard to the functions of the Executives, and their relations to the Commission, information will certainly emerge in the discussions that we shall have on some of the noble Lord's own Amendments. I should have said that it is clear that the general scheme here is to have a policy-making body unencumbered with duties of an executive kind—a small policy-making body which will advise the Minister and take account of the various things that fall within their duty. I do not think it would be possible for me to answer in advance how the various questions which will arise will be dealt with. For example, industrial questions will clearly be within the immediate scope of the Executives, but it is clear that from time to time major questions of policy will emerge which the Executives will refer to the Commission; or the Minister himself may refer to them for advice. It will depend on the character of the particular problem how it will be dealt with and who will deal with it.
Generally, the idea of the Bill is that you will have this small policy-making body at the top with the functions set out in these and following clauses, and it will be kept, so far as possible, divorced from the detailed administrative questions. For instance, it will be their duty to have schemes framed, as the noble Lord has indicated, with regard to various matters. It will be the duty of the Commission to initiate procedure, to get schemes, to appoint people to draw them up and consider them. Those schemes will subsequently be discussed in the Commission and, as required, matters will be referred to the Minister. With regard to Charges, there is a special machine set up to deal with them—a consultative council, a tribunal and all the rest of it. I should have thought the right thing to do would be to discuss the details of that machinery as we reach the relevant clauses. It is the duty of the Commission to see that those different bodies are brought into existence and that this machinery is created, and I imagine that so far as possible the Commission will adopt the policy of referring questions relating to charges and rates to the elaborate machinery that will be set up in the Bill for that specific purpose. It is far more difficult to answer in advance precisely the question
298
of the noble Lord; in the main I have given an indication of the policy of the Commission as apart from its functions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the information given, but may I return to the charge on just one point, the question of functional co-ordination, to which the noble Viscount did not refer.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Between the different Executives?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have studied what was said in another place about the relationship between the Commission and the Executives, which is a matter of first importance. The Minister said:
"The Commission's job is to fulfil the purpose which Parliament has in view in passing this Bill. It will be responsible for co-ordination, it is true, but it will not have to carry out the task of co-ordination. That will be done from day to day by the executive bodies. The Commission will be responsible for seeing that the Executives work together for a common purpose."
Perhaps it is unfair to ask the noble Viscount to do it to-day, but perhaps at a later stage he will tell us something more about that. If the Executives are functionless, I do not see how the Commission can co-ordinate them. This statement seems to leave the matter in such a vague way that we are entitled to more information.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid I did omit that in what I said, but I know that some of the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord and of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, raise the whole question of the relationship of the Executives to the Commission on Clause 5. If the noble Lord will look at the bottom of page 7, he will see there it says clearly:
"Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by a scheme made by the Commission."
I would have thought that a practical scheme must provide for proper co-ordination between the different Executives: it would not be a proper scheme unless it did. I should have thought it was the duty of the Commission in framing schemes for delegation of duties to Executives to take care that that very vital point was dealt with. I think the

299
Amendment submitted by the noble Lord himself to leave out the words "approved by the Minister" in that particular section, will give rise to a discussion on that very point.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("four") and insert ("not less than four nor more than eight").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move my second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("and of whom the Chairman and not less than four other members shall be required to render whole-time service to the Commission").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAMmoved at the end of subsection (1) to insert "and of whom one shall be selected by the Minister from persons having a special knowledge of trade and industry." The noble Lord said: I venture to point out that if membership is not large enough to cover the various fields controlled, there will be insufficient experience among the membership as a whole to be aware of any defect of any decision at which they may arrive. It is of vital importance to the functioning of the Commission. This Amendment seeks to provide that one member has special knowledge of trade and industry, a man actively engaged in a large business and well known in the industrial world and not merely a sit-at-home planner. If the Commission are composed of perhaps only those with Civil Service qualifications, trade and industry is bound to suffer through lack of practical knowledge.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I thought I had dealt with the two Amendments in our general review. I am sure that the words in subsection (2) of Clause I really cover all that is wanted. I give noble Lords the assurance that this will cover the point.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the assurance of the noble Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
"and one of whom shall be appointed by the Minister from among persons appearing to him to be persons who have had wide experience and shown capacity in harbour administrations or in the commercial use of harbours as shipowners or traders."
The noble Lord said: The shipping industry, allied with harbour administration, is one of the most important industries in this country. It is a specialized one, requiring expert knowledge, and woe betide the landlubber who meddles with its intricacies with a superficial knowledge gained on the beach at Margate! The noble Viscount will realize the importance of this appointment on the Commission.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope the noble Lord will not press me to put these words in the Bill. A person who has shown experience and capacity in commercial matters will certainly fill the bill. I give him the assurance that the Minister is fully aware of this necessity, but we are averse to putting a catalogue of qualifications in the Bill. My noble friend has authorized me to say he will bear it fully in mind.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the noble Viscount's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAMhad given notice that he would move at the end of subsection (7) to insert:
"Provided that the Minister shall inform Parliament upon the first appointment of the chairman and other members of the Commission and at the end of each financial year of the Commission of the amount of the salaries, fees and other allowances payable to each of them on appointment and paid to each of them during each financial year."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to make two alterations to the last two lines: after the word "allowances" to insert "or advantages," and after "payable" to insert "or to be granted." It is a matter of public interest that the fullest possible information should be given to the country in regard to salaries, pensions, allowances and fees in regard to public corporations. Unless these facts are disclosed, I feel that rumours and untruths will surround the members of the Commission concerning their salaries and

301
emoluments. The people of this country have a right to know how their money is being spent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at end, insert—
("Provided that the Minister shall inform Parliament upon the first appointment of the chairman and other members of the Commission and at the end of each financial year of the Commission of the amount of the salaries, fees and other allowances or advantages payable or to be granted to each of them on appointment and paid to each of them during each financial year.")—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think the proposal of the noble Lord—and what the noble Lord is aiming at—is fully met by our existing Parliamentary arrangements. The Minister is answerable to Parliament, and can be questioned at any time about such appointments. He is required to inform Parliament as to the appointments he makes and the salaries which are attached to such appointments. I am sure there is no disposition whatever to hide those facts. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the public should know about them. I think it is fair to say that matters affecting salaries, allowances and other emoluments will be revealed in the statement made by the Minister, and, if they are not automatically revealed, he can be questioned about any given individual and will have to give a reply in Parliament. I do not think the words proposed by the noble Lord are necessary. We all agree with the noble Lord that these things should be revealed to Parliament—as they will be in the ordinary course.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will not leave the matter there. He himself said that the whole of these emoluments and considerations should be fully disclosed to Parliament.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: He says that somewhere in the Bill (with great respect, I think he is wrong) there is something which causes the Minister to disclose them. I have read the Bill with great care, and, unless he can point: to a provision which says that the Minister has to disclose those matters—to disclose them year by year, and to disclose variations of them—I would say that I do not think there is any such provision. There is nothing about it in the report which is to be rendered to Parliament, and there is nothing
302
about it in the clauses dealing with accounts. It would be entirely unsatisfactory that this should be left to questions and answers in Parliament. It is not right. It is not a regular system. The moment you begin asking questions in Parliament you raise the suggestion that a man is being paid too much or that there is something unsatisfactory. That is a very undesirable thing, from the point of view of Parliament, of the Minister and of the Commission.
I would also ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to observe another fact. After many weeks of discussion we have just sent the Companies Bill to another place. In that Bill, on the proposal of the Government, we have readily agreed to new provisions being put in as to the disclosure to shareholders, in the accounts which are rendered every year, of all remuneration which is paid directly or indirectly to directors. The words were most carefully considered and this requirement was agreed to by this House. I am sure that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would not for moment suggest that what should apply to the chairman and directors of the board of any public company should not apply to this Commission, who are the exact equivalent of the chairman and directors of a board of an ordinary public company. If this is the right way of doing it, surely the right thing is to put this into the Bill as it stands. If that is not done, then inevitably the Government appear to suggest that they wish to have those whom the Minister appoints as his directors of one of these nationalized corporations in a different position from the directors of any public company. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government, but unless this clause can be accepted, it will go out —and rightly go out—to the people that the directors of a nationalized undertaking are to be treated in one way and the directors of a normal public undertaking are to be treated in a different way.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I entirely agree with the noble Viscount; I can give him a complete assurance. I was under the impression that what is provided for in Clause 7 (a) really meets the point: that the Commission "shall pay to the members thereof such salaries or fees, and such allowances, as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine."

303
I am assured that it does mean that the Minister himself will inform Parliament as to all the appointments that are made.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: At all events, I will give the noble Viscount this assurance—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I interrupt the noble Viscount. I am sure he is wrong about this. If he will read subsection (7) he will see that it says: "The Commission shall pay to the members thereof …" But the Commission do not pay.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: With the Minister's approval—with the approval of the Treasury—they will be instructed in making the appointment. However, the point that we are now seeking to make clear is that the public are informed as to how these people are paid.
LORD WOOLTON: Automatically?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Automatically—certainly. I will give this undertaking: If the noble Lord will agree to this course, I will consult further with our advisers and if the point is not clearly and fully met—as required, for example, in the Companies Bill—I will consult with the noble Lord to see if it is necessary to put in some words on Report. As I am advised, I do not like accepting these words as they are. We both have the same intention. The Government have no desire to evade this. If the noble Lord will allow me to take that course, I should be much obliged, and we will consider the matter further.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I be forgiven for saying a word? It is possible that with the best intention there is a little confusion. The proposal that is made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is that at the time of the appointment of the Chairman and the other members of the Commission Parliament shall be automatically informed. There would be an announcement made from the Box in this House, and a similar announcement made automatically in another place when these appointments are made. I do not think that anyone could say that the meaning of subsection (7) (a) is to that effect at all. Subsection (7) (a) (I am sure that the noble Viscount with his long experience will agree) is merely an authority to the
304
Commission as to the extent of the appointments that are to be made. It has nothing to do with an announcement to Parliament at the time when the appointment is made as to the terms of remuneration. It is a perfectly distinct circumstance.
There is also a further element. I think the confusion is very natural, and I am not, of course, criticizing anybody. Speaking subject to the correction of my noble friend Lord Teynham, I understand that his proposal would include an announcement to the House that the Chairman would be provided with a house to live in rent free, that he would be provided, without payment, with two motorcars, and with drivers and petrol. None of these would arise under subsection (7) (a). I entirely accept what the noble Viscount has said; I am sure it is true that everybody concerned wants to make a perfectly full, clear, and candid statement, and that everybody agrees that publicity at the beginning is very much better than it coming out afterwards—possibly by rumour which involves reflection upon people who do not deserve reflection upon them. But the point is that these two things are not the same. This Amendment provides that at the time the appointments are made, and the names notified, automatically, and as a matter of course, there should be information given to both Houses showing not only what the men are going to be paid, but also what are to be the advantages they will receive from the appointment.
That is what my noble friend Lord Teynham had in mind (though I am not sure that is what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has in mind at the moment) when he moved his Amendment in a slightly different form from the form on the Paper, and included not only fees payable but the allowances granted, the advantages, and that sort of thing. The real point is whether we shall put, on the face of the Bill, that it is intended that in this matter there shall be complete candour at the beginning so that nobody shall have any grumble, or suspicion, or unpleasant allegations to make afterwards. I am sure the noble Viscount opposite agrees with me that that is the object we all have, and I respectfully suggest that the Treasury having to approve the amount to be paid by the Commission has nothing to do with the point made.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I hope the noble Lord will press this Amendment. I can give an instance of my own of the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. At one time I happened to hold one of these offices, and rumour had it amongst my friends and others that my salary had reached a most astonishing figure. Of course, that was totally untrue. The question we are debating is: What is the proper way of doing this, and I do not think there is a wish on any side of the House to hide anything. We want to make quite certain at the outset that there shall be no misunderstanding.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure the noble Earl is not the only one who has suffered from misrepresentation, and I can give a complete assurance that when these people are appointed their salaries and allowances will be announced to the House by the Minister. I am authorized to give that assurance. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that subsection (7) (a) is another matter, but I thought the discussion ranged a little wider; that is all. I can give a complete assurance to noble Lords, and I hope they will be satisfied. I do not think it is necessary to put it into the Bill; we shall certainly do it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I appeal to the Leader of the House to meet us on this point. We feel very strongly that it ought to be put into the Bill. After all, it is all very well to have an assurance given in Parliament, but there is nothing in writing, and if another Government came in they might not hold themselves bound by the same assurance. It is no good saying that an assurance given in Parliament is the same as a statutory obligation; it is not, and as obligations have been imposed by Parliament on public companies there is no reason why these obligations should not be made equally applicable to nationalized industries. I have a suggestion to make to the noble Viscount. Why should we not put this Amendment into the Bill? I understand the Leader of the House does not like it in its present form, but if we put it into the Bill now we could discuss i with the Government between now and the Report stage and see whether we could not find an amended form of wording. We feel that something of this kind should be in the Bill, and we would like to have it put in on the Committee stage to enable
306
us to have one more stage in which to conduct further negotiations.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Marquess and I have been in these negotiations lots of times, and he knows that if I give an assurance I shall keep it. I think that the right procedure, in view of the misgiving I have mentioned with regard to the wording, is the procedure that I have suggested. I will discuss it entirely bona fide with the noble Marquess between now and Report stag:, and if the point is not fully met, we can agree on some wording that will meet it, and put it into the Bill in the form of an Amendment on Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it clear that the Goverment are prepared to put something to this effect into the Bill? At an earlier stage the noble Viscount said he did not think it necessary to have it in the Bill. If they are prepared to put something in the Bill, and will discuss it with us before the Report stage, we shall still have the opportunity, if we are not satisfied, of putting a similar Amendment to this on the Report stage. But if the Government are going to say that, after all, they think it unnecessary to have it in the Bill, I think we would rather proceed now to get it through while we can.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Viscount knows very well that in our talks we may convince noble Lords that it is not necessary. If we did not succeed in doing that, and I am entirely at one with the general contention, then my assurance would hold good.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word on this question which is largely a question of law and the normal practice of Parliament with regard to the salaries payable to great public servants? I venture to think that some such words as those contained in the proposed Amendment are absolutely necessary to carry out the wishes of the House. It is true that the precise wording may have to be amended. For my part I object, and I have objected a dozen times in other cases, to the notion that the House ought to be urged to accept a promise by a person, a body of persons, or a Cabinet, all of whom are mortal like ourselves and who will not always be there to carry out the promise which is being made. It is for that reason, with all respect to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.

307
that I do not agree there should be left on this occasion the loop-hole that the words are not necessary. The majority of the House are absolutely convinced by what my noble and learned friend, Viscount Simon, and other noble Lords have said, that some such words are necessary. I propose that we fortify that by passing the Amendment. There is a pledge given by the other side that we can alter the words if there is any advantage to be gained by an alteration as a result of a talk between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, but I think, now that we have discussed it at great length, that we may just as well decide, once and for all that some such words have got to be there.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will not make any further trouble. I am advised that the words will require some adjustment, but if in the circumstances noble Lords do not feel sufficiently confident without it then we accept the words, subject to the necessity of a frank discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I would say that we are not pressing this for purely cantankerous reasons. There is a genuine anxiety in the country, and not in one Party alone, that the full facts as to these great new nationalized industries should be exposed. I should have thought, even from the Government's point of view, that it is better that that exposure should be made. I think it is important that it should. I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I shall be prepared to discuss it with him at any time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House one question, which I do not think he will have any difficulty in answering? Clause I says:
"The Commission shall consist of a chairman and four other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Minister."
Then it says later on:
"Every member of the Commission shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment."
Might the terms of his appointment include the statement that he shall be required to resign his office if the Minister
308
so instructs him? I think that really ought to be cleared up. I do not know that there is any special occasion to object to the appointment by the Minister, but I do think that if he has that power of dismissal it is a rather serious matter. I think the noble Viscount will agree that it is a very bad thing that the Minister should have what are vulgarly termed "Yes men" about him. If this penalty was looming in the background it must, to some extent, affect the independence of the members of the Commission.
I remember very well a similar case arising on the Education Bill, when the noble Viscount and myself were present (I am not sure that the noble Viscount and I did not tell against the Government of the day in the year 1944) when a question arose of a consultative committee to be arranged by the Minister of Education. The noble Viscount and myself, and others, of course, objected to that. I remember his speaking very strongly, and nodding the most distinct approval of my own words, on that occasion. Unfortunately the Minister of Education, although defeated in your Lordship's House, was able to get the other place to allow him to have his way. But I do think it is a point of real substance that these Commissioners should feel themselves thoroughly independent, and that they should not be removable by the mere decision of the Minister.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure that men of the calibre of those on the Commission would not be men who would be likely to accept office unless they were satisfied that their tenure of office, security, and other matters were in consonance with what they felt was due to them. In subsection (3) of Clause 1 it says:
"Every member of the Commission shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment."
I think myself that is as far as you can expect an Act of Parliament to go. I am afraid I am unable to say in advance what will be the conditions under which these gentlemen accept office. I am sure that no self-respecting man of the calibre you would expect to find on this Commission would accept office unless he was satisfied of the terms under which he accepted. That is as far as I can take the matter.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: It may be that the best men will not accept office if they are liable to dismissal.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Then the Minister will have to make his terms so that he can get the best men.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
5.35 p.m.
Clause 2:
Powers of Commission.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall have power—

(a) to carry goods and passengers by rail, road and inland waterway, within Great Britain;

(b) to provide, within Great Britain, port facilities and facilities for traffic by inland waterway;

(c) to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission, so, however, that facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;

(d) to consign goods on behalf of other persons from any place in Great Britain to any other place, whether in Great Britain or elsewhere;

(e) in places within Great Britain where their passengers may require them, to provide both for their passengers and for other persons hotels, hostels, other living accommodation and places for refreshment; and

(f) to provide in Great Britain such other amenities and facilities for passengers and other persons making use of the services provided by them as it may appear to them requisite or expedient to provide:

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section include power—
(a) to construct, manufacture, purchase, maintain and repair anything required for the purpose of any of the activities of the Commission specified in that subsection;
Provided that—
(i) the Commission shall not by virtue of this subsection engage in the building of ships, except lighters, barges or like vessels of a gross tonnage not exceeding one hundred and seventy-five tons, or engage, otherwise than for purposes of experiment or research, in the manufacture of chassis for road vehicles;
(3) Where, whether by agreement or otherwise, the Commission acquire the whole or any part of any undertaking of any other person, they may, subject to the provisions of this Act, carry on any activities, whether mentioned in subsection (1) of this section or not, which were theretofore carried on for the purposes of that undertaking or part of an undertaking or were authorised by any statutory provision to be carried on for the purposes thereof.
(4) The Commission may dispose, whether absolutely or for a term of years, of any part
310
of their undertaking or any property which in their opinion is not required by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act, including, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding words, any part of their undertaking which is carried on outside Great Britain and any property situated outside Great Britain.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the preceding provisions of this section relate only to the capacity of the Commission as a statutory corporation, and nothing in the said provisions shall be construed as authorising the disregard by the Commission of any enactment or rule of law.
(6) The provisions of this section shall not be construed as limiting any power of the Commission conferred by any subsequent provision of this Act.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to obtain from the Government a statement regarding their intentions on the question of storage and warehouse. The Commission will be taking over very large storage and warehousing facilities, and we on this side of the House feel it is essential that the Commission shall not have powers to enter into the whole storage and warehouse industry apart from where it is necessary for the efficient operation of transport. In another place the Minister gave an assurance that it was not the intention of the Commission to set up warehouses divorced from transport facilities in all parts of the country, and said that he would in fact consider whether some Amendment might be necessary to make this point clear. But this was not implemented. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("Britain") to ("so") in line 43.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MORRISON: There is a conflict between the noble Lord and myself with regard to his last statement. The noble Lord said that, this matter was raised on the Committee stage in another place; that the Minister then gave an assurance that it was not the intention of the Commission to enter into the storage business anywhere in the country, and offered to put an Amendment on the Paper in order to carry that out. My information is that that was done. Perhaps the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the assurance given that an Amendment would be made was in fact carried out.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Which clause is that?
LORD MORRISON: It will be found in the Bill at the top of page 3. The words are:
"except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;"
These words were put in with the intention of carrying out that assurance. In the circumstances, perhaps the noble Lord would not wish to pursue his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: With great respect, is that explanation quite right? I appreciate the reference that is made to the top of page 3, and also that the words put in were intended to meet the criticism. But the words put in are:
"except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;"
The limitation, therefore, is a limitation to places. Is not the real question: What is the ambit of the storage service in any place which the Commission may now assume and undertake? Let us take Manchester. That is a place if ever there was one. It is all very well to say that the powers of the Commission to store goods within Great Britain are to be limited, let us say, to storage at Manchester. But is not the real question whether or not the Commission are to have power to act as warehousemen for anybody and everybody, and for any purpose, though quite unconnected with inland transport, so long as it is at Manchester? If, for example, I wish to store my furniture in a furniture store,
that has nothing to do with transport. Yet I suggest to the noble Lord that, as these words now stand, the authority which the Commission are given is to have power to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods are to be carried by the Commission, but stores shall not be provided except at places where such facilities are required for storage of the goods.
LORD WALKDEN: It says: "goods carried or to be carried by them."
VISCOUNT SIMON: Yes. But the question is not where are the places required for the facilities of goods carried, but what is the extent of the service which may be rendered at that place. I do not at present see—I may be wrong—that the Amendment which was introduced in another place really meets the point. The point
312
is whether the Commission should have power to carry on the business of being warehousemen in any place—I suppose it means any town—where facilities are required for storage of goods carried or to be carried. I do not deny that they can store goods that are going to be carried by them, but why should they store goods which are not going to be carried by them at all?
LORD HAWKE: I submit that this Amendment touches a point of principle, because in all these nationalization Bills we have to ask ourselves: Where is the line to be drawn? We all know that the line must be drawn somewhere if the powers of the Executive are not to be omnipotent. As we suspect, and as I have often heard it alleged, the first thing an Army Staff Officer does when he takes up a new job is to see whether he cannot get more scope for his efforts and more people under his command and thus be able to go up in rank. That is what is going to happen throughout this Commission and its gigantic pyramid below it. Every man in charge of a department is going to try to enlarge that department, and will produce abundant reasons for being able to do so unless the line is drawn here and now.
A great many of the warehouses in this country have been destroyed and it may well seem a public duty to the Commission to supply warehousing which previously had been supplied by private enterprise. They will have a very good case, but carried to its logical conclusion there is practically nothing in this country that they could not do. If you have the warehouses, then the next step is to insure the goods in the warehouses and then to insure goods elsewhere in the country in order to get a proper spread of risk. If you have warehouses, you are justified, sooner or later, in going into the packing-case manufacturing trade. Once you are in that you go in for importing wood and manufacturing nails. Once you are in the nail making trade you go in for iron and steel, and so forth. Unless the line is drawn somewhere, this gigantic octupus will sprawl over the country.
LORD CROMWELL: In supporting this Amendment I do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of nationalization in its general principles, but I think that in this particular Amendment there is a

313
great deal more than meets the eye. What I think this Amendment seeks to do is to prevent nationalization being brought in by the back door. Let us swallow as much as we can and are able to digest. The cure for a glutton may well be a pill and not a Bill. The question raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, as I understood it, was to this effect. I would not go so far as to say that I would agree with him that the intention of this clause is that if you had a building in Manchester on the north end of the city, which you were operating yourself, you could in fact apply this Amendment to another building in the south end of the city; but I do think the effect can be brought about in the same way. You may have a building set up in which you store one candle or one gallon of petrol which is used in the service of transport, and thereby you are able to set up a general store for the storage of millions of pounds worth of goods for which facilities already exist in the private stores.
I do not consider that this Government have the mandate to set up a home for lost dogs or stray cats, and this Amendment might well be used to set up such a thing and it will develop into a complete kennel. Now we have been informed by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the operations of Carter Paterson will be automatically taken over when the railways fall under the powers of the Commission. One might easily suggest that the natural consequence of this will be that eventually the "Co-ops" will find themselves in the same boat.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I rise for only one moment to support what my noble friend has just been saving, for the reason that this same principle underlies two Amendments on the Order Paper with which my name is associated, those referring to hotels and catering. Surely we are on a very important principle here. We can limit ourselves to the nationalization of the transport industry of the country—which I believe was the purpose of this Bill—or we can allow what you might call these cards of re-entry into various other industries. If we are doing that, then we are not dealing with a Bill for the nationalization of Transport but we are dealing with the nationalization of any industry which any Minister in the
314
future chooses. For that reason I support my noble friend.
LORD MORRISON: I think the whole of the brief and interesting discussion we have heard really boils down to the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I explained, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, explained before, that when this matter was discussed on the Committee stage in another place an undertaking was given that words would be inserted to cover the point which was raised, and I pointed out the words. Now the narrow point we have to consider—and I would not set myself up in the same category as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, in judging the meaning of words in a Parliamentary Bill —is as to whether the words are required. In regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I should have thought that the words as they stand are fairly plain:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall have power … (c) to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission, so, however, that facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them."
I cannot, for the life of me, see how under that clause it would possible for some one to store furniture when they have no intention of having their furniture carried. It is obvious that the Commission will take over many of the premises which have been used and will be used under this Bill for the storage of goods, but I am advised—and again I come back to the narrow point—that in the wording, as it stands in the clause now, the Commission would be effectively prevented from entering the storage business anywhere in this country. That is my interpretation.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think we are reaching an agreement. The noble Lord has just told us, however, that he is advised, and presumably that the object of the Bill is, that the storage facilities provided by the Commission shall not be such as would enable the Commission to store, save for purposes of transport. That is the substance of it. The whole question is what the section as it stands implies; what is the meaning of the word "place"? It really cannot mean anything but a town. There is no other

315
meaning. I do not think there is any dispute between us; it is a matter of finding the right words. What is provided is that the Commission have power to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the commission.
LORD MORRISON: The practical difficulty in regard to the point the noble and learned Viscount has raised is that administratively it will be found almost impossible to insist that every person depositing the goods with the Commission should sign a guarantee that he proposes to use the Commission services for taking those goods to their ultimate destination.
VISCOUNT SIMON: We are really trying to get the matter stated in plain words. I do not think we differ, but my real anxiety is not so much about those words (though I agree that it would be better to have them out) but about the words that follow, and which the Government put in in accordance with their intention of achieving the idea at which we are aiming. When I read that the power to store goods is to be such that facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except at certain places, I assume that means that the facilities may be provided at certain places if they fulfil what follows. What is the only qualification to "place"? It is that it is to be a place where facilities are required for the storage of goods carried. I think I can satisfy the noble Lord how much clearer rather different words can be. Supposing the passage were worded to the effect that "facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except as required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them."
Otherwise, it is perfectly consistent with the existing words—though, I am sure, not the intention of the Government—to take a place and say "I am entitled to set up a warehouse here for the storage of goods, but there is no intention whatever of their ever being transported by the Commission, simply because I am setting it up at a place where facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them." That will not do, because it does not express what it is intended to express. The question is whether we are limiting, as I am sure we
316
mean to do, the facilities authorized by this subsection. My submission is that if we put it in the form I suggest the thing would be quite clear. I have not put down any Amendment to that effect—I am not sure whether I am allowed to move a manuscript Amendment—but it is my belief that if you were to strike out the words "at places where such facilities" on the top of page 3 of the Bill and substitute the word "as" and then strike out the last word in the first line —the word "are"—then we should secure what the Government in another place told us they meant to say. The passage would then read:
"facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the commission except as required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;"
I humbly but confidently submit that those words have a clearer meaning, whereas if you use this expression about "place", the test becomes: Is the place one where there is a railway centre; if it is you have authority to store goods, whether or not it is contemplated that they are to go on by train or not; and that is not what you intend to do. You do not intend that the Government can turn itself into a Harrod's Depositories.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has shown me his suggested words, and I am confident that the words will carry out what the Government desire in connexion with this clause?
LORD CROMWELL: May I ask whether this suggestion includes the passing of the Amendment as moved? If not, it does not seem to carry out the purpose.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My view is that it should be included.
LORD MORRISON: I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to whom I am indebted for the constructive contribution he has made, will not expect me on the spur of the moment to accept these actual words. As he has rightly said, the difference between us is so small as to be almost indistinguishable. The noble and learned Viscount admits that under this Bill a great many storage buildings will be taken over and become the property of the Commission. He also agrees that they will have to be used for some other purpose, and not be allowed to stand idle; and that it is not the inten-

317
tion of the Government to go into the general storage business but to confine the use of these buildings, so far as may be practicable, to the storage of goods in transit or to be put into transit. It is just a question whether his words are better than the words of the Bill for carrying out our purpose. I have not had an opportunity of considering the effect of the words, but if the noble Viscount between now and the Report stage can think out some better words and put them down I will see that they receive attention. I cannot go any further than that.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That seems to me to be entirely reasonable. I could not expect the noble Lord, without consideration and maybe consultation, to accept the suggestion I have made. But I ask that he and his advisers should look at it seriously. It is a question of getting the right words. I think the best plan would be for the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to withdraw his own Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: But that would be on the clear understanding that on the Report stage we can put down our suggestion on the point, subject to what we hear from the Government.
LORD MORRISON: If the noble Lord would care to withdraw his Amendment for the present, I would undertake to keep in touch with him before the Report stage, and if alternative words can be thought out we can put them down.
LORD TEYNHAM: I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has really put his finger upon the spot. If he could find time to recast the Amendment in the form in which he thinks it ought to be, then it can be submitted to the Government before the Report stage, and we can get an agreed form of words. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, in view of the assurance given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYmoved, in subsection (1) (d), after "Britain" to insert "or from any place to which the Commission have themselves carried the goods in question." The noble Viscount said: This is not a controversial Amendment, nor does it have any point of principle in it. It is a detail that is intended to allow for a matter of working. At the present moment there are agreements between the railway companies and the transport
318
companies to forward from this country —say to Ireland—or to act as an agent of somebody who wants it forwarded, an article consigned to some port which is not the port of arrival in the foreign county—again, such as Ireland. The intention here is that the Transport Commission should still continue to be able to do that; by the words in subsection (1) (d),"from any place in Great Britain," they would be precluded from doing so, because in the case of the railway steamship services themselves, as opposed to the cases where they are using an independent steamship line, they still carry goods to the ports abroad, and consign from there; and it says in this subsection that they should not be able to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, after ("Britain") insert ("or from any place to which the Commission have themselves carried the goods in question").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MORRISON: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having moved this Amendment which, in our opinion, is a distinct improvement in the Bill. As we have a lot of work to do, I will not go into any further reasons but will say that I am prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAMmoved, in subsection (1) (e), at the end to insert: "in so far as such hotels, hostels, other living accommodation and places for refreshment can be carried on out of the receipts therefrom without loss or in so far as no such provision at reasonable prices is otherwise available in such places and the Minister is satisfied that it is requisite in the public interest that such provision should be made." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure, in the first place, that the Commission should make use of established hotels and restaurant houses by sub-contract before embarking on their own establishments, and that they should be run without loss. Hotel management is, of course, a very specialized occupation, and I think the Commission would be well advised to make use of the specialists concerned in this business. In the Bill as at present drawn the Commission could go into general competition with the hotels of the country. It is true, of course, that an assurance was given in another place by

319
the Minister that the Commission would not go into any wholesale competition with the hotels of this country, but I feel that this assurance should be put into the Bill, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to support my noble friend who has just moved that Amendment, and in doing so I should like to make one other point which I think comes into the Amendment: that is, the possible question of subsidizing publicly-run refreshment houses and hotels and so forth from other sources of revenue. Let me explain what I mean. It is always possible for the Transport Commission to subsidize the railway refreshment rooms at a loss, and if they do so they are then competing with outside industry in a way which your Lordships might not think would be very fair. I think it would be hard, when these accounts are published, to detect whether a profit shown on docks or harbours is being used to conceal a loss on catering. If that loss on catering is to be subsidized, that catering establishment itself, in turn, is competing with outside establishments. That is another reason why we feel that this Amendment would be justified.
LORD MORRISON: If I may first reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, as to the question of subsidizing refreshment facilities, that opens up a very wide line of argument. I am sure that the Commission would not desire to subsidize refreshment facilities, but there are places, as we all know—those of us who travel a lot on the railways—where one would like to have some refreshment facilities on arriving at an outlying place. If I may use a slang expression, there is a good deal that the Commission will have to do in "gingering up" the refreshment facilities in certain sections of our transport to-day. My objection to that Amendment is that there is no period laid down as to when the loss should occur, and over what period. If it means that in every place where there is a loss likely to be made the premises are to be closed down, the public are going to be very greatly inconvenienced; and I doubt whether the noble Lord meant that. Is the period of loss to be a day, or a month, or a year, or what? The Commission could not
320
continue to provide such establishments or open new ones in any place where such accommodation at reasonable prices is otherwise available. The Minister would have to satisfy himself in all cases that "it is requisite in the public interest that such provisions should be made" before the Commission could operate such an establishment.
The Commission's powers to provide hotels and so on are limited to places where their passengers require them. In fact, most railway hotel and refreshment rooms form part of or adjoin railway stations. The Commission's undertaking as a whole must pay its way, and it is unthinkable that they would embark upon a programme of opening new hotels with out first satisfying themselves that there was a real need for them, and that there was a real prospect of the new hotels being financially successful. It is the Commission's responsibility to determine what hotels are necessary in the interest of the travelling public, and there is no reason why the Minister should be required to endorse their decision. It seems that to single out individual parts of the undertaking for exceptional treatment is unacceptable, and I regret that I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I see the difficulty with this Amendment but I am glad it has been put down in order that we may ventilate this situation and see what really is intended by the Government. I take note, in passing, that when all these hotel and refreshment rooms become nationalized they are all going to be "gingered up" and that we are to get a lot to eat in them—and no doubt in Scotland a lot to drink. I understand that the Minister is holding out to us the hope of this rare and refreshing improvement. It looks as if he has already been able to put through a measure for undue preference with the Minister of Food. I can assure him, although I have nothing to do with the administration of railways or hotels in this country, that the fact is, one can seldom get enough to eat, and never enough to drink. That is not the fault of the railways' administration or the hotels' administration. It is due to the scarcity of food and drink in this country. I will not say who is responsible for that, at the present time, but I certainly have never yet found a

321
hotel or refreshment room where I could spend the day and get my 3,000 calories.
This is a difficult question. Obviously you cannot say that any one particular hotel or refreshment room has necessarily to make a profit. If you are in business you have to take the rough with the smooth. There are places where it is necessary to provide a refreshment-room but where many people do not go, and you run the place at a loss—exactly as you run some trains at a loss and others, I hope, at a profit. But people who are in the hotel business, as such, and have no other source of revenue, have to pay their way. As I understand it, the whole object of this Bill is that these undertakings should pay their way. I do not believe that you can lay that down in any sort of detailed way in black and white, in the way in which it has been sought to be done in that clause. I believe that the way we have to get at this is through the accounts clause, which was never even discussed, I understand, in another place. I would venture to suggest that to my noble friends, especially as we have now drawn from the Minister a firm assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to go into the catering business when the railway transport undertaking does not require it as a reasonable and necessary ancillary to the business of transport.
Having had that clearly established, I think that the Committee would be well advised to make quite sure, when we come to the accounts clause, that the accounts of these different undertakings are kept and presented to Parliament in a form which will show clearly whether each branch of this business, whether run by Regional Boards or separate Executives, is being conducted at a profit or at a loss. This is really what is most necessary, and is is what everyone in ordinary business is extremely keen to see done. In our own businesses, we do it and we have monthly returns in order to see how the different sections of our undertakings are doing. One thing which I am sure people are anxious about is whether there is to be a concealed subsidy passing from one undertaking to finance another. That is not merely anxiety lest you should have subsidized Government competition with ordinary outside undertakings—though that is a wrong thing in any case—but in the interests of transport itself, as a
322
servant of industry and the travelling public, that is equally important.
There is a very great danger when you create a monopoly, whether it is a monopoly in private or in State hands. There is a great temptation to go on and make easy money, when easy money can so be made, by eliminating other people who you find are your competitors. When you do that you can keep your charges at whatever level you like, as there is no alternative to them. You can, in fact, put up prices in one side of your business, and using the excessive profit which you make in that section, you can subsidize another side. In doing that, you are not only engaging in unfair competition by means of subsidies, which in this case would be at the expense of the taxpayer, but you are not rendering that service to the travelling and the trading public which can be the sole justification for a Bill of this kind. For these reasons I suggest to the noble Lords who have moved and supported this Amendment that they may well think it wise at this stage to withdraw this particular Amendment. We shall, I am sure, concentrate with very great care, and I hove, with common purpose, upon the clarification of matters relating to accounts when we come to the accounts clauses.
LORD BARNBY: In view of the desirable and laudable aim which has just been emphasized by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, I would like to ask if it is the intention of the Government, in connexion with this vast diversification of commercial enterprises, to have an accountancy review periodically, the task of carrying, out which shall be in the hands of a recognized firm of commercial accountants. Or is this to be done entirely, as it so often done in the case of Government undertakings, in the form of accounts set out by the Treasury? However genuine the intention of avoiding subsidizing one branch of an undertaking from another, it would not be easy, if the latter course were pursued, to stop mistakes creeping in so that losses of one branch might be covered by profits from another. In common with other noble Lords who have had the experience of being a temporary civil servant, I know what a shock it is to a civil servant, who is under the direction of the Treasury, to suggest that there should be supplementary financial statements quite apart from

323
the Treasury's own published accounts—that there should, in fact, be adopted some kind of commercial system of presentation of accounts for the purpose of meeting the points to which reference has just been made.
LORD MORRISON: I did not intend to make any further reply because I understood, after the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that his colleague, Lord Teynham, was about to accept his advice and withdraw his Amendment. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that, no doubt, when we come to the accounts the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will take the opportunity of amplifying the speech which he has just made, and there will then be opportunity for going fully into this matter.
LORD TEYNHAM: On the understanding that we can discuss this matter again when we come to the accounts clauses, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (I) (e) to leave out "and" and insert:
"(f) to provide houses, hostels and other like accommodation for persons employed by the Commission; and".
The noble Earl said: This is in no way a controversial Amendment, and it has been put down in order to make certain that the Commission have under this Bill, power to provide houses, hostels and so on for all their staff. As I have been advised—and, I think, well advised—the Commission have not that power, except in the case of railwaymen. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree with us that it is very necessary that the Commission should have such powers in order to provide proper housing accommodation for transport workers who, owing to the exigencies of their work, require rather special facilities in that respect. Many of them, for instance, are obliged to live near their work. Such workers as station masters and gate-keepers are on duty all round the clock. Many of them start and end their duties at hours which mean that they are unable to live in their own homes, and special accommodation in hostels and so on has to be built for them.
The railways have special statutory provisions to provide housing accommodation, and this will pass to the Government and will devolve on to the Commission under Clause 2 (3) and Clause 14 (4), but they will apply only to railwaymen. They will apply only to the Commission in connexion with that part of their undertakings which corresponds to the undertakings of those companies—that is to say, to railwaymen. This point was raised in Committee stage in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary gave the following reply:
"It is our intention that the Commission should be empowered to provide houses, hostels and other accommodation for their employees. We believe that the Bill, as it stands, gives the Commission full power to do so, particularly under subsection (I) (d)."
I think, with due respect, the Parliamentary Secretary made an error, because that subsection does not refer to this matter at all. I think he meant subsection (2) (d) which empowers the Commission to do all other things which they believe are necessary to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the Commission. I am advised that that does not give power to the Commission to provide houses, except for railwaymen, for which they have power under the present Statutes which will devolve upon the Commission. This ought to be looked into carefully, in order that the Commission may have these important powers. The subsection now under discussion—which says: "In places within Great Britain where their passengers may require them, to provide both for their passengers and for other persons hotels, hostels, other living accommodation and places for refreshment"—does not refer to employees. I hope the Minister will either accept my Amendment or look into it very carefully before the next stage. It is a rather legal point, and I hope after the Minister has replied noble Lords more deeply versed in law than I will give their views.
LORD MORRISON: It is true, as the noble Earl has said, that certain railway companies have power to provide houses. I am informed that no fewer than 50,000 houses are owned by the railway companies at the present time. With regard to whether the powers are conferred in this Bill, I am advised that the powers held by the companies will be taken over by the Commission and therefore to that extent the Commission will have power.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I am advised that even in that case there is doubt whether they will have any power to provide houses for new entrants after the vesting date.
LORD MORRISON: I was not aware of any doubt. I thought it had been taken for granted that these powers would pass to the Commission. The attitude I was going to take was that the Government would prefer to leave the question to the discretion of the Commission to decide. But as the noble Earl has asked me that this matter shall be further considered, I will certainly see, in the light of the new information he has given, that it is brought to the notice of the Department and see if any further reply can be given or any further words inserted to make clear that the Commission have power to provide houses.
VICOUNT MAUGHAM: I have considered this matter with great care. It appears that there is no question at all as to the wishes of the Government and their strong determination that the Commission shall have power, when they think fit, to exercise the powers mentioned in the Amendment; and therefore the only question is whether the Bill as it stands gives them that power. It is the sort of point that is arguable. At the same time it is clear that what the noble Earl desires is to have a clear decision as to what the Bill intends. I do not understand his reference to desiring to understand what the Commission want. As I understand it, the Government are clear that power to construct these houses for their own employees is one that ought to be conferred on the Commission. Is it clear they have that power in the Bill as it stands? And I answer, without the smallest hesitation, that it is by no means clear that they have the power; and although I am not willing, as a rule, to decide questions of law without hearing the argument on both sides, my present impression is, they hay. not the power on the words as they stand. The clause, as it stands, relates to providing "in Great Britain facilities for passengers and other persons making use of the services provided by them as it may appear to them to be requisite…. "That does net include houses for employees, who are not persons making use of the services; they are persons who make the services possible.
326
There is subsection (2) (d), which includes the powers conferred in subsection (I) (d): to do all other things width in the opinion of the Commission are necessary to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the Commission." I venture to say that no company in the land has ever thought it sufficient authority to build houses for employees that they can do what is necessary to facilitate the carrying on of their business. There are thousands of businesses in England and Scotland carried on quite properly without providing the accommodation which it is desired to give the Commission power to provide in this case. I am satisfied that it is not clear as it stands, and I respectfully urge the noble Lord to accept the proposed Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: I find myself in exactly the same position as I was a few moments ago. I am advised that the words just quoted in subsection (2) (d) cover the points raised by the noble Earl. The noble and learned Viscount does not take that view, and who am I to decide between the noble and learned Viscount and the Government's legal advisers? I can only repeat what I think the noble Earl was about to accept, that before the next stage I will make certain that the words in the Bill cover the point; or, if not, other words will be substituted.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do not think the noble Lord appreciates the point in paragraph (d). It says: "necessary to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business." It does not say "proper," "convenient," or "expedient" but "necessary." That is not sufficient, in my opinion, to justify the view that houses and hostels can be built.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: On this point, following on the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, I want only to emphasize one fact. It may well be said that a house for a level crossing keeper, or a station master stationed in a remote district, was necessary. But a great number of the houses owned or provided by the railway companies are not, strictly speaking, necessities. Very often people promoted from one rank to another are moved to different parts of the country, and, as we all know, it is very difficult for them to get houses. But it could not be stated that the provision of those houses was really neces-

327
sary for running the business, although it is extremely helpful to have them. I would suggest, if there is any possible doubt about this, that it would save everybody a great deal of trouble to put such a provision into the Bill. Then we would know that the point was being looked after. I do not know how this could be left to the Commission to decide, as suggested by the noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Government, because all they could do would be to build a house somewhere and see if it was challenged in the courts. That is possibly not so simple a way of deciding it as by having a modification of the Bill.
LORD WOOLTON: If I may intervene for one moment, as a person who has some interest in railways (I disclose that fact straight away; I am a railway director) I have had occasion to go round and see particularly these hostels in which men who have to make long journeys away from home have some accommodation. I am sure, from what I know of noble Lords opposite, that they do not wish that there should be any sort of doubt as to whether that sort of accommodation is to be provided. I hope that the noble Lord will not rest on subsection (2) (d)—as to whether the Commission think these things are necessary. It seems to me—and I speak with great humility on the subject of the interpretation of documents—that it quite specifically does not apply to railway servants, because it says "other persons making use of the services." I should have thought the Commission would be excluded from providing these facilities. The matter is of so much importance to railwaymen that I hope on Report stage the noble Lord will give us a clear assurance that there will be specific provision in the Act, so that we shall be quite sure these facilities are provided.
LORD MORRISON: Certainly. Without any hesitation, I give a definite assurance that if we find the words are insufficient, I will see if the noble Earl and I together can find some words that will more adequately meet this point, and I will take steps, in conjunction with him, to see that they are inserted into the Bill on Report stage.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord give me an assurance on a point that has not yet been raised this afternoon? That
328
is the question of ex-employees. I understand, from reading the newspapers, that there has been a certain amount of trouble with the Coal Commission, because there have been ex-miners and others occupying houses belonging to the mining companies. Many mining companies are human. Those ex-employees, who have spent the best years of their lives down the mine, have been allowed to live on in those cottages with every expectation of staying there until they die. I believe that in some instances they have been turned out. I am not a director of a British railway company, and I do not know the exact practice or legal obligations of the railway companies, but I do know from experience that the railway companies frequently allow employees who have left their service, or their widows, to remain in cottages provided by them. Is the Bill, as now drafted, such as will enable the Commission to carry on that Christian work? Because the majority of Bills that pass on to the Statute Book do not take any account of that type of thing.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurances he has given me. I shall gladly accept his invitation to meet him and discuss this point, but, with respect, I think that perhaps more headway might be made if his legal advisers met the railway companies' legal advisers. If he will look into the point before the Report stage, I shall be very glad to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord give me an answer to the point which I raised?
LORD MORRISON: The only answer I can give (and I am sure every noble Lord would agree) is that there is no reason for any apprehension that the people to whom the noble Lord referred will be more harshly treated by the Transport Commission than they are at present by the railway companies. I have yet to hear of a case in which the railway companies have harshly treated any of their employees living in houses provided by them, and I have no reason to think that as a result of the changes that are going to take place under this Bill a new reign of terror will start.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
THE, EARL OF DUDLEY THE, EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (2) (h), at the end to insert "to make housing loans to persons employed by the Commission for assisting them to acquire housing accommodation." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is very similar in principle to the one which I have just moved, but I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accept it, because I think it is quite clear that provision for making housing loans is not sufficient in the Bill as it stands at present. The railway companies, in the matter of providing houses, housing accommodation, hostels and so on, have statutory powers under the Acts of 1932 and 1944 to enable them to make such loans where they are necessary in the case of their employees who wish to build their own houses.
Many such loans have been made by the railway companies under these statutory powers. These powers pass to the Commission only in so far as the main railways are concerned. They will not apply to the rest of their staff, or indeed to the other railways which the noble Lord earlier described as "trimmings." For example, as I am advised, a man employed on the Southern Railway— or what is now the Southern Railway—will be able to get a housing loan; but a man on the Kent and East Sussex Railway, which does not come under the present statutory powers, cannot get a loan, nor will any employee on the canals, roads, and so on which the Government are taking over. I hope that as the powers are so nebulous under present circumstances, the noble Lord will he able to accept this Amendment. I think it is quite clear that under subsection (2) (d) the powers are insufficient, because otherwise what would be the object of putting in subsection (2) (h) which we are now discussing, which gives, or intends to give, the Commission all sorts of special powers, but which does not mention housing loans? The Government could hardly argue that they had powers under subsection (2) (d) because, in that case, what would be the object of putting in subsection (2) (h)? I hope that the noble Lord is in a position to accept this Amendment right away.
Amendment moved—
Page 4. line 22, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
LORD MORRISON: My position is almost exactly the same as it was with
330
regard to the previous Amendment moved by the noble Earl. I have to point out that my advice is that the Amendment is unnecessary, but we need not again go into the whole question. I am perfectly prepared to accept the views that have been put forward, and to say that there may be some doubt about this. The only point I would bring to the notice of the noble Earl is that sine the railway companies obtained these powers there have been considerable changes in the law of the country with regard to this matter. There has been the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act passed through Parliament, and there has been the tremendous growth of the building society movement. The railway companies Were largely the pioneers, and there are now a great many more facilities for workpeople to obtain loans for this purpose than there were before. But, as the noble Earl thinks it important, may I save time by saying that while I am unable to accept the actual wording, I am quite prepared to accept the spirit of the Amendment?
Tar EARL or DUDLEY: When I was speaking, I was assuming that the Government wished to have this provision in the Bill, but the noble Lord now seems to think it is not necessary because there are so many other facilities. That raises quite a different point. We feel very strongly that there should be this provision, and I would like the noble Lord's assurance that there will be.
LORD MORRISON: I seem to have made my explanation more clumsily than usual if I gave the noble Earl that impression. But, without accepting the actual wording, we accept the spirit, and if we find these words are unsuitable we will agree on suitable words.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think we want to be quite clear what is the assurance we are being given. Let us take the case of a canal with its canal workers. Is the advice which the noble Lord has received from his advisers that, without these words being inserted, it is possible for the Commission to make a housing loan to a lock-keeper? If so, where is the authority so to do? If I may say so, I do not quite follow the hesitation of the Government about this matter, because they are in favour of the views which, I have understood, were held so warmly by noble Lords on the other side. It is a provision that a great body which,

331
in any event, is going to provide a number of houses, should have authority to make loans, let us say, for people employed by a canal. With great respect, may I ask the Socialist Ministers, why not? What a curious attitude, that the Government should boggle at this, when we only want to make sure that provision is made.
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Viscount is reading more than I intended into what I said; perhaps it was my fault. I was indicating that the railway companies had these powers, and I was not referring to the other elements. May I repeat that, subject to a review of the wording, I accept the noble Earl's Amendment?
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I am perfectly ready to accept the noble Lord's assurance that he will look into it between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, wthdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA moved, in subsection (2) (h) (i), after "chassis" to insert "or bodies." The noble Lord said: We now come to the famous sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (h) on page 4, which says that the Government cannot manufacture chassis. The Minister made a speech in another place in which he said the Commission will not be able to manufacture chassis for road vehicles, yet, if one reads on for another half page, this is flatly contradicted. At the top of page 5 it states that the Commission can take over a company, and if that company manufactures chassis, then chassis can be manufactured. That point, of course, will be dealt with later by an Amendment to be moved by my noble friend, Lord Hacking. The purpose of my Amendment is to add to the word "chassis" the words "or bodies." It is rather curious that the word "chassis" should be included in the Bill, and not "bodies," because it was stated by the Government that they did not wish to use this particular Bill to nationalize any particular industry. They said they did not want to make chassis, yet there is nothing in the Bill which says they cannot make bodies. Bodies are an integral part of road vehicles; in fact. half the value of a motor bus is the body.
332
it is an industry where there is a bottleneck to-day, and it would be a tragedy if the Government announced their intention of making bodies because it would absolutely stop many manufacturers from supplying the bodies for the vehicles which the Commission are about to use.
There is another reason why the word "bodies" should be put in, and that is because the word "chassis" has never been defined. "Chassis," of course, is the French word for "frame," and it would be quite possible, within the meaning of this word, for the Commission to manufacture motors, back axles, front axles, and everything which goes in the frame. That, of course, would be rather technical and out of the way. But there is a type of vehicle coming in which is known as the "chassis-less," where the actual weight is taken by the body
itself. This chassis-less vehicle is gaining favour in America, and if it came into this country then the whole vehicle would be included under the heading of "body" and, without my Amendment, the Government could make the whole vehicle and would not contravene against the Bill. If the words "or bodies" are put into the Bill, then the whole thing is cleared up. If the Government are going to nationalize the body-making business, then, at a later stage, we must have a very strict definition of what is meant by the word "chassis."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, after ("chassis") insert ("or bodies").—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I would like to support my noble friend, Lord Brabazon. I cannot see why the Government should not accept this Amendment. The Bill says that they will not take powers, except for experimental purposes, to manufacture chassis. Obviously you cannot have a chassis without a body.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has called attention to a very important matter. As a result of the discussion we had on the Second Reading, I have myself put down an Amendment to give effect to the undertaking I then gave. This Amendment it is proposed to insert at the end of subsection (3) which, as the noble Lord said, would enable the Government if they took over a concern which had the ability to make these things, to go beyond what was the clear intention

333
of subsection (2). That is true, and I hope that when we come to it the Amendment will be deemed to be adequate to carry out the undertaking. I shall have to add, when I come to it, that we are in process of negotiating another addition to that provision which will still further restrict opportunities for work of this kind. We wish to have them restricted in this particular case because there is no desire whatever that the Commission should enter into the body-building business any more than is the case with the undertakings they take over.
I am not in the least disposed to enter into a discussion with the noble Lord as to the meaning of the word "chassis"; he knows a great deal more about these things than I do, and far be it from me to challenge his knowledge. At the same time, a chassis is a big engineering undertaking and is made in engineering shops, and it is entirely different from the body. The body is much more vulnerable, and it wears out and has to be repaired much more commonly. Therefore, it is quite clear that it would be sensible and right that the Commission should be able to use the facilities that they have for repairing or remaking bodies in a practical way. Otherwise the whole thing might be held up in an unreasonable way. But, apart from that, I can assure the noble Lord that we have no intention whatever of going into, shall I say, the body-building business.
I can say for my right honourable friend that he would encourage the Commission to enter into long-term engagements with the people who do build bodies, so as to make sure that the business is continued on a proper footing. We do not like the complete veto (owing to the character of the wording) which would follow from the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. But I am quite willing to consider with him whether we cannot find words which would, without unreasonably restricting the opportunities of the Commission, cover the point, to make sure that we are not entering into competition, as we have no desire whatever to enter into competition, with the ordinary manufacturers. I am willing to consider that, but the Government cannot accept a complete veto, which is what this Amendment would mean.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I just point out that inevitably there is a little difficulty in
334
piecing this together, because of the Amendment which I am very glad to see the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has put down in fulfilment of his undertaking to me and to others. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Brabazon will observe in the list of Amendments that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, is proposing to move an Amendment which will secure that the Commission are not to have any power, under any part of the Bill, to construct or manufacture any thing which is not required for use for tae purposes of their undertaking. I thoroughly recognize the importance of that decision, which agrees with what we are urging. The result, I take it, as regards bodies, as distinct from chassis, is that the proviso which it is now sought to urge is a proviso which says that, so far as manufacturing chassis for road vehicles is concerned, the Commission shall not make any of them except for purposes of experiment or research. Whether or not that fits in with the whole scheme, I am waiting to see. At any rate, it can only he read in connexion with the Amendment which the noble Viscount is shortly going to move.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said. Frankly, I think that section (a) of my Amendment completely safeguards the position—at least, I hope the noble Lord will feel that it does; it certainly was intended to do that. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not pursue this Amendment.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: If every-thing was according to the intentions of the noble Viscount, everything would be well in this world. But this is a Bill which is to become an Act, and it has to be interpreted later on in the Law Courts. Here we have the same thing occurring as we have with the chassis. The Government are going to take over undertakings which run buses, that have works attached to them which make bodies, and there is nothing at all to stop the Government from building up those subsidiary works into a national business for making bodies. I have seen what my noble friend, Viscount Simon, has referred to—the Amendment later on in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House but even there I have put down an Amendment to add "bodies" to "chassis." So that point is still borne in mind, even if

335
we accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount later on. This is a big industry—I only wish it were bigger at the present time—and it does mean that unless we insert the word "bodies," under this Bill it will become a nationalized business. I think it is right that it should be made clear up and down the country that the Government have used this Bill for a purpose for which it was not introduced—that is, to start nationalizing another industry.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Brabazon in this Amendment. After all, this is a point which is arising all the time, as to what extent the Government are going to nationalize industries or not. We constantly have clauses, or parts of clauses, in these Bills which leave one under an absolute misapprehension as to what may or may not happen in the particular industry or section of industry concerned. The particular Amendment to which the noble Viscount has referred states that
"the Commission shall not have power to construct or manufacture anything which is not required either for use for the purposes of their undertaking or for the fulfilment of a contract made."
As my noble friend has pointed out, chassis and bodies are required by the
companies for use all the time. Under the clause, the Government, in the hard word of the law (as my noble friend has said, it will have to be interpreted in the Courts later on), would have full power to manufacture bodies and chassis—perhaps not chassis, but certainly bodies, because bodies are required, and chassis are required, in the ordinary business of the company. Therefore, in order to make this matter quite clear, I hope the noble Viscount will accept my noble friend's Amendment, and not leave the matter to be defined in the Courts. In the course of these various measures we receive many undertakings from the Government to which I personally, with great respect, do not attach any confidence, because we know—those of us who have been engaged in legislation for the number of years that some of us have—that when the Ministers have passed on and another Government has come in, these matters are brought into Court and interpreted according to the printed word which is contained in the law. I do hope the noble Viscount will see his way to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Without taking sides in this controversy at the moment, I would like to clear up one matter which is a question of fact. We are here dealing with two separate things, however closely connected they may be. The chassis and the body have a good deal of connexion, it is true, but still they are dealt with separately here, and actually may be manufactured by separate people. The object of the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is, I understand, to make sure that nothing can be done under any part of the Bill which is precluded from being done by virtue of this subsection. Let us take the chassis, to start with. I understand the Government admit that they have given an undertaking that they will never, either directly or indirectly, under this Commission make a chassis except for the purpose of experiment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is so.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Therefore, they cannot do it under this subsection. Under the noble Viscount's Amendment they cannot make a chassis either for use or for sale and, therefore, not under any part of the Bill. What they are doing is to say, "We. will not give you the same undertaking"—they may be right or wrong; I am not arguing that—" with regard to bodies." They are taking over a lot of undertakings which make bodies. Tramways have made bodies and the noble Lord's undertaking has made bodies for his own company. They are saying, "We will not make bodies that we do not require for our own use."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is right.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In paragraph (b) of the noble Viscount's own Amendment it says in effect: "We will not make more bodies than we made a year ago."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is right.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That has this effect. The Government are going to take over more and more of this inland transport, and therefore what the noble Lord is making for his own quite large undertaking may bear no relation at all to the much larger operations the Commission undertake. If they make all the bodies required by the Commission they might put everybody in the body-making business out of business, because they are

337
going to run 90 per cent. of the transport of the country—at any rate they are going to try to—and they are going to make all the bodies they require. I should like that made clear before I make up my mind whether to support the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on this Amendment. There are, of course, the "C" licences, but the whole idea is that the Minister is going so to cut into the "C" licences business of providing cheaper, better and bigger transport—
VISCOUNT SIMON: And both-way traffic.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And both-way traffic, and we shall not need the "C" licences any more. I want to know what is the exact effect of paragraph (b) in the noble Viscount's Amendment. If he could tell us that in quite simple language now, I think it would influence a good many of us as to how we are going to vote. He must have some idea of the figures. May I put it to the noble Viscount crudely in this way: Give us a sort of general figure. What was the output of motor bodies in this critical year, which is the year of test? And out of that, what was the proportion which were made, for the use of the kind of motor transport the Minister is going to take over, and what will there be for outside? If the noble Viscount tells us that all the Minister is going to make is about 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., and 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. is going to be left over for the ordinary industry, then I do not think the matter is very important. If, on the other hand, he is going to launch out into this business and maybe take over half the business, then I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for putting those questions. I am informed that the powers to do this kind of thing which are now held by the bodies that might be taken over—and which are, therefore, limited so far as expansion is concerned (intentionally limited) in paragraph (b) of my Amendment—cover a very small proportion indeed of the total number of bodies which are required. The whole of the bodies for "C" licences—I think there are 350,000—would be outside altogether. Then I understand that the total number of vehicles with "A" and "B" licences which are likely to be taken over,
338
is some 20,000, and there are likely to be 70,000 which are not taken over.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: These are lorries.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes. The number of vehicle chassis and bodies for the purposes of the undertaking would be a very small proportion of the total number now on the road, or likely to be on the road. That is point number one. The second point—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. I can see his argument about lorries, but a lorry body is a pretty cheap and easy thing to construct. I quite agree that as regards lorry body-building the great part will still be going into private hands. One is really interested in the bus bodies and the passenger vehicle bodies, which are of very highly specialized manufacture. A bus body costs ten times to twenty times more to manufacture than a cargo vehicle. We want to know about the service vehicles, the vehicles which carry passengers.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I still think that the information given me as to the smallness of the proportion holds good. As the noble Viscount is aware, so far as passenger transport is concerned that would have to be provided for in the scheme which would have to be drawn up in consultation with those concerned. I was going on to the point that not all the organizations taken over do this kind of thing—nothing like all of them. If lour or five concerns are taken over and they had some power or other of this kind which might not be exercised all in one pace, it might be convenient to do it in one place instead of four places. The Amendment which I put down is designed to make quite sure that whatever is done shall not, in the aggregate, be more than it was.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Bodies or chassis?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It applies to whatever they are making.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Whether chassis or bodies?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Chassis are limited anyhow, except for the purposes of experiment. I am talking in terms of bodies.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interrupt, but if the noble Viscount tells us that paragraph (b) is intended to cover bodies, I have nothing more to say.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It goes further than chassis. I gather that this would involve powers of manufacture in the undertakings before they were acquired. If it does not, it is intended to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We were told a moment ago that there were to be no chassis manufactured. Now I see in the noble Viscount's own Amendment he says:
"where any such activities consist of the manufacture of chassis for road vehicles."
We were told that none were going to be manufactured at all. There were certain bodies which were going to be manufactured, but not chassis. But in the noble Viscount's Amendment it says that they will not make any more than in the last year.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: It is perfectly clear—although the Government do not seem to be clear—that although they say they are not going to make chassis, they are going to make chassis. They are going to take over a very big manufacturing concern, the Bristol factory, which makes chassis, and they have now given the undertaking that they will not make more chassis in that works than have been made before. That is the Amendment we are coming to in a few minutes but which we arc discussing now—a very curious arrangement, but that is what we are now discussing. The Minister now comes along and says, not only with regard to chassis, but with regard to everything else, "We will not make any more than we made before the introduction of the measure." If that is his pledge, what is the reason why you cannot insert the word "bodies"?
LORD HACKING: I would like to ask the Leader of the House this one question. Would he repeat what I understood him to say just now, that in no circumstances would the Transport Commission be responsible for manufacturing chassis except for purposes of experiment or research?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think there is no doubt at all that the manufacture of chassis has hitherto been and will therefore be, with the limitations specified in my Amendment, of a different order from
340
the manufacture of bodies, and I am advised that we cannot surrender all power over the manufacture of bodies as the veto of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, would require. But I have given an undertaking, and will make good on it, and if the words are not adequate they shall be made adequate to express the fact that we do not propose to increase the business, or to do the business at the expense of others who do it as their nomal trade I can assure the noble Lord that the Amendments I have put down were put down in complete good faith to try to give effect to the undertaking I gave. Perhaps, seeing that it is seven o'clock, noble Lords might like to reserve the rest of their remarks and we can afterwards have a general discussion on the Amendments in my name as well as this one. If this is agreeable I suggest that your Lordships should now adjourn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I entirely agree. I have put two points specifically to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison: the first was a simple one concerning chassis. In subsection (2) he says in effect "I promise I will never make a chassis except for experimental purposes; not for use, not in limited quantities; I will never make a chassis except for experimental purposes." He said to me that the whole object of the Amendment was to make sure that he did not do it, not only under subsection (3), but under any power in the Bill at all. If that is so—and I am sure it is the undertaking he wishes to carry out—it must be nonsense, with great respect, to put down an Amendment which says in effect, "I won't make more chassis for use than I made in the year 1946." There is a second question, concerning bodies. I hope the noble Viscount will get his experts to look at this and make sure that he does not propose an Amendment which allows him to make chassis for any purpose other than experiment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We can discuss the whole matter together, and I suggest that we now adjourn.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, now that we have for an hour and a quarter been indulging in "body building," perhaps we might get back to the

341
actual Amendments before your Lordships, which is to insert the words "bodies or" after "chassis." The debate we have had so far has scarcely touched my particular Amendment; it has ranged on Amendments to be discussed later. The Leader of the House, in some remarks before we adjourned, said that after dinner we should discuss the whole subject. I do not quite know what procedure is to be indulged in, because the next Amendment by my noble friend Lord Hacking limits the particular insertion; but the purport of it is to stop building chassis at all; and then, of course, we have the long Amendment by the Leader of the House—
LORD HACKING: My Amendment is not to prevent the building of chassis but to allow them to be built for experimental and research purposes.
LORD BRABAZON: But it is a major point. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether it is his pleasure, and the pleasure of your Lordships, that all these matters shall be discussed together; or how are we to proceed? Because it was the Leader of the House whose idea it was that we should discuss the whole topic.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I daresay it would be to the convenience of the House if we discussed the whole subject. It is the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that is before the House, and it must remain, but there is no reason why the whole subject should not be discussed now.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that was the suggestion I made, and for the reason that it is still not easy, it seems to me, to separate "bodies" from the rest of the Amendments. It is practical, therefore, to have discussion on the subject of manufacture and limitation of manufacture, after which the Amendments can be dealt with without discussion. Quite inadvertently I made a mistake, and I should like to correct that before we go any further. In answer to one noble Lord I said that the limitation on the manufacture of chassis was to experiment and so on, as set out; but I was incorrect in that. That power is limited to the new powers which are acquired under subsection (2), but it is true that under subsection (3) (at the top of the fifth page), the power of making chassis may be acquired. In representing
342
otherwise I was not quite right in my reading of it. I regret that I made that misstatement, but in the face of the numerous interjections I did my best to reply. It is clear, I think, that in the limitation of manufacture I have shown in the Amendment in my own name, as a result of the discussions we had on Second Reading, that whilst the limitations in (a) were clearly limited to not making anything that is not required for the purpose of the undertaking—that is to say not for sale in general business—paragraph (b) prescribes a limitation in terms on chassis only. That is because some of the concerns taken over may have been manufacturing chassis before they were taken over, and the intention there is that there shall not be an increase of such manufacture; it shall be limited to the output in the previous twelve months as set out in the Amendment.
Two points arise on that. I understand from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that he is under the impression that the pledge given by the Minister in the other place was to the effect that there was not to be manufacture of chassis except for experimental purposes. I was not aware of that, and, of course, I will inquire into it. In respect to bodies, and the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Brabazon, I have had the opportunity of consulting the Minister in the interval and he authorizes me to say two things. He is not prepared, for the reasons I gave, to accept the complete veto which would follow (if we accepted the noble Lord's Amendment) on the manufacture of bodies, but he is prepared, with all good wine to enter into discussions between now and the Report stage with those concerned to secure words which will limit his power of manufacture to bodies, in so far as that power is taken over. If possible, we can have an Amendment before us on the Report stage. But, so far as chassis are concerned, it is as set out in (b), which I did not correctly represent.
I should make one other statement on this, as to negotiations now in progress—leaving out the point put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, about which I shall have something to say later on. It will happen is some cases that among some of the firms taken over there will be perhaps a small number of concerns in the road transport part of the business. Such a concern would be one of that kind where a man will have one or

343
two lorries carrying on long-distance traffic (which will be taken over, of course) and will also have a garage or some place where he does repair work, and it may be has also a petrol pump, these things being ancillary to his major work. That automatically would be taken over if the man's business were taken over as a whole. The Minister has no desire to engage in that kind of work, and he is in negotiation with the motor traders concerned to try and arrive at an agreement which will be embodied in an Amendment to limit that. But I should say on that point that I am advised it clearly would not be reasonable, in cases where a concern of that sort might be running a little repair shop outside a village, to close the whole thing down. That would be a loss to the community, and the Minister is contemplating some other effective limitation. But that is involved in the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and in one or two other Amendments. I only mention it in passing as connected with the manufacturing problem.
At all events, for the present, my right honourable friend is not prepared to accept a complete veto in regard to bodies. He is willing and anxious to enter into negotiations with those concerned to arrive at some formula which may be embodied in an Amendment which will limit operations of manufacture in that regard. I was authorized so to tell the Committee. With regard to the manufacture of chassis this must be looked into again, in view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has told me.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not want to intervene. I shall have a good deal to say at the appropriate moment about chassis, but I think I am pretty clear in my understanding of the Minister's pledge in another place. I am very clear on the undertaking of the noble Lord on the Second Reading debate, and that we must obviously discuss in detail on the appropriate Amendments. I think the statement the Leader of the House has made—and he was good enough to have a word with me before the House resumed—makes it plain that we cannot discuss any one of these Amendments, either of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, or the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, without bring-
344
ing into discussion the long Amendment the Minister has put on the Paper and the Amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to that Amendment. On behalf of this side of the House, I agree that we should take a general discussion, and if noble Lords make their points on their particular Amendments in that way I think the House will arrive at a concensus of opinion of what it wants to do, both as regards bodies and chassis, and then the Amendments can be either passed or passed with Amendments.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: When are we to have this discussion?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Now, I suggest.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: Then I would like to say a word. In the Second Reading in another place the Minister gave a pledge. Nothing was more plain. He said: "There are two specific limitations on its powers" (referring to the Commission). "It will not be able to manufacture chassis or road vehicles." That is about as plain a statement as could possibly be made by a Minister. As was pointed out, and as the Leader of the House did not appreciate, within half a page of his Bill he flatly contradicted all he said. It laid down that if you take over an undertaking you may go on with the manufacture of chassis. There is a possibility, if you get a bin firm, that von might improve it and make it bigger until it swamped the whole manufacturing resources in that direction in the whole of the country. The Minister submits this Amendment, which says you may make only as many vehicles as you made in the year previous to the passing of the Bill. That of course, still belies the promise the Government gave, that they would not manufacture chassis. Even if you manufacture as many as the firms made before this Bill you would still be manufacturing chassis. What sort of business is this going to be which cannot expand like an ordinary business and can go up only to a certain quota?
The Labour Government which were responsible for the London Transport Bill were wise in their generation. When they saw that they had power to manufacture rolling stock, they thought they could have a large export, but all the great railways were doing was looking after themselves, and we were deprived of big export business. It was laid down in the London

345
Transport Bill that London Transport should not have power to manufacture. That was a very wise decision, and I cannot understand why it is reversed in this Bill. I cannot understand why they want to go in for manufacture of vehicles.
The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, says that, as regards chassis, he is going to limit the number by his Amendment later on, and he is prepared to go into this question along the same lines with regard to the manufacture of bodies. If it will clear the air, I will withdraw my Amendment now, because a similar Amendment is to be moved as an Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. It might well be more convenient for me to leave it there, as the pledge has been given that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is prepared to consider the limitation of body manufacture. Perhaps he might insert the words in his Amendment. He has given his pledge with regard to chassis, and if he put in the words "or bodies" the whole thing would work without the need for another Amendment later on. If it would be convenient to the Leader of the House I will withdraw my Amendment, and move it later on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let us have a general discussion.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: The position seems to be that we have decided to have a discussion.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask one question? A number of municipalities have a considerable manufacturing plant. Glasgow manufactures one of the finest tramcars in the world, and they recently acquired powers to manufacture bodies of buses. What is their position to be? It may be that they will be taken over this year, next year, or it may be five years hence. During that time they may greatly increase their manufacturing capacity, and I think the Government should state clearly what is their intention. Do they desire to take over manufacturing facilities which are as large as possible, or any that exist, because Glasgow has a large tram manufacture and a very small bus body manufacture? It is desirable that in the meantime we should know what it is the wish of the Government to take over.
LORD HACKING: I feel in somewhat of a difficulty because this Amendment
346
now before the House deals with bodies, and the whole of the discussion has been centred around chassis. My Amendment dealt with chassis, and I beg noble Lords not to talk about bodies when they are dealing with my Amendment because that will create a still greater difficulty when we come to a decision with regard to the quite clear position as to whether or not this Transport Commission should be empowered to manufacture chassis for purposes other than experimental work and research. My Amendment deals with chassis, and I hope we shall consider chat part of the road vehicle. I should mention that I have a special interest in a firm of manufacturers to which reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, namely, the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company. Before we adjourned I asked the noble Viscount the Leader the House whether the Commission would be debarred from making a chassis except for experimental and research purposes The reply that he gave the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, was not very complete. I think the Leader of the House said that, although he was going to move his Amendment at a later stage, it was not complete, and further restriction, would come along. I think those are the words he used. He then went on to say that it is quite proper that the Commission should be restricted in this matter with regard to manufacture. The previous Amendments this afternoon dealt with the storage of goods. Again, if I might quote the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, he said that clearly the Commission would not be able to go into the warehouse business.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That was agreed to.
LORD HACKING: That was agreed to with acclamation by the Government Front Bench. It was certainly cheered by members of the Government Front Bench. I want to know why It is necessary in a Transport Bill to enter into the manufacture of chassis, when is is quite improper, apparently, for any undertaking which at present owns warehouses to extend or develop in any way the use of the warehouses which they might properly in the eyes of some members of the Government be called upon to use. If either this Amendment which I have tabled or the two which follow it, which have the same effect, arc accepted, the Transport Commission would be enabled to manufacture

347
chassis for road vehicles only for the strictly limited purpose of experiment and research. In other words, proviso (i) of Clause 2, subsection (2), will operate in all such cases.
As a matter of fact, as has already been stated, this proviso itself goes much further than the Minister of Transport indicated was his intention during the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has actually quoted what the Minister of Transport said in the other place. That was a clear statement that the Commission would not be able to manufacture chassis for road vehicles. What did he mean? If the Minister meant what he said, then I take it that his pledge ought to be implemented; and if he cannot implement it himself, it ought to be implemented in this House. If, on the other hand, the Minister did not mean what he said, then he ought never to have used those words, for the effect was undoubtedly to mislead another place. Although it has often been said during this debate this evening that it is what is in the Act that matters, I think we also ought to make it quite clear that when any measure it still in the form of a Bill it is very largely what the Minister says, and how he describes that Bill, which matters. If there is any difference between what the Minister said is the intention of the Bill, and what we read into the Bill, then, in my submission, what the Minister's intentions are should be put into the Bill to make that quite clear.
But, far from implementing the Minister's statement that the Commission would not be able to manufacture, his representative in this House, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, said on Second Reading that the Commission would be able to manufacture, but not for sale. Apparently the Amendment which is going to be moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House at a later stage prevents the manufacture for sale. But what it does do is to allow the Commission, on taking over an undertaking which itself has a chassis building part, to continue to manufacture the chassis as they had been manufactured before; the manufacture in future will continue under the authority of the Commission and not under the authority of private enterprise, as was previously the case. It appears that the
348
Commission will be taking over the undertaking known as the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company. As that Company at present manufactures motor vehicles and chassis, the manufacture of these vehicles in future will be controlled by the
Commission. But, as is now announced by the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the number of chassis will be limited to the number previously made. Well, if it is right to take over the manufacture of chassis, even though it may be a limited number, I should think it would have been right to take over a larger number. But if it is wrong to manufacture a large number, surely it is equally wrong to manufacture a small number.
What does this limitation mean? It means, as has already been hinted by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that there can be no expansion of a factory, however excellent the chassis, and however economical the process of manufacture. This next point is very important. There can be no export trade of what is at present a very fine machine. The Bristol Company, in which, as I say, I am interested, has already contracted to sell in 1949 100 chassis to go overseas. Now what will happen with that export trade? Of course it goes; it disappears, and it may not be possible for any other firm to take up the contract. This is indeed the dead hand of nationalization when it cripples, as it is bound to cripple, the export trade of the country. My alternative is to give freedom to the manufacturer and freedom for the export of chassis and motor vehicles by whomsoever they now are made in this country. In giving that freedom to the manufacturer I desire to do nothing more and nothing less than accept the Minister's own pledge when he says that the Commission would not be able to manufacture chassis for road vehicles.
LORD GIFFORD: I reel very strongly that the Minister really is most loth to undertake the manufacture of chassis at all, and that he is rather embarrassed by the fact that, by accident, he is going to be "let in" for manufacturing chassis. Surely, the right answer is that some provision should be put into the Bill so that if the Commission by accident acquire an undertaking which makes chassis, they should within reasonable time sell that undertaking to private industry and let them get on with the job. Obviously.

349
a flourishing chassis industry, limited to the number of chassis it is going to make, is going to be a most difficult and uneconomic thing to work. Surely, then, that is the answer: that that undertaking, acquired by accident, should be sold off. There is only one other question 1 would like to ask the Minister and that is: What is a chassis? I presume he means by "chassis" what is meant in the transport industry as a whole, which is practically everything except the body. It means the engine as well, but not, strictly speaking, the frame of the vehicle.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to intervene for a few moments in an endeavour to clarify, as I see it, the rather confusing issues which are before us. I must say that it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Brabazon and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, have made absolutely good the point that the Minister has given assurances that the manufacture of chassis will not be within the power of the Commission save for experimental purposes. It seems to me that that has been made absolutely good by quotation of chapter and verse. But if you look at manufacture generally it does it not stand in that way? We are discussing what it is agreed should be the width of the powers of the Commission to manufacture.
One possible view would be that they may exercise all the powers of the different undertakings which they acquire or control as a result of this Bill, which would mean that they would be able to manufacture for sale. That is the widest view. And the Leader of the House in the Amendment he has put down—whether exactly right in form or not does not matter—is obviously trying to provide in the Bill what he promised at the Second Reading, that that should not be the case. It is worth while to quote the actual words, which I have no doubt the Leader of the House has in mind. He said this, at the end of the debate, after an intervention from my noble friend Viscount Swinton and myself:
"It is not the intention of the Minister to do other than manufacture for the purposes of the undertaking. He told me that I could assure the noble Viscount that it is not his intention to manufacture for sale."
I ventured to say it would be better to put it in the Bill to make it quite clear, and the Leader of the House then said:
350
I do not object to that; my right honourable friend has authorized me to say that he would be willing to accept the proposition that he would not be manufacturing for sale. He is entirely wishful to act bona fide within the intentions mentioned, and not to manufacture except for the purposes of the undertaking."
I am leaving aside for the moment the special case of the chassis position. I have no doubt that the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, is intended to carry that out, and the only comments I have to make on that are one or two quite minor points as to its form. It plainly provides that however the Commission comes by the powers, it is not authorized by this Statute to use those powers except to construct or manufacture, as the noble Viscount said on the Second Reading, for the purpose of its undertaking. I think my noble friend behind me, before the adjournment, spoke of the difference between chassis and body, and raised the question whether either, or a locomotive, was required for the use of the undertaking, and whether therefore the Commission would have power to manufacture that class of thing and sell it. It is quite plain that that is not the intention. It does not say "to construct or manufacture anything of a sort which is not required." It has reference, I think, clearly, to the actual articles produced. I am sure that is the intention, and if there is any doubt about the words they might be made a little plainer. I myself, apart from this point about chassis and, it may be, bodies, entirely accept that it is not the intention of the Government to make this proposition. On the other hand we on this side feel sincerely grateful to the Leader of the House because he has obviously made a great and sincere effort to make good the words he used at the end of the Second Reading, and to a very large extent he has done so.
The reason for the small Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, put down on the Order Paper is, in the first place, that the Commission may find itself in a position to benefit by the manufacture of one of the instruments of transport, perhaps because it acquires an undertaking direct—usually a company. That would mean that the company went into liquidation. and that the liquidator would then, either by contract or by compulsion, hand over to the Commission, and would receive the appropriate compensation which he would hand over perhaps to his shareholders, and that

351
would be the end of the undertaking and the shareholders too. But there is a second way in which I think the Commission might put themselves in the position where they might, in effect, sell to the public; and that would be, not if they acquired the undertaking themselves but if they acquired the controlling shares in it, or all the shares in it. Since some of the railway companies, for example, own all the shares in subsidiary undertakings, and the Commission would acquire those shares under the powers of the Bill, the Commission would not indeed be manufacturing, but would be holding all the shares in a subsidiary company which does manufacture.
I do not for a moment believe that the Government intend to draw a distinction between those cases. I do not think it at all fair to do so. They are merely two ways of acquiring the same thing, and therefore my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and I put down the words "directly and indirectly ". If you do not have those words in, or something corresponding to them, it might be said" it is not the Commission which are going to manufacture, it is the subsidiary company"; and they will own all the shares. Therefore I think it is manifest that what the Government really mean is that, whether directly or indirectly, by acquiring the undertaking out and out or by acquiring the controlling shares in the company, they do not intend as a result of this acquisition to have anything to do with the sale of these things to the public. That is a very fair way of meeting our criticism. I think it is entirely justified, and I am sure a great effort has been made to meet us, and I am truly grateful. That is why I put in the words "directly or indirectly"—to meet the two possible ways in which the Commission might obtain control of the two businesses.
The second Amendment which we put down was to substitute, or rather to add, in the fifth line of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, the words "or carry on any activity." What happened was that the draftsman has used the words "to construct or manufacture"; but there may be cases where the Commission acquire the undertaking which does not in itself construct or manufacture. For instance, an agricultural establishment neither constructs nor manufac-
352
tures; it grows things and sells them. Of course, it is not really intended to draw a distinction between the Commission selling what they construct or manufacture to the general public, or selling to the public something which, generally speaking, they do not construct or manufacture. The word which is used in the Bill is the wider word "undertaking," and therefore it seemed to us that really in the fifth line we ought to add after "to construct or manufacture anything," the words "or carry on any activity." It is not intended that the Commission should carry on any activity by acquisition which would involve making sales to the general public, either in the export trade or otherwise; it is purely a logical correction of the words which happen to be used. If I may say so, it is a reasonable point.
The third point is a point which has been already mentioned, certainly by a noble Lord behind me, and it is very important. If the Commission acquire an undertaking which has previously had the power to do a larger variety of things than the Commission, under Statute, are entitled to do—if they acquire an undertaking which previously could either supply to the railway companies or could sell to the public at large—then the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to prevent them selling to the public at large. The Commission will have bought something of which they cannot make use. They will have bought the power to sell to the public, but cannot use that power because this clause provides that they should not. The way in which this is usually provided for—and I should have thought that would have been the proper way in this case—is to say that on the acquisition of any undertaking the Commission shall discontinue or dispose of such portion of the undertaking as they have no power to carry on.
During the Second Reading debate I gave instances, mentioning among other matters the concern of Thomas Cook and Sons. I understand that the railway companies acquired all the shares of Thomas Cook and Sons, because, as a matter of fact, in the pinch of the last war, when the firm's foreign business full away to nothing because no one wanted to travel abroad and no one wanted to know about foreign hotels, the railway companies were urged by the Government to take over the shares of the concern and they agreed. When the Commission get

353
the business they will not be able to carry on the activities of Thomas Cook and Sons, so far as they have nothing to do with our internal transport. What they ought to do, I suggest, is to offer what they have acquired, and cannot use, to the best bidder. There cannot be the slightest doubt that one or other of the travel agencies would be glad to have the opportunity of acquiring the shares on reasonable terms. I hope that I have made plain to your Lordships what the Amendment is which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh has moved and which I thought would meet the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, so far as paragraph (a) is concerned.
Paragraph (b) of his Amendment, if I may say so respectfully, deals with another matter entirely. It has nothing to do with my interest in the Bill. I learned of it incidentally. I learned that the Government were quite prepared to give an assurance to the chassis makers that, though they took their businesses over, they would not claim to make use of the power to make more chassis for the railway companies or for the road transport companies than they had made in the previous twelve months. That is my understanding of this. I suppose that is the reason why my noble friend proposes to put (b) in the Bill. As regards that, all I say is that it is a very serious question. I venture to ask whether he is really justified in putting in the Bill paragraph (b), which undoubtedly carries the rights of the Commission beyond what you find in the limitation in the proviso to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has referred.
There is no doubt, as Lord Hacking said, that here you find in the Bill—at any rate as regards Clause 2 (2)—that the Statute provides that the Commission shall not use any powers they may he thought to have acquired for making chassis beyond the point of making experimental chassis. There cannot be any doubt of that. I recognize perfectly that that provision is introduced with the words "The Commission shall not by virtue of this subsection "—and this subsection is subsection (2). I quite recognize that the claim
which the noble Lord makes about chassis for a wider power of manufacture does not arise under subsection (2), but under subsection (3). I follow that. The assurances given by the Minister have been quoted here more than
354
once, but here the Minister gave an absolute promise not qualified in any way. I shall listen to the arguments which may be put forward on this and if necessary, when the time comes, I shall vote as I believe it is my duty to vote, having heard all the arguments.
I interpose to make it plain that we are grateful to the noble Viscount for having put down the Amendment, obviously in fulfilment of his pledge. The truth is that in any sort of legislation, when you are creating a Commission which are to have new powers, those powers may be classified under three possible heads. The widest set of powers would he that they may use their new facilities for manufacturing and selling to all and sundry. The noble Viscount has repudiated that by his Amendment. The second is that though they provide only for the Commission's undertaking, nevertheless they may do that without restriction. That is the middle position. That would be true as regards railway locomotives. They can make the whole lot if they please. The third position is to. say that you will not go so far as that and in respect of certain kinds of product, chassis or bodies, to put in the Bill deliberately a further limitation, either to make chassis only for the purpose of experiment and leave the private trader to provide the market, or alternatively to limit the number they will supply.
We ought to be sure that the main Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, which I am sure in principle we shall all accept, is put in such a precise form that it will cover the operation of an undertaking whether for manufacture or construction, or an undertaking of another kind—a railway company may run a farm, for instance, and we should make it plain that it applies to both, whether the Commission acquire an undertaking directly or indirectly through the acquisition of shares. There should be a provision authorizing the Commission to dispose of that portion of the undertaking which they are not allowed to use for their own advantage. It would be stupid to sterilize it, and it is quite common, where a statutory body acquires things that it cannot itself use, to provide that it must dispose of that portion. There is the hundred years old illustration, under the Railway Clauses Act of 1845 where, if a railway company
acquire additional land for

355
the purpose of siding or doubling their lines, but do not within a reasonable limit of time use the land, they are bound to sell it back first to the person from whom it was bought; and, failing that, in the market. Exactly the same principle should exist here. If the Commission acquire powers which are wider than the powers allowed by Statute, the proper course is to dispose of what is surplus to those willing to buy.
LORD HACKING: May I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, what would happen if the Commission had to take over an undertaking which was partly concerned with manufacturing bodies for home and partly for the export trade? It would be very difficult to divide that.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think so, and that is an additional argument for what my noble friend, Lord Hacking, has been urging. This is a special case, but these are the points I wanted to make. I do not wish to detain your Lordships at this most unusual hour, but I hope that I have made plain the reason why I commend in principle the Amendment of the noble Lord. On the other hand, the reason I myself put the case of chassis and bodies is that it is a special case which is entitled to the special provision which it is proposed should be made in this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I intervene for a moment to ask the guidance of the Lord Chairman. The noble and learned Viscount, by introducing his Amendment to the Amendment which is to be moved by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has widened the discussion past chassis and bodies into the field covered by the Amendments which I have upon the Order Paper. May I ask, my Lord Chairman, whether you will allow these to be discussed now, or whether you will leave it until the chassis and the bodies have been cleared away?
VISCOUNT SIMON: I understood it was the general wish of the House—certainly it was indicated by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House—that we should, on Lord Brabazon's Amendment, survey the whole field. This, of course, includes what the noble Lord opposite has proposed. I hope I have not been going round
356
that understanding, but I thought it was regarded as being the convenient thing to do.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I now speak on the Amendments that I have on the Order Paper. The noble Viscount, quite rightly, has pointed out that, as subsection (3) of Clause 2 stands, the Commission can, by acquiring a concern, engage in activities far removed from the purpose for which the Transport Commission has been set up. The noble Viscount has mentioned farms, but these activities can range over a huge field from roadside cafes to farms, greengrocery and merchanting, and I know of no sphere of activity so diversified as those ancillary to road haulage. The main point of that was the intention of my first Amendment.
The second Amendment in my name on the Order Paper is an alternative, because if there is one activity closely allied to road haulage it is the motor trade, the reason being that, one largely sprang from the other and the other from the one. My information is that 58 per cent. of the road haulage contractors operating ten vehicles and over (which are largely those to be acquired under this Bill) engage in all the activities, to a major or minor degree, of the motor trade, ranging from selling new and used vehicles, wholesale and retail, retailing spare parts, retailing motor cars for the general public, and owning and retailing petrol and oil from filling stations. I know that it is not the Government's intention to nationalize either retail distribution in general or the retail motor trade in particular. I would beg the Government not to dismiss this as being a light matter, it is a very serious matter, and one which has far wider ramifications than arc apparent. I will not mention names, but some of the largest retail distributive concerns in the motor trade are owned at the present time by the railway companies, via Pickfords and people of that description. It is quite obvious that they will divorce themselves from acquisition.
But you come right down the scale, from firms that are doing a turnover to-day of £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 a year, to the concerns the noble Viscount mentioned, owning perhaps one petrol pump in the village. But between those two extremes it is a sizeable thing, and I do suggest that it is not the intention of the Government to bring those concerns

357
under this Bill, and for the National Transport Commission to engage in buying and soiling the secondhand cars of noble Lords opposite, or repairing their motor cars or selling their petrol. I do not know what my noble friend the Leader of the House will do, but the two Amendments down in my name cover those points, one in general terms and one in specific terms. I think they should be covered, as well as the other activities mentioned by the noble Viscount; because we all know that these haulage contractors have, as I have said before, a great diversity of occupations. You see on every road wayside cafes— "Reg's Rendezvous," "Alf's Arbour," or something like that. Surely it is not the intention of the National Transport Commission to nationalize and enter into that class of trade. I do not know what my noble friend the Leader of the House will do, but if he will accept the principle of this Amendment, I am quite satisfied.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to add one word with the object of clarification of the debate. I begin by saying that I fully agree, so far as I understand them, with the various propositions that have been put forward by my noble friend Viscount Simon. I also thought I understood the proposed Amendments by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The matter which I think requires clarification in any drafting Amendments which are agreed is the true meaning of the words" use for the purpose of the Commission's undertaking," because I have a very strong conviction that my noble friend Viscount Simon uses that phrase in a different way from that in which it is used by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The words appear in two places: in paragraph (a) of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and in the third line of paragraph (b) of the same Amendment.
I do not think everybody has realized—though the noble Lord who has just spoken does—that the Bill is not concerned with transferring to the Commission railway and road haulage alone; it also transfers to the Commission all undertakings—with exceptions that need not be mentioned here—which are possessed by any of the persons whose general undertakings are acquired by the Commission under the terms of the Bill. That is to be found in Clause 2, subsection (3). Their
358
powers are there defined (they may be altered later on of course) as, subject to the provisions of the Bill, to
"carry on any activities, whether mentioned in subsection (I) of this section or not, which were theretofore carried on for the purposes of that undertaking or part of an undertaking, or were authorized by any statutory provision…."
Therefore they are acquiring the businesses prima facie of a quantity of companies and bodies and activities of a most multifarious kind—Is my noble friend opposite has pointed out. Among those activities and those uses are the manufacturing of things and, selling of them. Prima facie, when you get the words,
"The Commission s riot have power—(a) to construct or manufacture anything which is not required either for use for the purposes of their undertaking or for the fulfilment of a contract,"
you are in effect saying that the Commission are to have power—if one of the bodies whose undertaking has been bought had power, which it always had—to use vehicles, to crake vehicles, bodies or chassis, to sell those to the public, to compete with them and to do anything they like that the previous company could do.
All I am intervening for now is to say: For goodness sake lit us make it clear what meaning is attributed to the words "for use for the purposes of their undertaking." I venture to think, with great respect, that different noble Lords have been using that phrase with different intentions as to its meaning. Others have argued what the Government should do, and there are other noble Lords who will no doubt add to that question. I confine my intervention simply to the observation: Let t s know, in any Amendments which we pass, exactly what we mean.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I just ask my noble and learned friend this? Does he not understand, "for the purposes of their undertaking" as meaning for the purposes of exercising powers which the Commission are given in Clause 2?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I would not have thought so. I would have thought that subsection (3) means something acquired by them.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I certainly do not propose to intervene in an interpretation between two ex-Lord Chancellors,

359
but I confess that I had the same impression as that of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, as to what these words really referred to; I cannot go beyond that. There were two or three issues generally discussed in this group of Amendments, and I will do my hest, without repeating myself any more than I can avoid, to reply to them. First, let me thank the noble and learned Viscount for his remarks about the Amendment, or at all events about my good intentions, to which I tried to give effect in the Amendment I put down in fulfilment of the pledge I gave on the Second Reading. Subject to certain qualifications which the noble and learned Viscount attaches to it, I think on the whole he accepts that paragraph (a) does bona fide give effect to that promise. I am advised, with regard to the criticism he makes as to power held directly or indirectly, that the noble Viscount has a good point; it may be that the control of a concern may be acquired indirectly. I can say to the noble and learned Viscount that there is no intention or desire to use the power indirectly, any more than there is directly. I understand it needs rather more words than those to give effect to it, but I will undertake to give effect to it, and perhaps we can confer with the noble Viscount as to precisely what the words should be.
With regard to the second, I am not very clear, because it is a fact that some of the concerns that would be taken over under subsection (3) would have as part of their ordinary business a number of these ancillary jobs to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has referred. It would not be sense that they should simply be thrown on to the scrap heap or brought to a standstill. There must be some practical sensible way by which the Commission can divest themselves of duties which are not proper to their undertaking.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That is what my third Amendment was intended to cover.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I understand that, and the discussions which I hope to have with our advisers between now and the Report stage are intended to cover that particular point as well. But it is clearly not sensible that the Commission, having acquired an undertaking, a part of whose business was not road haulage or whatever it might be, should expect to have to throw it on the scrap heap and to
360
abandon it, because naturally they would not expect a fair value for it if they did. It must be done in a sensible and fair way, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will not press the point now. I will acid to my Amendment words to cover that particular type of case.
Now I come to the biggest difficulty of all, the controversy about chassis and bodies. I have already said that in the animated interchange of question and answer which went on before the adjournment I was guilty of making some statements which require revision. But I find that when my right honourable friend in another place gave the pledge referred to, subsection (3) was then in the Bill, and the statement referred to the new power of the Commission. All I can say is that it was new to me when the noble Viscount mentioned it, and I will certainly have it looked into in all good faith. My Amendment under (b) was intended to limit the power acquired by the taking over of a concern that was in fact manufacturing chassis; it was intended not only to prevent their being sold but to prevent the extent of their manufacture—namely, by limiting it to that of the previous twelve months. That is why those words were included.
With regard to the question of bodies, my right honourable friend is unwilling to accept, as I said before, a veto on bodies because of the different circumstances attached to them. He has told me that he is desirous of entering into negotiations with those concerned to see whether an acceptable form of Amendment cannot be arrived at with regard to bodies. I cannot go any further than that to-night. With that undertaking I hope the noble Lord will not ask us to insert the word "bodies", because it may prejudice the negotiations. As to the pledge to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has referred, all I can say is that the matter shall be looked into in entire good faith.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The debate which we have had, and the helpful speech the Leader of the House has just made to us, I think shows how wise was his advice that we should take a full debate on the whole of these dozen or so Amendments, and I think the ground has now been covered fairly and fully. As I see it, there are really two issues before us here in regard to what we shall do with this clause and all the Amendments to it, and I do

361
not believe that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will differ from either of the proposals I am going to make, or that he will not agree completely with the conclusions I draw from them. The first is that whatever pledges have been given must be kept, and I am sure they will be; but the other, and I was going to say the more important—nothing, however, is more important than carrying out Parliamentary pledges—but equally important, at any rate, is that the Commission should do what is best in the interests of the transport of this country in the vast job which it is going to assume.
I am sure the Leader of the House will believe that in what I am going to say on that head I am not thinking for one moment about the nationalization of this or that industry; I am simply speaking from all my experience, administrative and business, of what I believe is the real interest of a transport undertaking, whether it be a nationalized undertaking or a private enterprise undertaking. The aim should be to give the best results in transport, and the best results to the community. I want to say only one word about the pledges. With regard to chassis quite frankly I regard that pledge as absolute. I think that anybody hearing that pledge given—I will not quote it again; it was read out by Lord Hacking—would understand it to mean that the Commission would not manufacture chassis at all except for experimental purposes. It was absolute. The Leader of the House has said that when that pledge was given subsection (3) was in the Bill. Of course it was, but I draw the exactly opposite conclusion from that which the Leader of the House has drawn. It was because there was that apparent discrepancy between subsection (2) and subsection (3) that the question arose. If the words had been perfectly general words, and we had never had that funny little phrase "shall not by virtue of this subsection," but it had simply read "shall not manufacture chassis except for experimental purposes," the question would never have arisen.
LORD HACKING: I happen to have the quotation in front of me, and when the Leader of the House said that subsection (3) was still in the Bill, and that the members of another place knew it was in the Bill, that is quite true; but so did the Minister know it was in the Bill,
362
because the Minister was then dealing with the first eleven clauses of the Bill that deal with the powers and duties of the British Transport Commission, and he gave one of the limitations to its powers. He knew it was in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that confirms what I have said. The question could not have arisen if there had not been that apparent discrepancy in the undertaking that was given: the undertaking that the Commission will not manufacture chassis except for experimental purposes. Indeed, I think it would be something rather like sharp practice, or, shall I say, curiously inconsistent and illogical, if you took over 95 per cent. of whit you are going to take over, by parts 3, 4, and 5 of the Schedules, or whatever they are, and said that all those things that were to vest in you would be subject to one form of limitation, while something acquired by a side wind was to be subject to another. It would be almost as though one limitation was applied to what you acquired by hook while another was applied to what you acquired by crook. I think that the limitation was perfectly plain, and I feel sure that on consideration the noble Viscount will feel that he must give effect to it and make the limitation absolute.
With regard to bodies, I agree that there was no pledge—I do not think anybody contends that there was. No pledge was given about that in another place at all. The noble Viscount, the Leader of this House, gave an undertaking here that when we came to the Committee stage he would put down an Amendment to ensure that the Commission should only manufacture for use. That is not complicated by the chassis distinction. I consider that the Leader of the House has fully implemented the pledge which he gave about limitation of manufacture for use. That is all I want to say about the pledges themselves.
But in all these circumstances, these very complicated circumstances, what is the wise thing for the Commission to do? There is the manufacture by this or that undertaking of chassis or of bodies, or of new developments such as we have heard to-day. We have heard of a body which does not require a chassis but is somehow integrated into itself These things are all developments of one kind or another. Many of these matters were referred to

363
by the the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in the very interesting speech which he made. I say, frankly, that I think the railways not only had the right but were right to engage in motor transport. In view of the way in which things were acquired, I do not think there was any other way of doing it. But I think the railways themselves would say that they got hold of far more than they really wanted. It does happen like that. If you want to buy a share or the whole of a transport undertaking you may well find that you have to buy everything that goes with it. You may, as Lord Lucas said, find yourself obliged to buy a caravanserai or an hotel. You often have to take junk along with what you want. You may also have to take something that is not junk at all, but something that is quite alien to your purpose.
Now this Commission is going to have far and away the biggest job of its kind ever given to an undertaking. I pray that they may not fall down in carrying it out, but I really do shudder at the size of the undertaking which it is proposed they should acquire. If, to all that, they are to add the manufacture of this or that, or the retailing of this or that, they will never get on with the job of transport. I, in my own business experience, have had perhaps my greatest success in disintegrating businesses, rather than in integrating them. I hope that the Commission will have learned a little from some of the mistakes which private enterprise made after the last war. There were businesses which grew far too large. They acquired every sort of thing conceivable, many of which things were quite unnecessary. This was partly the result of megalomania and partly due to the mistaken idea that if you engaged in one form of enterprise you ought to engage in every form of ancillary enterprise that served it. Nearly all those businesses had to be reconstructed and recast. All the surplus stuff which was not essential had to he got rid of.
Let me give the illustration of Vickers. Under the Chairmanship of Sir Archibald Jamieson it was reorganized: this was discarded, and that was got rid of to somebody else; and the result was that Vickers again became a great success. That story can be repeated over and over again. I have absolutely no doubt that the right thing for this Commission to do is to con-
364
centrate upon transport, and to avoid taking over, in the first instance, anything which is not transportation; and if they cannot avoid taking it over, to get rid of it as soon as possible. I know people think they can be very good manufacturers but I do not know any transport system which is a good manufacturer. I want to have the world to go and buy from, and to choose the best. As soon as you begin to manufacture, you may think you have something good—and certainly your engineers will think you have—but you become a tied house. You want to be able to go where you can buy most efficiently. You may engage in research, but I am sure it is folly to engage in manufacture. When the Lord President, Mr. Herbert Morrison, was passing the London Transport Bill (it fell to my lot in another Government to complete the work he began, and I was told that I was the only person who could get it through another place—one of the sins on my head!) he wisely provided that manufacture should be discarded. I am sure the London Passenger Transport Board to-day would not take on manufacture if you offered it to them.
I have been, and am, concerned with great electrical power undertakings. If you paid me a million I would not go into the manufacturing business. It would he madness. I want to buy where I can buy best. We buy our boilers from Babcock and Wilcox. We would be fools to manufacture. I am convinced this is a sound policy for this Transport Bill. Do not clutter up transport with all these industries which have nothing to do with transport. I beg the Government, in giving effect to their pledge, without having any prejudice in their minds about this, to take it back and reconsider it to see if the wise thing is not to discard the idea of manufacture, which they did not want to undertake, but had to, simply because of acquiring certain ancillary undertakings which they want to get rid of. If they do not get rid of them, these undertakings will lead them deeper into the mud. If this Bill is to succeed it must be transport and transport alone; manufacture must be done by the manufacturers, whether it is nationalized industry or not.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: This very interesting discussion, culminating in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord

365
Swinton, on his business activities and political career, has left me, as I have no doubt it has left many other noble Lords, in a position in which we are not quite clear what we are going to do. I apologize for having moved my Amendment because it is so very simple. It is quite true that no pledge was given about bodies, so that it would satisfy me if the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, would just limit the number by his subsequent Amendment. The point is: is he ever to get his Amendment? We have just had an Appeal made to say we shall not manufacture chassis at all, and if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is passed, we cannot at the same time have part (b) of the Amendment of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
That is the trouble I am getting into in the matter, and I do not quite follow how we are going to get out of this trouble. Perhaps a lead from the Leader of
the House, or from the Leader of the Opposition. may tell us what we are to decide, or settle how we are to meet the situation. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, comes after mine, and that will decide whether or riot the second part of the Amendment of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can be put in, because it becomes a definite contradiction if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is carried. Perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will inform us what procedure we are to follow.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is true that if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is carried, it would not be possible for me to move the whole of my Amendment. I was acting on the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, would not move his Amendment.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: Optimist!
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I was trying to carry out an undertaking, and when I put my Amendment on the Order Paper, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was not there.
LORD GIFFORD: Earlier in the debate on this clause, I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, a question that I thought important. I asked for a definition of a chassis.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid I must refer the noble Lord to the experts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have got into an extremely difficult position, although I do not say that it was not wise to have this general debate. It has cleared the air a good deal, but we are left with the result that it has cleared the air almost too much. We have to take into account the pledge given by the Minister in another place, into which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said he would look further. He has given us all the issues which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and, as a result, we are left in a position where we cannot vote on any of the existing Amendments. I suggest, with all deference to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, that it would be by far the best plan, if, in the light of this discussion, he considered the whole question raised by this discussion to see whether he could not produce another amendment which would meet all the points that were raised. I do not think it would be possible, even now, to vote first on one Amendment and then on another.
It would perhaps be possible for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to take the original wording of part (a) of his Amendment, and then part (a) with the Amendments to it moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and leave out part (b) That would meet the case to a certain extent. The effect of that would be to prevent the Commission from constructing or manufacturing anything which was required, either directly or indirectly, for purposes other than their undertaking; and it would wash out the part which deals with the manufacture of chassis beyond the pre-Bill standard of the undertakings they are taking over. That would give effect to the Minister's pledge in another place which said they should not be manufactured. That would be one way of dealing with it.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? Something would have to be put in instead of the second part; otherwise they would be able to manufacture as much as they like.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that if we carried the first part of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, as amended by the noble Vis-

367
count, Lord Simon, and did not pass (b), with the definite understanding that on Report the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would put down an Amendment, affecting the manufacture of chassis and also the number of bodies to be manufactured—on which he has not given a commitment—the Amendment might be withdrawn.
LORD HACKING: Certainly on that undertaking.
LORD BRABAZON of TARA: Could we not get some decision except on Report? We have dealt with only four pages of the Bill, and we have already referred about six matters to the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think the statement of the noble Lord is accurate, but still it is picturesque. I think the suggestion of the noble Viscount is really a way out of this tangle. There seems to be general agreement, subject to the Amendments suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that paragraph (a) of my Amendment is desirable and carries out the undertaking, and it would prevent the manufacture of chassis, bodies or anything else, except for the purposes of the undertaking. If your Lordships would like it, we can accept that Amendment. I would not proceed with paragraph (b), on the definite understanding that by the usual negotiations we should arrive at an Amendment to be dealt with on the Report stage covering both chassis and bodies; and we shall use our best efforts to get some kind of agreement. As to that I cannot say any more. If that suggestion commends itself to your Lordships, I think it is the best way out. We may leave the other Amendments on that understanding. May I say, with regard to the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that I accept the words "directly or indirectly" at the beginning. I am not quite sure whether the words at the end would not be too comprehensive as they are, because I am advised that they might have to carry on some activities for a time. Perhaps the noble Viscount will not ask me to accept that for the moment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should be content to accept that on this Committee stage, it being understood that we would look further into it. If the noble Viscount
368
thinks fit to ask the House to accept his own Amendment, so far as paragraph (a) is concerned, adding "directly or indirectly" after the word "power," I think that we have made a little progress. I would reserve, as the noble Viscount would reserve, the question of whether there was not something else to be added.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I make one suggestion to meet the difficulty to which the noble Viscount referred about the carrying on of activities by an acquired undertaking? It seems to me that instead of saying, "the Commission shall not have power either directly or indirectly," we could say, "neither the Commission nor an acquired undertaking shall have power either directly or indirectly."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this is a satisfactory way out of our difficulties. I would make it clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that we must reserve our position until we see the amended form. There is also one thing I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who was a little critical just now. He said that we postponed everything to the Report stage. The truth is that we in this House do not like to divide against each other if it can possibly be avoided. Our method since the beginning of this Parliament always has been to try and get nearer and nearer; and if we do not get near enough on Committee stage, we try to get nearer to each other between it and the Report stage. I really think that is the most satisfactory way from the point of view of the House as a whole. I am obliged to say that, because the noble Lord's words might give the impression that the House of Lords was funking the issues or was not doing its job properly. I think it is doing its job admirably.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I understand that on Third Reading in your Lordships' House we can also move Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Only if notice is given.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I would point out to the noble Lord that we have substantially amended Clause I, and that is not being referred to the Report stage.

369
That is a very substantial and highly important Amendment. I understand that the Motion is that after the word "power" in my Amendment we should accept the words of the noble Viscount, "either directly or indirectly." As to the rest we will discuss the form of words later.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Can I help my noble friend by thanking him very much for the assurance he has given that he accepts the principle in my Amendments; and to make the way clear I will not move them.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HACKING: I do not wish to move my Amendment, on the undertaking that has been given.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move the first part of my Amendment with the addition of the words "either directly or indirectly." I do not move part (b).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that, notwithstanding anything in this subsection or in any subsequent provision of this Act, or in any scheme, order or regulations made under any such provision, the Commission shall not have power either directly or indirectly—
(a) to construct or manufacture anything which is not required either for use for the purposes of their undertaking or for the fulfilment of a contract made, before the acquisition by the Commission of the undertaking or part of an undertaking, by the person theretofore carrying it on; or."—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not move my Amendments to the noble Viscount's Amendment, on the understanding that the points are still open and will be further considered.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of the undertaking given by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, I withdraw my Amendment on page 5, line 8.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next Amendment makes it rather more watertight. It adds at the end of line 22, "other than the proviso to subsection (3)."However, that may be subsequently modified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
370
Page 5, line 22, after ("section") insert ("other than the proviso to subsection (3)").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This Amendment is purely formal.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, after ("by") insert ("or under").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I feel a little doubt as to whether, when we read the words which we have inserted, the subsection will agree with the rest of the Bill, because of the provision which has now been made in the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. At first blush it looks as though there was something inconsistent.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I Will certainly look into that, but I was advised that the words tidied up the proviso.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [General duty of the Commission]:
LORD ROCHDALEmoved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Where the Commission intend to discontinue permanently the provision of any regular goods transport service by road between any particular points, they shall, before discontinuing that service, give not less than one month's notice of their intention, in such manner as appears to them best suited for bringing that intention to the notice of the persons who, in the opinion of the Commission, are likely to be directly affected by the discontinuance."
The noble Lord said: In explaining this Amendment I would like to draw attention to the bottom of the page in the Bill where it mentions the fact that where different forms of transport are provided by the Commission the users may choose which type of transport they like. On the other hand there is no obligation on the part of the Commission either to retain any particular form of transport or to add any form, and it has been frequently represented by the Ministry and elsewhere that there are probably a number of cases throughout the country where there are services that are unnecessary, redundant or overlapping.
It would seem obvious that one of the tasks of the Commission, when they come to carry out their directing to form an integrated transport service, would be to have a survey of all the transport services with a view to arriving at a decision as

371
to which of the various services can be cut as unnecessary. And it would seem extremely likely that the axe would fall in a large number of cases on regular road transport services. This Amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that in cases where these services are to be cut out there should be a pause or time lag of one month, so as to enable the existing users of these services to consider the alterations and to make representations to the Consultative Committees, and from them to the Commission, and also to make other arrangements for their own transport requirements. I want to emphasize that this Amendment refers only to alterations to regular road services and to an absolute cancellation of them. It does not refer to cases where services may be cancelled merely because of bad weather or shortage of fuel or black-out, or any purely temporary cancellation. Without this Amendment it does seem that users of transport would be embarrassed if they found suddenly that their services were removed from them, and that they had no tune to make representations or other arrangements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—.
Page 6, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochdale.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I would like to support what my friend Lord Rochdale has said, because I think it is a reasonable and very simple request that the Commission should give one month's notice before discontinuing the service. But I would like to point out one further point; that is that in fact the Commission are incurring no legal liability by accepting this clause at all. If your Lordships would look at subsection (4) it will be seen that nothing shall be considered. either directly or indirectly, as forming any liability enforceable before any court; so that the liability incurred by the Commission in accepting this subsection is really not very great. However, I think it is a convenience to the general public which the Legislature has a right to request from the Commission.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the noble Lord and the noble Earl have outlined this Amendment so clearly that very little remains for me to do beyond saying that the Government attach considerable importance to this Amendment, and they are obliged to both the noble Lord and the
372
noble Earl for having put it forward. On their behalf I have pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) In the performance of the duty imposed by this section of providing an efficient and economical system of transport of goods the Commission shall have regard to the facilities available for that purpose by the appointment of road transport clearing houses as agents of the Commission."
The noble Lord said: my Amendment, like the one last moved, is a short and simple little one, and not so complicated as that to which we have listened since we resumed after the adjournment. It seeks only to get the Commission to have regard to the facilities available and made available by the Road Transport Clearing Houses. The Road Transport Clearing Houses, both before the war and certainly during the war, when I knew of their activities, performed a useful service. They were there to clear what goods were available for transport, to tell the traders what transport was available for the goods, and to see that the goods were put on the appropriate lorries going to the place where it was sought to take them. I think that this Commission should have regard to those facilities.
These bodies, as I say, did extremely good work to my own knowledge during the war. They have done it for a long time, and what your Lordships have got to bear in mind, if I may suggest it, is this: that a lorry does not always have a complete load, and it wants some clearing house so that it can go with a complete load. These road clearing houses accept the goods, and make the arrangements on which they shall be transported by a partly empty lorry that is going in the direction in which it is necessary to take the goods. I do not say they will have any real function to perform between the railways and the Government's own long-distance hauliers; but we are still going to leave, whether with just a forty-mile limit or whether with an extended one—that is for subsequent discussion in this House—a certain number of local road hauliers. They should have some place to take the long-distance goods; and the clearing house which will make the provision to take them on from the local collection, which will largely be done by these people with a small radius of activity, should put them

373
on the long-distance transport system, to take them to their ultimate destination. I hope all this will not be sought to be done by some new Government office, because if so, human nature being what it is, the little local short-range haulier might not get very much chance. His goods might very well be held up. Some other goods collected by the Government system to go into this stream might get some priority, and the goods collected by the people who are going to be restricted to the short-range activities might not go into the stream in the proper way.
These road transport clearing houses have done an extremely good job in the past. To my knowledge they did it in the war. All my Amendment seeks to do—and if it does anything beyond this it is wrongly worded—is to draw the attention of the Commission to these services so that they may make use of them wherever they are the proper services to use. I do not say that the Commission should be bound to accept the services of every road transport clearing house. If my Amendment means that it goes too far. All I want to say is that in all appropriate cases this machinery, which has proved itself both in peace and in war, should be made use of. In these circumstances I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11 at end, insert the said subsection.— (Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord said that his Amendment was a simple one, and I am bound to say that I agree with most of what he said. But there was a matter which he did not explain, although I think it may have been in his mind because he referred to it in almost the last sentence of his speech. He rather suggested, I gathered, that perhaps he might have gone too far. What he did not explain was why, in view of the fact that at least some members of the Commission will be people of very considerable experience in transport, he had some reason for thinking that this matter would be overlooked by the Commission to such an extent that it was necessary, in his view, to put down a special instruction in the Bill drawing the attention of the Commission to the fact that there are road transport clearing houses which serve a very useful purpose.
374
I am advised that the Amendment might effect more than the noble Lord intends. The noble Lord said he did not desire to press his Amendment if his words might be held to place upon the Commission an obligation to make use of the facilities in question. The noble Lord, I think, specifically said that that was not his intention. Clearly, this is a matter in which the Commission must be entirely free to do as they think best. I am therefore unable to accept the Amendment, though I do not say that the noble Lord has given no reason why this should be specially drawn to the attention of the Commission. Perhaps, in view of that explanation the noble Lord may not desire to press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I thank the noble Lord but I can assure him that these people are feeling rather anxious. There is no doubt about that. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport I came into contact with them, and I know what good service they did. Now they are wondering if they will not be overlooked, and it would give them considerable satisfaction if some special mention could be made of them in this measure. I quite see that the words of my Amendment may be thought to go a little too far. But, as I said, these people who have done very good work are most anxious that they shall not be overlooked. I think that perhaps if I could have a few words with the noble Lord opposite between now and the Report stage, we might be able to agree on the inclusion of some reference to them—for instance, by putting in some such words as: "by the appointment, in appropriate cases, of such road transport clearing houses as agents of the Commission." If he would indicate to me that at this stage of the Bill he would be prepared to have a talk with me before Report stage as to whether they could be mentioned, so that it would bring them to the notice of the Commission, then I would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: I am quite willing to explore with the noble Lord the possibility of any middle way between not mentioning them at all and specifically drawing attention to them, to see whether something on the lines he suggested could be introduced.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not see what the middle way is between the two. What I suggested was that we might mention them without putting any definite compulsion on the Commission to employ them but giving them the right to the service on appropriate occasions. But on the noble Lord's promise to look at it, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Powers of the Minister in relation to the Commission.
4.—(I) The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
(2) In framing programmes of reorganisation or development involving substantial outlay on capital account, the Commission shall act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister.
(3) In the exercise and performance of their functions as to training, education and research, the Commission shall act on lines settled as aforesaid.
(5) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section, the Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, direct the Commission to discontinue any of their activities, dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any securities held by them, call in any loan made by them or exercise any power they may possess to revoke any guarantee given by them, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (I), to leave out "which appear to him to." The noble Lord said: I do not know if the Leader of the House is still here. If not, I am in a position of some embarrassment, because I have some questions I particularly wish to direct to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships wish to proceed or whether we should adjourn. I had better proceed and if the questions cannot be answered to-night they can be answered tomorrow. Subsection (I) of this clause reads:
(1) The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions."
376
That provision is one which I think supports my contention that the Minister will have a great deal more than he ought to do with the day-to-day running of transport. My Amendment is one which was put down in another place and was not called and therefore has never been discussed. The point was referred to on Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, speaking with the full authority of the Front Bench, gave us some confirmation affecting this point. Lord Nathan, speaking of the Minister, said:
"He also has power to give, from time to time, general directions if in his opinion the national interest requires it. I believe I may say for him that that is a power he will exercise sparingly. Indeed, he must necessarily do so, because it is a power which can be exercised only when, in his view, the national interest requires it."
The noble Lord went on to say:
"Those words, 'Where in his opinion the national interest requires it,' are very stringent words of limitation. They are not words of extension; they are words Which limit the power of authority of the Minister."
A moment later Lord Nathan gave us an example which in his opinion would justify the Minister in making use of this power. He said that the Minister would be justified in considering it in the national interest that he should give the railways instructions to grant precedence and priority to the conveyance of coal in such circumstances as the recent emergency and fuel crisis.
The questions that I want to put to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House are: Does he accept that interpretation which was given from the Front Bench on the Second Reading? It will be noticed that the words do not entirely correspond with the words which were used by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, but this, of course, is the clause to which he was referring—with a slight difference of wording. What I want to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is this: Does he agree that this is, in fact, a power which the Minister will use sparingly? Does the noble Viscount agree that these are words of limitation? Because I do not think they are. Finally, does the noble Viscount the Leader of the House accept the example of the coal crisis as being the sort of thing which would justify the intervention of the Minister under these powers to give directions in matters which affect the national interest. If the noble Viscount does not accept that

377
example, would he kindly give us other examples of the sort of thing which would justify the Minister in intervening under this clause? The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is now here. I am sorry that I had to ask these questions when he was not here, but the questions are quite brief and if the noble Viscount would like me to repeat them I will.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes, please.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would remind your Lordships that we are dealing with my Amendment to Clause (4) Subsection (1), and I mentioned the reference which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan made on Second Reading. I asked the noble Viscount the Leader of the House if he would tell us whether he agrees that these words "which appear to him to affect the national interest" are words of stringent limitation, or whether he thinks that they would justify the Minister in intervening in circumstances other than those of extreme crisis? If the noble Viscount does not agree with that view, perhaps he would give us other examples of the sort of occasion on which the Minister would be justified in intervening. If the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was right in what he said, then I think it is perfectly clear the Government have no option but to accept the Amendment which stands in my name. That would have the effect of leaving this tremendous issue of whether the matter affected the national interest, which is of grave import, a matter which could be brought before the Court. If Lord Nathan was wrong (as with great respect, I think perhaps he was) then I think the words in the clause give the Minister far too great a power of intervention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("appeal to him to").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I feel a great deal of sympathy with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, although, at the same time, I see that it is a difficult point. It works out practically in this way. If we keep these words then, in effect, the decision of the Minister that a matter affects the national interest to such a degree that it is right this most exceptional and violent power should be used, ends the matter. It is well understood that
378
wherever an Act of Parliament says that something may be done if, in the opinion of "X", a condition is satisfied, the question is not whether the Court or the Court of Appeal is satisfied, or whether the evidence might show the contrary; the question is what is the opinion of "X." That is the end of it. There are many such cases, of course, where the whole discretion is given to the person who originally expresses the view.
Manifestly, if you have an expression which says "in the opinion of so arid so the situation is such and such," you do not do any good by appealing, however violent the view may be, because the court will say, and say quite rightly: "It is not for us to say. The question is as to what is the language of Acts". It cannot be denied that that may be a very extreme provision. I see, on the other hand, the difficulty—it is a difficulty; one must be quite candid about it—of substituting different words. It will need a good deal of thinking about, and I intervene only to say that, for my part, I do sympathize with what has been said by the noble Lord who has just spoken, because you may have someone (I do not say that you have) who exercises this discretion in much too free a way; and if you keep the words as they appear there is no means at all by which he can be legally controlled. I will, therefore, listen with the closest attention to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has to say about it. Frankly, I consider there is considerable difficulty, however it is dealt with.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House previously asked me to reply to this point. Much of the reply I was going to give has already been given by the noble and learned Viscount in what he has just said, in directing attention to the fact that if a question has to be decided as to whether or not a certain action is necessary in the national interest, the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be that the decision would be transferred from the Executive of the Government to the Judiciary. As the noble and learned Viscount has just said, he does not think that any Judge would feel competent to decide that question.
VISCOUNT SIMON: No, I did not say that.
LORD MORRISON: The effect of acceptance of the Amendment would be that any direction given by the Minister would be subject to challenge in the courts, either by the Commission or by anybody else. This would lead to delay and uncertainty. If, for example—and this was the example which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, gave—a coal crisis were unhappily to occur again, and the Minister were to issue a general direction that priority be given to the movement of coal, some disgruntled passenger might, by taking legal proceedings, delay effect being given to such a direction. The question of whether or not a direction relates to the national interest must rest with the Executive arm of the Government and is not appropriate to the Judiciary. The present subsection conforms to all recent precedents, and the real safeguard against abuse is the obligation, first, to consult with the Commission, and, secondly, that a direction has been given that it must be published unless it is against the interests of security. Publication will ensure that the subject matter of any direction can be fully debated in Parliament.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With the very greatest respect, we cannot leave the matter like that. We were told on Second
Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with all the authority of the Government Front Bench, that he could assure us that the Minister was going to use this power sparingly. I do ask the noble Viscount, or somebody speaking for him, to tell us whether that is so. I do think it is time we began to get to grips with the relationship of the Minister, the Commission and the Executives. What is to be the difference in policy making? The noble Viscount told me at an earlier stage to-day that it was not the moment to deal with it. Is it now the moment to state whether or not the Minister is going to use these powers sparingly or not? Is the example of the fuel crisis—it was not given by me, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison said, but by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—a correct example of the sort of moment to intervene or not? If it is not, what are examples of occasions on which the Minister is to intervene?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to support my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in what he has said,
380
and in doing so I would quote what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said in the course of Second Reading. He said:
"I myself, I think I may say, have in no wise exercised my powers, because of that very proper limitation noon the exercise of them."
I think anyone who has had any dealings whatsoever with any of the three corporations knows that the influence of the Ministry of Civil Aviation is present with him the whole time. One thing I do ask, whatever we decide, is that we should make it quite clear what exactly the Minister has to do with this Commission. The Minister may question this point, and I would ask one question of him alone. He says that he exercises his powers in a very limited way. Why is it that no member of the Corporation can go to a manufacturing firm without being accompanied by a representative of his Ministry? Is that upon his instructions, or is it not? I do not know which it is, but I am told that that is a situation which exists at the present time. I do ask that we try and define exactly what the Minister has to do.
LORD NATHAN: As it is a statement made by me to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has referred, perhaps I may be allowed to make some observations upon it. I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, without entering into the questions to which he refers with regard to ordering aircraft, that such things have not been as a result of any order made by me by virtue of my statutory powers. The statutory powers that are in my Act are analogous and I think in the precise terms of the powers vested in the Minister as set out in Clause 4 (1) of this Bill. I stated on Second Reading that these powers will be used sparingly, and I stated that on the authority of the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Transport, speaking as I was for the Government.
I stated that the words "matters which appear to him to affect the national interest" were words of limitation. If the. noble Lord who moved this Amendment will read the subsection with the omission of those words, he will see how stringent that limitation is. Those words involve the Minister on each occasion, in considering whether or not to make an order, in asking himself this vital question: Does this matter affect the

381
national interest? If those words were not there he would be able to act on his own judgment alone. I gave an example to your Lordships as to how, speaking in general terms, I thought that that power might be exercised in a particular instance, and I repeat that I believe the example I gave to have been an example apt in the circumstances of the case. Speaking from this place I confirm what I said upon that occasion.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I really fail so understand how what is an enabling subsection can possibly be described as a restrictive one. This begins, "The Minister may," and if those words were not there presumably the Minister could not. Therefore, it must be an enlarging and an enabling clause. But I cannot help thinking that we are getting on to the most vital and, in some ways, the constitutionally difficult part of the Bill. The Commission which have been set up have enormous powers, but now, when we come to this question, apparently the Commission are not to be trusted. Surely the Commission, with their sense of responsibility, will interfere, and will interfere with good reason when the national interest is affected; but instead of going by the responsibility of the Commission you want to go simply by the inner consciousness of the Minister, and I submit that this ought not to be allowed. As we are getting into these matters I should have thought it was almost time the House resumed.
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I quite shortly add a few words on these Amendments? I find myself in complete agreement with the Government on the first Amendment, as I think do most of my friends on these Benches. That is to say, when it is a question of controlling the action of the Minister the right body to control it is Parliament and not the Law. In other words, you ought to retain the words "which appear to him" and challenge him if he appears to have taken the wrong position. Personally, I view with greater sympathy the two Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, mentioned, which bring the Minister into all sorts of detailed work, reorganization, development, training, education and research. I should be inclined to support those Amendments.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry if I am thought to he perti-
382
nacious, but I am not inclined to accept the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The reason is that the words quoted by him were wrongly quoted. Secondly, I find myself with the greatest respect unable to accept the answer on this matter, because I addressed my question to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. Does he agree with the statement which has been made as to whether the Minister is going to use these powers because the rational interest requires it? Is the Minister going to use them sparingly or not? We are entitled to an answer from the Leader of the House on that.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry I was not in the House in the first place. I can give the noble Lord an unqualified assurance. Yes, it is the intention that the power should be used sparingly. And if these words were omitted. it would mean that in cases where they might be used in an emergency an Executive might be challenged in the courts. It is for Parliament to challenge him. Frankly I hope the noble Lord will not persist, but I give him an unqualified assurance that the powers will be used sparingly.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can the noble Viscount give us one or two examples of the sort of occasions on which the power will be used? Does he think the fuel crisis would be a good example?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think the noble Lord could have given a better example. That is the sort of emergency that might arise.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord. With that assurance I shall be very happy to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not give that as an assurance, I gave it as an illustration, I cannot give an assurance in a form of words on the spur of the moment, but I gave an illustration in good faith. That is the kind of occasion upon which the power would be exercised. I am afraid I cannot no any further.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry that the noble Lord should have gone back a little from the answer which he gave. I should like to make one suggestion at this point as we are

383
dealing with the Commission although it is perhaps a Second Reading matter, and that is as to the name which the Commission should take and the initials which should be put on the transport. I hope the Commission will call itself the National United Transport Service, because I think the initials would not only look extremely well on the engines but would provide a one-word epitome of what I think of this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
FELIXSTOWE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.