HL Deb 10 June 1947 vol 148 cc389-502

2.48 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 4 [Powers of the Minister in relation to the Commission]:

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (1), at the end to insert: Provided that the Minister shall not give to the Commission a direction in relation to any matter the effect of which, taking one year with another, will be or will be likely to be, that the revenue of the Commission will be less than sufficient for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, unless the Minister shall at the time of the giving of such direction notify the Commission that it is given in the interests of national security. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is one which I think is simple and obvious, and I hope will be readily accepted by the Government. Under Clause 3, which we have passed, it is laid down by subsection (3) that all the business carried on by the Commission which forms part of one undertaking—I summarize it—shall be carried on, so that, taking one year with another, the Commission shall be able to discharge all their proper obligations; in a word, shall be able to pay their way.

Clause 4 gives the Minister power to give directions of a. general purpose in the national interest. Without going into the merits of what directions the Minister should be able to give, surely we must all agree on this: that it would be utterly wrong, and I am sure it cannot be the intention of the Government, that the Minister should be able to give to the Commission directions which would override the fundamental principle of Clause 3, that the Commission should pay their way. If that is the intention, as I feel sure it is, it is right and proper that that should be in the Bill. It is a proper direction, if I may so put it, for Parliament to give to the Minister, and it is a desirable safeguard, in his own interests, for a Minister to have. It may be said that Clause 3 governs this. I am sure they are completely disjoined. I do riot offer a lawyer's opinion on that sentence; if it is doubtful, I suggest it should be made clear.

It may also be said that it is the duty of the Commission to frame schemes of charges which will be submitted to the Transport Tribunal in order that they may do the difficult task of combining proper transport facilities with such charges as shall enable them to carry on paying their way. But unless a provision of this kind is put in, it would be possible for the Minister to make—and indeed he may be pressed to give to the Commission—directions which may completely override a scheme which the Commission had presented to the Transport Tribunal, and which the Transport Tribunal had approved. This is what will happen: with great care a scheme of charges has been framed; everybody has been heard before the Tribunal; the matter has been thrashed out; and the Tribunal has given its judgment and fixed a. scale of charges. The Minister then comes and gives a direction which is inconsistent with the scheme which the Tribunal has made. This will throw the whole of the findings of the Commission out of order. What is to happen? Is the direction of the Minister to override the Considered judgment of the Transport Tribunal, which has sat to see that the Commission have the right fares to enable them to pay their way and, at the same time, to safeguard the interests of the public in the provision of adequate facilities? Is the Minister to override that? I do not know how it could work.

The Commission cannot raise their fares without going -back to the Tribunal with a new scheme, but if new duties are put upon them by the Minister, and new obligations which are not covered by the scheme of charges, then one of two things has to happen: the Commission must either completely disregard the Minister's instructions—and I suppose in that case it would be within his competence to remove the Commission and appoint somebody else—or they will carry it out and get hopelessly into debt. That means that the Minister will have to go to Parliament for a subsidy, and, in that case, the whole fundamental principle of Clause 3 —that the Commission shall pay its way —goes by the board. I am quite sure that this is not the sea of difficulties on which the Government wish to launch this unhappy barque, and if it is not, then surely we ought to make it plain by putting in some words (I have no particular affection for my words) that any direction which the Minister gives must be subject to the guiding principle that he must not give the Commission directions which would prevent their paying their way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Viscount began by saying that his Amendment was simple and obvious. I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether he is absolutely certain that the Amendment is also necessary. He said he was not sure, and he quoted Clause 3 which, so far as I understand it, lays it down quite clearly that it would not be competent for the Minister to give a direction to the Commission to contrary effect. In other words, the Amendment seeks to prevent the Minister doing something which he would not be competent to do. I am perfectly sure that the noble Viscount does not wish to put unnecessary words in the Bill, and perhaps he has overlooked that there is yet another clause, Clause 85, to which I would direct his attention, which lays down, again quite clearly, that: Neither the Commission nor the Transport Tribunal shall do anything in the exercise of their respective powers as respects charges and the submission, confirmation, and alteration of charges schemes which in their opinion will prevent the Commission from discharging the Commission's general duty to secure that their revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Will the noble Lord read on, because the very next words in that clause say: or which in their opinion will prevent the Commission from giving effect to any direction of the Minister under any provision of this Act. Therefore, if the Minister had given a direction which ran counter to the first part, they would be in a dilemma, because they would have to obey the Minister.

LORD MORRISON

That was exactly the argument I was trying to develop. Perhaps the noble Viscount will make absolutely certain that his Amendment is necessary, because the Minister, like any other citizen, is compelled to obey the law. It would be impossible for the Minister to give an instruction to the Commission that the Commission could not possibly carry out without breaking the law.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I will refer that to the great lawyers in the House.

VISCOUNT SIMON

It seems to me, from what the noble Lord opposite has just said, that there is really no difference of view between himself, speaking for the Government and my noble friend, Viscount Swinton, in moving his Amendment, as to what the position secured under this Bill ought to be. There is no difference as to that. The noble Lord concedes in his speech, in effect, that the Minister ought not to give a direction, the carrying out of which by the Commission might result in upsetting the balance of expenditure on the one side and income on the other, so that the Commission and their operations are no longer self-supporting.

LORD MORRISON

If the noble Viscount will allow me, my case is that the Amendment is entirely unnecessary.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I meant to imply that; that is to say, there is no difference between the two sides as to what we want. The question is whether the Bill as it is drawn makes it clear (because it is always desirable to be clear) that notwithstanding the very wide powers given to the Minister in Clause 4, that is the result which will be secured. I am afraid I see great difficulty in thinking that it is. This is not a matter especially for lawyers or people trained in the law; it is a matter of careful reading of words and of common sense. If one takes Clause 4, it will not be disputed that, on the face of it it gives the Minister very wide and general powers. I will just read the first words. 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. Observe first that, though he has to consult the Commission, that is merely a preliminary. The Commission may have a different view as to what is wise, but that will not deter the Minister from giving the directions if he thinks he would like to do so. The Commission do not control what the Minister decides at all. Suppose that the Minister, for what he thinks are good and important reasons, gives a direction, the result of which will be greatly to increase the expenditure of the Commission in a given year, perhaps in a series of years. Undoubtedly they would have to pay whatever charges it might be under their main heads of expenditure. I do not deny that the Commission might then be asked, at the same time, to devise a new set of rates and charges in the hope they would get a bigger income to meet the bigger expenditure, but that is not an infallible remedy. One cannot be sure that one can order more and more expenditure and cover it by making higher and higher charges, because there comes a point when the people will not pay the charges, then one will be "in the soup." So I should think that it would be carrying out the admitted intention of the Bill, which is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, if it were made clear that the Minister, in giving these directions, should not give a direction which would have the effect that the revenue of the Commission would be less than sufficient for the meeting of the charges properly chargeable to revenue.

My noble friend has introduced a qualification which he did not mention which I think is quite right. It is: Unless the Minister shall at the time of the giving of such direction notify the Commission that it is given in the interests of national security. If it be absolutely necessary in the interests of national security that this overriding direction should be given, that is provided for in my noble friend's Amendment. Does it not appear to the members of the House that it is very unwise for the Legislature to leave Clause 4, sub- section (1) as it is, which on the face of it gives the Minister, whatever the Commission may say, a power to give directions to the Commission which may obviously have the result of completely upsetting the balance of calculated expenditure, and which consequently is likely to have, at any rate for some time to come, a disturbing effect, which we all agree we do not want to produce in the accounts of the Commission?

With great respect, I would have thought that it was actually in the interests of the Government to insert this proviso. They may in some quarters be suspected, because once they have nationalized transport it may be thought that there are interests connected with transportation which they would be anxious to serve without any regard to the necessity of making the Commission's work self-supporting. The Government do not want that. If the Minister is pressed to do it, as he may be by Parliament, he wants to be able to give a good answer. What better answer can he give than that the Act of Parliament itself does not allow him to do it? The Minister's hand is strengthened by this, if he really means he is not going to do it, and I quite accept that he is not. I cannot see, first, how it does any harm; and, secondly, I cannot affirm that, as the Bill stands, it is plain that he cannot do it. I should have thought it was a great protection, not necessarily to this Minister but to any Minister in the future, if he is pressed, as he might be, to give directions to the Commission which would result in the Commission incurring greatly increased expenditure without the prospect of paying it out Of revenue, for him to say that the language of the Bill, which expresses the intention of the Government and the Opposition, does not allow him to do it. Therefore, for my part, I would have thought it was much wiser to put in the words proposed by my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in the Amendment, which also bears my name. It seems to me that if the Bill stands unamended a great deal is going to turn ultimately on the words "the national interest," because it is left to the Minister to decide what appears to him to affect the national interest. I submit that there is a very reel reason to believe that all sorts of thing: might be held to be in the national interest in the future, and that the Commission may well be put into debit as a result of directions by the Minister. The railways play a large part in the lives of us all, and there is an almost overwhelming temptation to bring politics into railway management. Some of us know how this happens in certain other countries, and, of course, it is always in the national interest. We should regard with great misgiving the starting of anything of that sort in this country. The ground has already been prepared here, because the public have been promised great things, and they will probably kick when the inevitable disillusionment sets in.

I do not think that those who voted for the nationalization of the railways because they thought they were going to get free travel are very numerous; but those who did vote for it undoubtedly voted because they thought they were going to get better travel—not merely better than war-time travel, but better than pre-war travel. I am afraid they are going to be disillusioned. The improvement of service, whether on account of maintenance, renewals, or capital, must, of course, ultimately come from revenue, either as a direct charge or as interest on the capital borrowed. The future net operating revenue is mostly speculative. I. personally, believe it will be very much larger than it was before the war. But if that is to be the case there will have to be some very heavy increase in rates and a draconian attitude towards expenses. Senor Miranda in the Argentine has not been very long in proposing some very heavy increases in rates for his new playthings, but judging by his past career as a Government monopolist, he is made of sterner stuff than are our Ministers.

Here the Minister is going to be in a very awkward dilemma. He has, first of all, to agree what can be done out of the funds accumulated and not spent; and he has also to agree what can be put aside each year for renewals, and what capital programme is to go on. Is he going to make himself unpopular, either by raising charges or failing to do something to-wards satisfying the electorate? I think he will have to do both. Or is he going to let the thing slide, and let the railways pay enough to meet their proper charges? This Amendment is designed, as my noble friend said, to save the Minister from himself, his colleagues, and the general public. Surely an Amendment which will enable the Minister to say to the public: "It may be in the national interest, for all I know, but I cannot give you anythng unless you are prepared to pay for it, either in your rates and fares, or else by saving up the money out of your incomes and lending it to me to perform the job"— surely an Amendment which will allow the Minister to plead the Act in this way is one which any Minister ought to welcome.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, pleaded Clause 85 as a sufficient answer to this Amendment, but I do not think he read aloud to the House the last words of that clause. It says: and it is hereby declared that the duty of the Commission to give effect to such directions as aforesaid"— that is, the directions of the Minister— includes a duty to make such applications and to do such other things in relation to the making or alteration of charges schemes as are required in order to give effect to any such direction. I read this clause as meaning that the Commissioners can offer only temporary resistance to the Minister. They are bound to protest, and, indeed, to refuse to carry out his directions at the moment. But if the Minister says: "You must carry out these directions, whether it involves increased charges or not," they are bound to increase the charges. It seems to me that the Amendment before the House is absolutely necessary, in view of these words.

3.9 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD

I should like to support this Amendment very strongly. I believe it is a great improvement, and I also believe it is absolutely necessary, although not perhaps in these exact words. I think on reflection His Majesty's Government will realize that some Amendment which conveys the sense of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, ought to be put into the Bill. In yesterday's debate, on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, an instance was given of the sort of occasion where the Minister might quite properly give a direction to the Commissioners as the recent fuel crisis, where the Minister gave instructions that coal traffic should take precedence over all other traffic. I believe that under the present wording of the Bill the Commissioner could give directions in the national interest—and quite properly —in many other cases, small in themselves but which in the aggregate would place a very grave burden upon the Transport Commissioners and cause a serious loss of revenue.

I would like to give one instance which occurs to me. Supposing, that in an isolated coal mine there were a small body of six men who had to be at the mine at two o'clock in the morning to raise steam for the winding machinery or some other machinery. It is obviously in the national interest that those men should be at the mine at that early hour, and the Minister could give directions to the Transport Commissioners to run a special bus, obviously at a great loss, to get those men to the mine. The proper way of doing it would be for the Transport Commissioners to provide a truck or to hire a bus outright. I might carry this a stage further. It might well be said that it was in the national interest for the cleaners and the people who put on the heating in the National Coal Board offices to be taken to their work at an early hour, so that the offices would be ready for the Commissioners when they came to work. You can go on like that, and practically everything is in the national interest—it definitely is so, if you look into it carefully. You could say that it was in the national interest that children of school age should be carried free; and also members of the Armed Forces or old age pensioners. Therefore, if the Minister can override the obligations that the Commission's services shall pay their way, I think we shall get into a lot of trouble.

There is only one other point that I would like to make before I sit down. I think perhaps were are inclined to confuse the two words "national interest" with "national security", and I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, used the words "national security" in his Amendment. I think I have given some quite reasonable and sensible instances to show that this Amendment, or something like it, is of great importance and absolutely necessary.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Before the Minister replies, may I venture to say a word in support of this Amendment? It seems to me that my noble friends opposite have pat their fingers on a real gap in the Bill. I do not think the Bill would be complete without the Amendment, and I should like to support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I had the pleasure of having an agreeable interchange with the Front Bench last night, on a previous clause, and it seems to me that here we have sonic words which might well be inserted in that subsection. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House went nearly as far—he withdrew a little bit at the end—and said that the Minister would give directions only when the interests of national security demanded it. I would like to put before the noble Viscount whether., before the Report stage, he will consider putting these admirable words in the first subsection of this clause.

LORD MORRISON

I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not answer in detail the many interesting points that have been raised in the course of this discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, wisely observed a moment ago, "You can go on like that". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will forgive me if I do not follow him on his long journey to the Argentine to deal with what is happening there, or conduct an examination into the reasons why the British electorate voted as they did at the last General Election, and into what general consequences will ensue.

As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, the position is perfectly simple and plain, and the point a perfectly short one. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who moved this Amendment, considers that it would be safer—and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, supports him—to have the words he has indicated put into the Bill, lest the Minister, in spite of anything in the Bill at present, should give a direction to the Commission. I reply that I was advised, and strongly advised, that it would not be competent for the Minister to give such a direction. I am quite willing to consider an Amendment requiring the Minster, in giving any direction, to have regard to the duty of the Commission under Clause 3 (3).

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I ask what is meant by that? These words like "after consultation" and "to have regard to" may mean, "I am considering that, but I am not going to carry it out". The Minister is going back a little upon what he said in answer to me the first time, where I thought we were entirely agreed, because in his first speech he said that there was no intention that the Minister should give any direction which would stop the Commission paying its way. In effect, he said he is as much bound by Clause 3 as are the Commission. I do not profess to give a legal opinion on that, but at any rate he cannot have a higher legal opinion than that. of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who says quite definitely, in his opinion, that the Minister is not bound by Clause 3. Surely we need not leave that to the uncertainty of the court, unless the highest legal authorities on the Government side can say with absolute certainty, "We are certain that the Minister is bound by Clause 3, and could not give such a decision; and he would be acting illegally if he did." Surely the sensible thing to do is to put in these words which would carry out our common intention.

LORD MORRISON

I do not retract at all from what I said the first time, that the Minister must be treated like any other citizen—he must obey the law. My advice was that if the Minister did give a direction to the Commission on the lines indicated, it would not be competent for him to do so. Since then, the noble Viscount has added to that point and his colleague has also expressed his views upon it. As a result of that, as a mere layman, I have promised that I will consider whether it is possible to consult with the noble Viscount upon this matter—I am advised there is no doubt about the position—to see whether the position could be strengthened by the insertion of words requiring the Minister to have regard to the duty of the Commission under Clause 3 (3). If the noble Viscount accepts that position, steps will be taken, in consultation with him, to submit words for his approval. If, on the other hand, he is convinced that the advice I have received is correct—that it would not be competent for the Minister to do so—his Amendment becomes unnecessary.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Of course, I would not put down a legal Amendment, but I am advised that the Minister would not be bound by Clause 3 and could give an overriding decision. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, an ex-Lord Chancellor, has said that he is of opinion that the Minister is not bound. The noble Lord has said that he cannot answer that as a layman. I say there ought to be no doubt about it. There is no doubt that we both mean the same thing. I do not want to bind myself to any agreement until I understand what it means. The question is one for lawyers, as to whether we need words to make it clearer. When the noble Lord puts to me the phrase "in coming to terms he shall have regard to," I do not accept it, because it does not mean the same thing. That does not mean that the Minister cannot do this legally; it means that the Minister in making up his mind whether or not to do it merely takes it into consideration. If, on the other hand, he will say to me "we do mean the Minister to be as much bound as the Commission, by exactly the same rules, and it is only a question of getting the lawyers together to decide whether extra words are necessary for that purpose "I accept the proposal.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

To me, as a lawyer, it is perfectly clear that the Minister and the draughtsmen of the Bill have made it clear that the Minister may do something under Clause 4 which the Commission cannot do in Clause 3 (3)—namely, he could give a direction which would supersede subsection (3) for things which might affect the national interest. The two things are not the same. If the noble Lord who replies for the Government comes to the conclusion that the Minister is bound by subsection (3) of Clause 3, he could not give any direction in the national interest which would be beyond the powers of the Commission. It seems to me clear, therefore, not only for that reason but for the general reasons given by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that something further is necessary. If you do not make it clear that the Minister may do things—which may not be very economic—in the national interest you have a gap in the Bill.

LORD MORRISON

I should like to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that I do not wish him to be tied to any particular words. That was not my intention. If it is only a question of getting the lawyers together to agree on words, I am perfectly prepared to accept that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It has been a valuable discussion, but I am not quite clear on one point: whether the Government think that this Amendment is undesirable or merely unnecessary. That is rather an important point. If they regard it as merely unnecessary, I do not see what objection they can have to putting it in. We think it is necessary; it only makes clearer what the Government believe to be already in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who has treated the House with great courtesy and consideration, has suggested that we should discuss the matter; that is a course we have adopted several times with a view to arriving at an agreed form of words before the next stage of the Bill. But we cannot leave everything over until the next stage, and this does seem to be a case where it might be wise to come to a decision now. It is just a question whether an additional plank is necessary for this gap or not. If we think the plank is necessary, I suggest that the Government ought to be very willing to set up that plank.

LORD MORRISON

Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to quote an appropriate passage from my brief: The amendment is entirely unnecessary as, having regard to the requirement in Clause 3, subsection (3), that the Commission shall make both ends meet, it would not be competent to the Minister to give a direction under Clause 4 (1) to a contrary effect. I think noble Lords wall see the position.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Lord is quoting a brief, which contains a lawyer's opinion. Against that we have the considered opinion of two ex-Lord Chancellors that what he is reading out now is bad law.

LORD MORRISON

Whether or not it is bad law, I was reading it out to explain the position to the noble Marquess. There seems to be some doubt about whether the Government were objecting to this Amendment on the ground of its being unnecessary or of its being undesirable. That was what I was endeavouring to explain, and my instructions were that it was unnecessary.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think it all reinforces the plea I have just put to the Government. I have said that if it were objectionable there would be a reason for getting together privately and seeing whether we could bridge that gap. If there is no gap, and it is merely a question of getting an additional reassurance, I do not see on what grounds they do not accept this Amendment.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Is the noble Lord prepared to argue that under Clause 85 the Minister cannot force the Commissioners to put up their charges and to take any other steps, whatever the cost, that the Minister may direct?

LORD MORRISON

I am advised that it would not be competent for the Minister to do so.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I wish to pay my respects to the very dogmatic and summary way in which this matter has been dealt with. I observe that the noble Lord's advice does not extend to this; that there is nothing wrong with the words of the Bill. It is recognized that the Amendment is in extremely appropriate words. The question is simply whether we are to put into the Bill at this stage a declaration which, so far as I have heard, is properly worded and which makes it clear that whatever the Minister, in his discretion, does under Clause 4, he cannot give a direction of his own motion which would have the effect of making it necessary to charge a wholly new series of rates. Making a scheme of rates is a very elaborate business, and two years are necessary for doing it. If the Minister is at liberty under Clause 4 to spend, say, another £250,000, he cannot surely do that if it will thereby not square with the Commission standing upon its own feet.

I cannot see why the Amendment, which is properly drawn, should not be put in the Bill. It gives the Minister himself a protection against those who are pressing him to do something he ought not to do, and it satisfies the grave doubts which some of us entertain as to whether the advice the Minister has received is quite clear.

3.30 p.m.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

We have discussed this for quite a long time, and I did interject that the words "or will be likely to be" will be extremely difficult to decide upon, and might be contested—

VISCOUNT SIMON

Then leave them out.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I knew that I should immediately get that response, but I would suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that we want to try and meet the point if it is in doubt—which I am advised it is not. But I am perfectly certain it would be in doubt if we had the words "or will be likely to be." I cannot imagine any court ruling on it, but I do ask the noble Lords to accept the assurance that we will consider that Amendment. I think that is an entirely reasonable suggestion, and I hope that the noble Lords will be willing to accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do make the point that the Government are being a little unreasonable about this matter. They have no objection to the Amendment—not the slightest; all they say is that it is not necessary. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House made one small suggestion. He said he would like to take out the words "or will be likely to be." We at once met him on that. There is no gap; there is a bridge, and we feel that it is a question of whether the bridge is absolutely safe for traffic or not. We want it secure, but there is some hesitation to put in the extra plant to make it secure. It is really an absurd situation. Here is an Amendment which the Government themselves think is acceptable; they have no objection at all to it. We believe it to be important, and I do, therefore, urge them not to carry opposition to it any

further. I think that a continuation of this argument would be very tiresome and unnecessary, and therefore I suggest that we take it to a Division, and I hope the Government will vote for it.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It is very unreasonable of the noble Lords to use their large majority in this way. They can carry it; of course they can carry it. I am well aware of that. But at the same time I pointed to only three or four words, and immediately it was proposed that they should be deleted; and I am not by any means certain that we could not delete a few others. Our offer is to consider it entirely bona fide, to tie that up to the obligation under Clause 3. I think that is the right and proper way of dealing with it—whether or not the noble Lords like to carry it to a Division, which I think would be very unreasonable.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think the proposal that the Leader of the House has now made is exactly the right one. We will pass it now, and if the Government can show us before the Report stage that certain Amendments are reasonable, we shall be ready to consider those. I think that is much the best way of dealing with it.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

We are voting on it, with the exception of the words "or will be likely to be."

On Question, Whether the said proviso, as amended, shall be there inserted; Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87: Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.
St. Albans, D. Chaplin, V. Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)
Falmouth, V.
Cholmondeley, M. Hill, V. Carrington, L.
Reading, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Cawley, L.
Salisbury, M. Charnwood, L.
Willingdon, M. Long, V. Cherwell, L.
Maugham, V. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Abingdon, E. Portal, V.
Albemarle, E. Ridley, V. Courthope, L.
Amherst, E. Simon, V. Craigmyle, L.
Beatty, E. Swinton, V. Croft, L.
Craven, E. Wimborne, V. De L' Isle and Dudley, L.
De La Warr, E. De Saumarez, L.
Dudley, E. Addington, L. Denham, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Ashton of Hyde, L. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and KinCardine.)
Iddesleigh, E. Balfour of Burleigh, L.
Lucan, E. Balfour of Inchrye, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Radnor, E. Barnby, L. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Rothes, E. Biddulph, L. Gifford, L.
Selkirk, E. Brand, L. Grenfell, L.
Stanhope, E. Brassey of Apethorpe, L. Hampton, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Broadbridge, L. Harris, L.
Bridgeman, V. Broughshane, L. Hatherton, L, [Teller.]
Hawke, L. O'Hagan, L. Schuster, L.
Hutchison of Montrose, L. Palmer, L. Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Llewellin, L. Polwarth, L. Teviot, L.
Lloyd, L. Rankeillour, L. Teynham, L.
Mancroft, L. Ravensworth, L. Thurlow, L.
Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.) Remnant, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Monck, L. (V. Monck.) Rochdale, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Monkswell, L. Rushcliffe, L. Wolverton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) Dukeston, L. Nathan, L.
Addison, V. Henderson, L. [Teller.] Quibell, L.
Hall, V. Holden, L. Rusholme, L.
St. Davids, V. Kershaw, L. Shepherd, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Simon of Wythenshawe, L.
Ammon, L. Morrison, L. Strabolgi, L.
Chorley, L. Mountevans, L. Walkden, L. [Teller.]
Darwen, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

3.48 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: With this Amendment to omit subsection (2) we resume our rather arduous task of attempting to extract information from the Government Front Bench. The subsection says: In framing programmes of reorganization 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. I am moving to omit that subsection, because it is just one of those subsections in the Bill which afford the Minister the opportunity of quite unnecessary intervention in the affairs of the Commission. I want the Government to answer one or two questions. First of all with regard to "substantial outlay on capital account." Will they tell us what sort of thing that means?

We have, I suppose, to have regard to that phrase "substantial outlay on capital account" in reference to a figure which is mentioned in Clause 88, where the Committee will find reference to the borrowing powers of the Commission. The Commission may borrow £25,000,000 on a temporary basis, and a little later in the clause, on page 98, it is provided that the total amount borrowed (that is by transport stock) shall not exceed £250,000,000. £250,000,000 is quite a lot of money, but it is not really large in comparison with the capital needs of the main line railways alone.

The visible programmes of the main line railways, I think I am right in saying, already exceed that amount. I know the urgency programme of the L.N.E.R. amounts to £50,000,000. So I am not complaining that there should be £250,000,000. I want to know at what figure the Minister will consider it necessary to give approval to this outlay by the Commission. I think here we come to grips, for the first time in Committee, with the absence of the boards, for it is the boards of the main line railway companies which can authorize expenditure on capital account. It is quite essential that the boards should do so; it is not the sort of thing you can delegate, except in a very small way. Consequently, what I want the noble Viscount to tell us is what extent of delegation there is to be on capital account from the Minister to the Commission, and perhaps from Commission to Executives.

It would help us with Amendments coming later, particularly my Amendment to Clause 5, if the noble Viscount would consider this the appropriate moment to tell us something about the plan which the Government have for developing work and the general set-up under the Bill. Is there already a plan in the pigeon-holes of the Minister of Transport? If so, may we be told something about it? If there is no plan, then may we take it that the British Transport Commission, when it is formed, will have a clean slate on which to make their plan? We know there are to be some Executives to help them, but I will not trench upon that because we come to that later. I beg the noble Viscount to tell us how this undertaking is to be organized, and how it is to work. Is the plan merely to tell the chief general managers of the companies to carry on? If so, may we be told? Arid if the chief general managers have to carry on, what powers will be delegated to them? In particular would there be delegated to the chief general managers, who would become dictators in each of these main line railways, power to authorize capital expenditure? And, if so, how will the Commission secure the co-ordination which is one of their prime duties? I have said enough in moving this Amendment to inspire the hope that we may be given some information. My object in moving the Amendment, apart from securing information, is to remove what I consider this opportunity given to the Minister to interfere in day-to-day control.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD MORRISON

I will say frankly, at the outset, that I am not going to make any attempt to answer the numerous questions the noble Lord has put to me. Even if I did, I doubt whether the noble Lord would be satisfied with the replies I would give him. He asks: "What does ' substantial outlay' mean?" I am perfectly sure he did not expect me to produce a figure and say, "substantial outlay" means "X" million pounds.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Why not?

LORD MORRISON

Because I do not believe that is the way in which these matters will be arranged. They will be arranged in discussion between the Commission and the Department. The noble Lord repeatedly asks: "What is the plan?" I am sure also he did not expect me, or anyone else, to produce a detailed plan. The whole of this policy—perhaps the noble Lord has overlooked it—is part of a major policy which was commenced not by this Government but by the last Government, a policy which was known in Parliament as the policy of full employment. This subsection is fully in line with that policy, which is the policy not only of the present Government but was the declared policy of the National Government. That policy provides that where we are undertaking works that require considerable capital expenditure, regard should be had to the general effect, as apart from the effect on the organization embarked upon them. Before this Government came into power all local authorities, and public utilities as well, had been asked by the last Government to give par- ticulars of what was likely to be their capital expenditure within the following five years. That policy is outlined here only to the extent the Government have followed up the policy inaugurated by the last Government. I do not think I can add anything more to meet the noble Lord's case.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I did not mean to take part in the debate, but so strange has been the reply of the Minister that I do not think—speaking for the Opposition —that I can allow it to pass without a word or two of reply. It may not be appropriate, in moving to omit this particular subsection, to give an account of the plan by which the Commission and the Executives are to operate, but I sincerely hope that when we come to Clause 5 (where we are asked to commit the whole future of the transport of this country to the Commission and the named Executives who are to operate it as from January 1 next year) we shall not then be told that it is not inappropriate to tell us the plan upon which it is proposed to conduct this tremendous operation. I am sure the Minister will not give that answer.

Then comes the extraordinary statement that this particular subsection flows logically, consequently and inevitably from the policy of full employment laid down by the Coalition White Paper. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord was in the Government or not, but, at any rate, we were all in it together. It would indeed surprise every member of that Government, to whatever Party he belonged, to be told that the nationalization of all the transport of this country was part of the Coalition White Paper. What we are dealing with here is the way in which the nationalization of transport is to be carried out. If the nationalization of transport was not part of the policy of full employment, then the way the nationalization is carried out would really have nothing to do with that policy of full employment.

In spite of the invitation given by the noble Lord to have a general debate upon the White Paper on full employment, I am not going to enter into such a debate, though I am prepared to do so if that is really the desire of the Government. But, broad and large, that policy was on a particular aspect of dealing with capital expenditure. We were all agreed not to engage in a great deal of local authority capital expenditure when trade was buoyant, but to get that kind of expenditure going forward in times when a slump was expected to take place. That has nothing whatever to do with subsection (2) of Clause 4 of the Transport Bill. The only question before us is whether, in framing plans of capital expenditure for the reorganization and re-equipment of the railways, the initiative should rest with the Commission or with the Minister. I am not going to say any more except that I would have thought a simple answer could be given to that question.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I, with great respect, intervene? The answer is clearly on the face of the subsection itself that— the Commission shall act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think I must be allowed to say a word about the most extraordinary reply which I have had from the Government Bench. I understood the noble Lord to say that the plans will be considered or prepared —I did not quite catch the word —between the Commission and the Department; therefore I presume that after the Commission have been set up, the Commission will consult with the Department—that means, of course, with the Minister.

LORD MORRISON

The subsection says perfectly clearly that— In framing programmes of reorganization 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.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Thank you very much. Then that means that nothing is going to happen until the Commission are set up. This is very relevant to the time table, and what I am going to point out is that the Government have not the least idea what they are letting themselves in for in the way of reorganization. After the passage of this Bill, the Commission have to be set up, they have to make their plans, and to see about setting up Executives, and the whole thing is going to take a long time. This is all very relevant to the vesting date. I do not want to develop the other argument on this Amendment. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Government are giving us very little help to understand what it is we are going to pass into law. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has dealt with the question of full employment. Like him, I was staggered to hear that this was the policy of the Coalition Government. I had thought it was the guillotine in another place that prevented questions and answers on so many points, but I am beginning to think it is not a matter of whether there is a guillotine or not, but that the Government either will not or cannot answer the questions. I think it must be that they cannot.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH

moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This is a similar kind of Amendment. It is again to omit a subsection.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

On a point of order. This is an Amendment to omit a subsection. There is an Amendment down in the name of my noble friend, Viscount Bridgeman, to add a certain proviso at the end of this subsection. Is it possible to deal with the Amendment now moved so as to preserve the right of my noble friend on his Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN or COMMITTEES

If subsection (3) goes out there would be nothing left on which to hang the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I suggest that the noble Viscount might perhaps speak on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, does not want to leave out the subsection; he wants to add something to it.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

If the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is passed, it will not be possible to do so.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The reason I thought this Bill would be improved by omitting this subsection is the same as the reason I gave for omitting subsection (2). Even more than in the case of capital expenditure, this subsection affords a clear indication of the day-to-day interference which quite obviously the Minister— or the Department, if the noble Lord on the Front Bench prefers it—is going to take in the work of the Commission. The subsection says: In the exercise and performance of their functions as to training, education and re- search, the Commission shall act on lines settled as aforesaid. That is, of course, settled from time to time- with the approval of the Minister. This is copied holus-bolus from the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. We have seen it in that Act, and I think it may have been in the Civil Aviation Act, although I am not quite sure. It is one of the sealed patterns of nationalization clauses, but I think that the circumstances here are rather different.

There may have been more reason to talk about training and research in the Act dealing with coal mines, but in the case of the railways it is well known that the main line railways have very considerable and adequate arrangements for training, education and research. The railways have their own training places, their schools and their research establishments. I am not for a moment suggesting that they are perfect or that they cannot be improved, but that, I think, should be the business of the Commission. I cannot see why in the world the Minister should have to poke his fingers into this unless he wants to do so for some political reason. I do not wish to detain your Lordships further, and I move the omission of this subsection. If I get any support, I rather hope your Lordships will support it in the Division Lobby.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD MORRISON

The British Transport Commission will be employing probably about three quarters of a million persons, and noble Lords will realize that they must be interested in matters affecting training, education and research. The local authorities, universities, and other organizations already provide considerable facilities in this respect, and unnecessary duplication of very great expenditure would be incurred if every industry regarded its own trading schemes in isolation. It is clearly desirable that there should be a reasonable measure of co-ordination of effort. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Ministry of Education attach great importance to this subsection, and the Minister of Transport has assured these two Departments that when the Commission are appointed he will invite them to establish contact with them to work out arrangements to avoid duplication. A complete assurance has been given that there is no intention whatever of establishing some special staff in the Ministry of Transport to tell the Commission how to do a job which is their own responsibility. In the light of that, I think perhaps your Lordships would prefer to leave the clause as it is.

4.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

The last thing I should wish to do would be to interfere with the arguments of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, because I could not agree with him more than I do in wishing to keep the Minister of Transport—or any other Minister for that matter—so far as possible, away from the details of running any industry, whether that industry is nationalized or whether it is not. But assuming for the moment, without prejudice to my noble friend's arguments, that this clause might stand part of the Bill —as again it might not—then it seems to me that the Amendment which is down in my name and the name of my noble friend is not ill-conceived. It really covers two points. The first is that the Commission, as was said yesterday, are a co-ordinating body; it is their business to co-ordinate with outside agencies matters affecting transport. In another place, on the National Service Bill, the Government accepted a similar Amendment to this.

I notice that in Clause 10, it says: In making arrangements for such further education as aforesaid the Service Authorities shall have regard to any representations made to them by or on behalf of bodies of persons concerned with education. My Amendment is conceived in the same vein. It is also conceived in another vein, which is to prevent duplication of what one might call Empire building. I need not take these arguments much further. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, seemed to me, unless I misheard him, to make some remarks which sounded as if he agreed with the lines of argument I am now putting forward in support of this matter. If that is so, and again without prejudice to the arguments of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I need say no more about the Amendment which stands in my name. If it turns out at a later stage that the Amendment is still there to be moved, no doubt it will be in order for me to move it then.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I take it that subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 4 represent one of the great difficulties which we see in the running of a transport organization. Subsections (1) and (2) we have discussed, and I think subsection (3) is equally important. I should have thought that subsection (1) would cover any special directions which the Minister might wish to give, either for the control of capital expenditure, or for training, education, and research. As is well known, there are already mutual arrangements between employers, research organizations and education. I can see no reason why it would not be better to leave that to develop in its natural way, as it has done and as it is doing. Some might say, particularly in regard to technical education in this country, that it has been left for some years in a rather lower state than it should have been. But I think your Lordships will agree that in matters of that sort, until there comes a national consciousness and realization that training of that kind is needed, whatever is put in an Act of Parliament will not be realized.

That leads me to feel that we would be very optimistic to expect any improvement with regard to education without this clause. With regard to research, as has been said, the railways themselves, and some of the transport industries, have been very active in this sphere, and I should think they have as much to do in a general way with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as any other body of employers, remembering the fact that most of their business is manufacture or production, and, in so far as vehicles are concerned, that most of their business is transportation. I was a little puzzled when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said—I am not quite sure, but I think I heard him aright—that as the Ministry of Transport are now to be the employers of several hundreds of thousands of people, they naturally have a great interest in research. I was under the impression—but I suppose I am wrong—that the Transport Commission were to employ the people according to the terms in which the Bill is written. That rather illustrates, to my mind, the fact that we should be very careful all the way through this Bill, first, to define responsibility, and, secondly, to put clearly on one part of the organization or another exactly where their responsibilities begin and where they end. That is why I feel so strongly that we must, so far as we can, separate the Minister from the Commission, and so on. The Minister has his remedy, representing the shareholders as he does, of doing what other shareholders do, which is to remove the people who are put in charge. I do not suppose that We can translate that situation literally into it, but I think we should bear in mind the fact that, although we must agree that the Miniser should be a strong influence in guiding the policy, he must keep his fingers out of the detail. It is for those reasons that I support this Amendment.

LORD MORRISON

May I at the outset say to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that I did not say the Minister of Transport would employ quarters of a million people? What I said was that the British Transport Commission—

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I beg the noble Lord's pardon.

LORD MORRISON

Not for the first time your Lordships House finds itself in a very peculiar position. On the one hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridge-man, is proposing to add words to a subsection, and, on the Other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, wants to delete that subsection altogether.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If the noble Lord will tell me how he is going to deal with the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, perhaps I can then help.

LORD MORRISON

So far as I am aware—and I do not claim to be an authority on the procedure of this House —the question before the House at the moment is that the subsection should be deleted.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It would make a great deal of difference as to how I voted, if we came to a vote on this, whether the noble Lord is going to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I dare say a number of us do not like the subsection. It may be that it would be tolerable to some noble Lords with the Amendment of the noble Viscount, but not without it.

LORD MORRISON

in those circumstances, I will at once say, very briefly, with regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the purpose of the subsection is to secure the co-operation which the movers of this Amendment propose. As I have already said, the Minister has assured the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Ministry of Education, that he will invite the Commission, when appointed, to establish contact and work out arrangements to avoid duplication of effort and expenditure. It is clear that there is already a provision in the Bill to deal with what the Amendment asks for. The administrative action which the Commission will take to carry it out might well, I suggest, be left to the Commission. The administrative action is clearly necessary, and it would be redundant to place on the Commission in this matter a statutory obligation which might lead to legal complications.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The noble Lord has explained to your Lordships that there is no intention to engage special staff in the Ministry to deal with this matter. That is a very important assurance, because one's invariable experience is that whenever any Ministry have an opportunity they always engage more staff. We have had a very categoric assurance that the Minister is not going to engage any great staff, and in view of what the Minister has been good enough to say about this and subsequent Amendments, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

In view of the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, kindly gave I do not propose to move the next Amendment which is in my name.

4.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

moved in subsection (5) to leave out from the beginning to "discontinue" and insert: "(5) The Commission may with the approval of the Minister". The noble Lord said: I certainly propose to move this Amendment, and the noble Lord opposite will agree that it is not of a general but of a very specific character, and it does raise the application of a very important principle. In the last three-quarters of an hour during the debate last night we ranged over what was to be the function of the Minister in relation to the Commission and to the Executives. Although the speech by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, was not reported in Hansard to-day we shall get it in the second edition to-morrow.

The noble Viscount will not say that I am at all misrepresenting him when I say that he was most emphatic that the Minister would not interfere in the ordinary day-to-day work, but that he would reserve himself for the great occasions which were most genuinely matters of national interest. Now in saying that, of course, he was also confirming what was said by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Pakenham, on the Second Reading. May I quote what the noble Lord said on that occasion, because it is the strongest possible support for the Amendment I am moving now. In column 876 of Hansard on May 20, in moving the Second Reading, the noble Lord said this: 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. Then the noble Lord said that he could not hold himself entirely aloof from the requirements of public policy—those very great matters to which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, referred last night. The noble Lord went on: It is, therefore, necessary that Parliament should have the ultimate control and that the Minister should have the powers, indicated in Clause 4, of issuing general directions to the Commission on matters affecting the national interest. Now we asked the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, last night what were the sort of things that were matters of general interest. He said he could not give us a precise catalogue, but he said—and I think it was quite reasonable—that he did not think a thing like the coal crisis was a bad example: that if it were necessary in the coal crisis—when everything was at stake, and in order to avoid a breakdown of industry all over the country—that coal should be given priority over everything else, it would not be unreasonable to give a general direction that coal should have that priority until the crisis was over or assuaged. That is exactly the kind of general direction I should imagine. He said it was a little difficult to give other examples, but no doubt there might be grave occasions where some direction was required. I would find it a little difficult to specify, out of my imagination, these grave occasions. But on the other hand, we are all at one that it is only to be on very exceptional occasions and in every exceptional circumstances that the Minister is to give those directions.

I would have much less difficulty in saving what the Minister ought not to do, and in giving many examples of the sort of detailed matter of day-to-day management in which the Minister should not interfere with the discretion of the Commission. I cannot take a better example than those matters of detailed management with which the Minister is authorized to interefere under the clause which I am now proposing your Lordships should amend. Will your Lordships just look at Clause 4 (5) and see what the Minister is invited to do. It says: Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section"— that is, giving directions in the national interest— 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 …. If that is not interference with day-to day management, what is?

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, elaborated to us last night some of the manifold and petty activities which the Commission might be driven to engage in, and of which he very wisely said they had better disengage themselves as quickly as possible. A hostel here, a pub there, some Cosy Corner Nook, some petrol pump (I do not mean the two things are the same!) are things from which we all agree they ought to disengage themselves as quickly as possible. They give a loan to one of their employees to tide him over a temporary difficulty. That is the sort of thing in which the Commission will not be concerned themselves, but the staff right away down the line will be doing it under a general power. That is the kind of thing the Minister is going to interfere, with. I know that he has to be satisfied, if he gives a direction, that he will not interfere with the Commission carrying on their business efficiently, but I do ask your Lordships, what earthly business is it of the Minister to go and tell them what activities they are to discontinue, what loans they are to call in and what securities they are to sell? They may have some money in the bank and think they would like to put it into some of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's alluring 2½ per cent. loans. They do so, and then they want the money out, and, assuming that the Chancellor's loans remain reasonably liquid securities, they go and realize their holding. But to come to the Minister about it— there was never anything more fantastic than that!

I attach the utmost importance to this matter. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will remember that on the Second Reading he also dealt with this kind of thing and said that the Minister was riot going to interfere with day-to-day management. I venture to say that all through the Bill we come upon the Minister doing this and that, and I am going to accept the noble Viscount's invitation so to amend the Bill that we make sure that the Minister does confine himself to his proper functions. Now this is the first example in which I take advantage of the invitation extended to me by the noble Viscount. What I propose in this Amendment is that in all these petty businesses the initiative shall rest with the Commission and not with the Minister. I am not going to repeat what I said on the Second Reading, but we know from experience that consultation can mean anything or nothing. I say that the details of ordinary day-to-day business ought to be nothing whatever to do with the Minister in the first instance. They concern the Commission, its management or its Executives, and the most the Minister ought ever lo do is to approve.

I cannot see why his approval is necessary for the calling in of loans or with regard to investments. I can see that in a case where this Commission—which are to have an increasingly powerful monopoly—are to discontinue a service, it is reasonable for them to notify the Minister, because it may be that in such a case a number of small ones might not matter. But there might be all important service which they propose to discontinue, which the Minister thought ought to be continued in the public interest. There, I think, it is reasonable that they should notify the Minister and secure his approval.

In my Amendment I am proposing to strike out the first two and a half lines of the clause, and the clause then, I sub- mit, would exactly carry out what the Leader of the House suggested. I think this is an entirely reasonable and a most necessary Amendment, and carries out what the Minister in charge has said is the intention, that the Minister shall come in only in important matters of public policy.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 1, leave out from the beginning to ("discontinue") in line 3, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Swinton.)

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I was very interested in the exposition by the noble Viscount, and so far as our desires are concerned I think there is not much between us. I confess that I studied this Amendment with great care, and discussed it with the departmental advisers, and then went back to them. If we were to adopt the suggestions which the noble Viscount makes I cannot see that there would be anything in substance different from what is already in the Bill. It provides in Clause 2, subsection (4) that: The Commission may dispose, whether absolutely or for a term of years, of any part of their undertaking or any property which in their opinion is not required by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act. It seems to me that under this clause the Commission can get rid of anything they want to. As a matter of fact, if we adopt all the Amendments—and of course they all go together—there will be nothing left of substance which is not obtainable by the Commission under the subsection to which I have referred.

May I call to mind something we were discussing yesterday? We were discussing the fact that when the Commission take over certain undertakings they will in some cases be taking over with them various operations which are not really part of the transport undertaking. And the sooner they can get rid of them the better, if they can do so without damage and in a sensible way. But this subsection is designed specifically to protect outside industries against the Commission retaining things which are really not necessary for the purpose of the undertaking. The Commission, of their own motion, can get rid of things under subsection (4) of Clause 2, and the Minister also can initiate, and say "This or that is not necessary and I suggest you get rid of it." That is what this amounts to. I cannot see why, in the interests that we all desire, which is that they should not be saddled, with a lot of unnecessary activities, the words in the Bill are undesirable.

In the first instance the initiative is with the Commission, but in this case it is with the Minister after consulting the Commission. I do not think it would be desirable to admit such a proviso as the noble Viscount's insertion would amount to, because the proviso makes the thing conditional on the retention of the activities referred to being unnecessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the Commission. That is the very thing we want to get rid of, and it is most valuable, in the interests of the aims of every one of us without distinction that that should be retained. I do not think the noble Viscount will be doing anything but harm to his interests if he presses these Amendments.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am much obliged to the Leader of the House for the explanation. I am bound to say I had looked at the clause differently. I thought the object was to enable the Minister to intervene, and fetter the discretion of the Commission. He could direct the Commission to discontinue any part of their activities. The calling in of a loan seems to be a very strange business; it might be a loan attached in connexion with the carrying on of the undertaking. If the calling in of a loan is not something done in the ordinary course of their business, but is part of an undertaking which the Minister wants them to get rid of—if he wants them to sell a business of the sort we have been referring to and a loan is involved in that—then he says to them: "You ought to liquidate the whole of this business and clear out, whether there is a financial obligation attached to it or whatever it may be." I read it as meaning, and so I was advised, that supposing they want to stop running a bus service and discontinue any of their activities—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I interrupt the noble Viscount? It is always conditioned that it must be unnecessary for the proper discharge of their duty; that governs everything.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I follow that; but the difficulty I feel there is: Who is to decide whether it is the proper discharge of their duty? I tell the noble Viscount frankly that. I am entirely at one with him,, that I want the Commission to get rid of everything that is not transport; and on the broad principle we are agreed. It seems to me that you may get into rather a complication when the Minister says "I do not think you want this thing" and the Commission say "We want it for our transport business." Who would decide that?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I take it that in that case the Minister, after conference with the Commissioners, might say "I wanted them to get rid of something which they did not want to get rid of." But we have to remember that the whole of it is conditioned by its being unnecessary for the proper discharge of their duties. I think that the noble Viscount might consider it again. I am sure the present words are necessary in order to do the very thing the noble Viscount wants.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

That is the great value of these frank interchanges. I may have got on the wrong line here, but I would like to look at it again, because I would like to see that there is no unnecessary interference with the Commission. On the other hand, I am entirely at one with the noble Viscount, that if the Commission do not c1ear out of the businesses they ought to clear out of, there ought to be power in the Minister to make them clear out of those undertakings. If I may consider that, and I might come to the noble Lord and discuss it, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

The Executives.

5.—(1) There shall be public authorities known as Executives to assist the Commission in the discharge of their functions in the manner specified in this section.

(3) The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister, but unless and until other provision is made by such an order there shall be Executives known respectively as the Railway Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive and the London Transport Executive and, as from the appointed day, an Executive known as the Hotels Executive.

(4) Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by or under a scheme made by the Commission and approved by the Minister.

(5) Every scheme made and approved as aforesaid and every instrument issued there-under effecting or revoking or varying any delegation of functions of the Commission shall be published. in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes:

Provided that the publication in the London or Edinburgh Gazette of a notice stating that a scheme has been ma de and approved or that an instrument has been issued, and specifying the place where copies thereof may be purchased, shall be sufficient compliance with the provisions of this subsection as respects the publication of that scheme or instrument in that Gazette.

(II) Where the effect of an order of the Minister under subsection (3) of this section is to abolish an Executive, or the effect of a scheme under subsection (4) of this section is that functions previously directly exercisable by the Commission are exercisable by an Executive or that functions previously exercisable by an Executive are exercisable by a different Executive or directly by the Commission, the order or scheme may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Minister, or to the Commission and the Minister, as the case may be, to be expedient, including provisions to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued.

4.43 p.m.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Before we embark upon the rather formidable list of Amendments under Clause 5, perhaps it might be convenient if we ascertained the opinion of the House as to how they may best he dealt with. The Amendments seem to fall into three parts. First of all there are six Amendments by Lard Balfour of Burleigh; they all seem to hang together, and he may wish to discuss them generally when he moves the first of them. Again, the last four Amendments stand in the names of the Marquess of Salisbury, Viscount Swinton, and Lord Teynham. They also hang together, and perhaps may most conveniently be discussed together. As for the rest of the Amendments, I suggest for your Lordships' consideration that, so far as possible, we should confine the discussion to each particular Amendment as it is moved. If the discussion becomes too general it will be difficult to disentangle the Amendments later if it is desired to vote on them.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If I may answer before the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I entirely agree about the Amendments of the noble Marquess and my own, subject to this little obser- vation: Who should appoint the Executives, the Minister or the Commission? That is really a very important and quite a short and simple point. The others are separate points, but I think they can be most conveniently taken together, and it will be necessary to refer to one of them without arguing it fully. Later Amendments follow, because when we move to strike out "docks" it is in order to substitute a wholly different system of dealing with docks. I will explain why we move to do that. Subject to that, I think the course suggested by the Lord Chairman will be the most convenient.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I wonder if I might ask a question about the order of the Amendments. Are those of Lord Balfour coming first? If so, and if they were carried, I could strike out certain words which I propose to put in subsequent Amendments.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think the subsequent Amendments can be saved if it is only a matter of putting these certain points.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I welcome the Lord Chairman's suggestion. The first two Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, relate to the same scheme of operation. Then he has a number of Amendments later which are really consequential in spirit and intention. I think the suggestion that we should discuss the general scheme as a whole is an excellent one. With regard to the other rather important Amendment which is raised by the Marquess of Salisbury, Viscount Swinton and Lord Teynham, that is another issue, a very important issue. And there are associated with that Amendment a number of subsequent associated Amendments which, in the same way, I hope, we shall be able to take together. When those two groups of Amendments are dealt with there still remain a number of individual Amendments of special importance in relation to inland waterways and so on. Those are separate points which can be dealt with afterwards. I think that the proposal of the Lord Chairman is a good one.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I fully agree with that. I am not quite sure that I put it to the Lord Chairman as to the possibility of saving discussion on all the Amendments. If Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment were adopted—although it may need some recasting—I think it would be possible to have an Amendment in the form of an Amendment to his Amendment, which would provide that the Executive should be appointed by the Commission and not by the Minister. But if we carried his Amendment I think it would be cutting out a good many of the others, because it negatives by its intention the creation of any named Executives at all; and if that were carried, there could clearly be no Amendment as to what these Executives should be.

LORD BEVERIDGE

In regard to the way in which the Lord Chairman thought it suitable that it could be dealt with, surely, if the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, put all his Amendments together, and if then only the first of them were put and discussed, would it not be possible that the words were still there? This looks to me a little like an Amendment which arises a little later, to knock out Clause 39 and substitute something quite different. So, surely, the knocking out of subsections (3) and (6) should follow the detailed amendment of them. Is that possible?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

In order to save the subsequent Amendment I propose to put subsection (3), when Lord Balfour of Burleigh moves the deletion, to be deleted or stand part of the Bill only so far as the word "be" in line 36.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If the Chairman will permit me to suggest it, will it not be even simpler if we deal with all these Amendments of mine on subsection (I)?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Yes, I think that will be quite in order. We can deal with them in that way if the Committee are agreeable.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

had given notice to move an Amendment to leave out subsection (1) and insert: (1) Public authorities to be known as Executives may be set up to assist the Commission in the discharge of their functions in the manner specified in this section. A second Amendment in the noble Lord's name was to omit subsection (3) and insert: (3) (a) Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by or under a scheme to be made for the purposes of this section by the Commission and approved by the Minister. (b) Every scheme made under this subsection shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and shall come into force at the conclusion of a period of 40 days beginning with the day on which such scheme is laid before Parliament if neither House has resolved that it shall be annulled. The noble Lord said: I am greatly obliged to the Chairman and to the Committee for allowing me to deal with this set of Amendments as one. I am going to ask for the indulgence of the Committee to take up a little time, because this opens up some rather big issues. The Amendments in question are those which appeared on page 6 of yesterday's marshalled list. First of all, I move to leave out subsection (1), then I move to leave out subsection (3), and then there are one or two small consequential Amendments. On page 9 of yesterday's list a rather more important Amendment appears, the effect of which is that I am moving a new subsection (12). The guiding principle is that I am trying to help the Government to make their scheme a workable one, because I fear that this plan which is put before us will not work, and the information which we have hitherto had from the Government has done nothing to reassure me on that subject.

The British Transport Commission cannot be set up until after this Bill becomes an Act. They have a number of things to do then. They have to set up the Executives—we will have a look at the details later. But I do not believe that, having regard to everything that has to be arranged, time alone is going to permit of a properly integrated scheme to be effectively put in force on January 1, 1948. Consequently, the basic plan of my Amendment is a double one. The first wing of it is to get rid of these functional Executives, which I think, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, put the Government into a strait-jacket. The second object is to enable the Government, if they wish, to allow temporary arrangements to be made to carry over while the scheme is being prepared. It is easy—we have passed the clause already—to say that it shall be the general duty of the Commission to exercise their powers as provided under this Bill so as to secure or permit the provision of an efficient and adequate economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport. That is exactly what we want—it is the very thing. What we have to do is to translate this lovely paper scheme into something that will work. I am sure that the people who are going to operate this have not the least idea what they are letting themselves in for. I think that the Government are sticking their heads into a noose. My object is to try to give them some way of avoiding that noose. I hope they will be grateful.

Now I must return—because this is what I might call a "Second Reading Amendment"—to the reply which the noble Viscount gave yesterday to my general protest. His final clinching argument in favour of this Bill was, he said, that Winston Churchill was in favour of it twenty-five years ago.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

That was not intended to be a clinching argument. I was merely citing a very important fact to show that the principle of the Bill had been accepted for many years, and that Mr. Churchill, indeed, accepted it twenty-five years ago.

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

I am obliged. I must explain to the Committee why I despair even now of the noble Viscount. Twenty-five years ago circumstances were different. Since that time, twenty-five years ago, we have had the rise of an integrated road transport system. That is something which did not exist at the time when Winston Churchill said that there might be something to be said for nationalization. What I cannot get into the heads of the occupants of the Government Front Bench is that circumstances have changed. They are all living in the past. Let me present to the noble Viscount another advocate of nationalization of whom I am sure he will be glad to hear. The respected chairman of the London and North Eastern Railway, Mr. William Whitelaw, in the pre-road transport days, said that there might be something to be said for nationalizing the railways. But he added that there would be two conditions which should be fulfilled if that process were carried out. One condition was that the stockholders should be paid fair compensation, and his idea of fair compensation was something Ike the income which they had hitherto received. That, of course, is only an ordinary, common man's interpretation of honesty. His other condition was that it would be essential that the railways should not be run—to use his own elegant expression—" by a bunch of civil servants in Whitehall." Of course, he was quite right. This is what is going to happen. The railways are going to be run by civil servants in Whitehall. I can understand the attitude of Lord Walkden and Lord Dukeston, those two old war-horses of the trade union movement. They, of course, have been in favour of this thing for fifty or sixty years. But I thought better of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. I thought that he, at least, might have been amenable to reason. I do not wish to impute motives, and indeed I do not do so, because we all admire and respect Lord Walkden. But we had just a hint of what the trade unions think they are going to get out of this from something that was said by Mr. Sparks (who is also connected with the railways) in another place. He said: We look forward to public ownership as a means of improving or helping to improve the standard of living of the people who run the railways. I do not wish to press this too far, but I think that it may be dangerous to have undue trade union influence in the constitution of this Commission and in the whole set-up for running the railways. It may be that the scales would be weighted a little bit too heavily on the side of always improving the conditions of the railwaymen. The noble Lord, Lord Walkden, of course, has devoted his life to the pursuit of that object. I congratulate him on his success, and I am not imputing any unworthy motive to him when I say that it will continue to be one of his principal objects for the rest of his lift. But it does not follow that the promotion of the best national interests is going to flow from a Commission which is unduly influenced by these considerations.

To return to the matter of the noose which, I believe, is ready for the noble Viscount to put his head into. We have to consider some vital dates. The establishment of the British Transport Commission is going to take place after this Bill becomes law. I wonder when that is going to be? Judging by our present rate of progress it will not be for some considerable time yet. Certainly it is not going to happen next week. After the British Transport Commission have been set up, and have had a good look round it, they will set about the task of making schemes for the Executives. The Executives have got to be set up and the Commission are going to make schemes. You find that in these clauses. Subsection (4) of the clause says: Each Executive shall, as Agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by or under a scheme made by the Commission and approved by the Minister. All these schemes have to be made before the Executives can begin to function and it would be interesting to know one or two things about this delegation. I would like to ask the noble Viscount to give us some idea of the nature or extent of the delegation of the Commission's functions which will meet with ministerial approval. I hope that is not an unreasonable request.

I would mention in passing that the only statutory requirement about these schemes is that they have to be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes. They will be changed, probably quite often, if I am right in thinking that the original functional set-up will not work, and that there will have to be some sort of regional, as well as functional, set-up; and that schemes will consequently have to be changed. What is a trader to do who wants to bring an action for damage? I do not suppose even the noble Lords on the Front Bench are sanguine enough to think there will not be any damage on the railways under the new set-up. The trader has to find out which Executive he has to sue. I can foresee the circulation of the London and Edinburgh Gazettes going up by leaps and bounds and traders spending days turning over the leaves to find out which Executive they have to sue. There is one small practical question which I would like to ask the noble Viscount. The proviso to subsection (9) says that if any sum required by any judgment or order to pay by an Executive is not paid by the Executive within fourteen days, the Commission shall be liable. Will the trader have to bring a further action against the Commission or what? Perhaps the noble Viscount will look into that.

I want to return to policy. I tried to make the case on Second Reading that the boards are responsible, and under the existing set-up that policy covers a great variety of things. At that stage I asked the noble Viscount if he could tell us something about the division between the Minister, the Commission and the Executives on policy. Do not forget that the Executives have to begin by scrambling the whole of the operations on the main line railways. That comes of making the set-up of the Executives functional. They are divided into road, railways and docks and waterways. All the main line railway companies are concerned with all these three; consequently, between the date of the passing of this Bill and the coming into operation on January 1, the Commission have to be set up and the Executives appointed and they have to begin operations, scrambling transversely across the present organization of the main line companies. I think that is a prospect which may fill the stoutest heart with some anxiety, although it does not worry the noble Viscount.

Once we see how the boards work, we get some idea of the difficulties with which the Commission and Executives will be faced. In the case of my own railway we have no fewer than twelve committees—appointments, organization, steamships, accounts, property, traffic, works, locomotives, stores, superannuation fund, finance, and, at the present time, postwar policy. These committees are manned by directors who have a good deal of familiarity with business and who have become, through working on these committees, familiar with technical aspects. I may add, for the benefit of people who think railway directors do not do anything, that in the month of July there will be twenty-four meetings of committees of my board and two meetings of the full board and also area board meetings at York and Edinburgh. Somehow or other that work has got to be done. It is not too much to ask the noble Viscount to tell us a little about the kind of organization which is to take the place of these boards.

It is also a question of day-to-day management. It is easy to leave day-to-day management to officials. They do that and do it extremely well, but there are also decisions of policy which need collective consideration. In a committee or board you get a pooling of minds and, by collective consideration, you avoid mistakes which are bound to be made by the single individual if responsibility is left to him. I have in mind a double object. One is to try and give the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench an opportunity of understanding how much there is to be done and how great the difficulties will be. The object of my Amendment is not only to provide flexibility, because by doing away with these functional Executives we give the Commission freedom to set up any organization they like and time to develop that organization. We also save, by allowing the interim organization, what will be the frightful bottleneck of decisions on policy which will have to be taken somewhere.

I have a number of points drawn out. What about the appointment of officers to responsible positions? Senior officers are all the time reaching the end of their careers, and new appointments have to be made. Somebody has to consider these carefully—a time-usin2: occupation. The kind of question considered by the board is the best organization of refreshment rooms and dining cars. Should they be managed under the some organization as the hotels or by an all line officer? What is to be the policy about technical stores? Are the using departments to have the custody of their own stores or is there to be a purchasing agent and traffic stores superintendent? All kinds of questions of policy and organization come up and have to be decided, and decided rightly.

Then there is the examination of the justification of new schemes. Recently there has been completed on the London and North Eastern Railway a main line widening in the north eastern area which provides four running (lines)throughout between Northallerton and York. The noble Lord, Lord Walkden, reproached me—and I felt his reproach very keenly—that the London and North Eastern Railway has not four running lines all the way into London. I will not embark upon a defence, or try to explain why not, but that is the sort of thing that occurs. There are reasons why it was difficult to arrive at that decision many years ago. That is the sort of point involving great capital expenditure and great questions of policy. Where are these questions to be decided?

Then there are great emergency questions. We have, on our system, a tunnel called the Woodhead Tunnel. Your Lordships who have travelled between Manchester and Sheffield will be familiar with that tunnel. It is a very difficult tunnel, and it has not been satisfactory for many years. There is no secret; technical difficulties are great, and a decision has had to be taken whether this tunnel can be widened or whether a new double-line tunnel is necessary. Rolling stock renewal programmes—where are they to come from, and who is to decide them? These are tremendous questions of policy. Then there is the question to which I referred before, the question of traction—steam, diesel, or diesel-electric, and so on. I will hasten through these items because I could go on for the whole of the afternoon. There is the question of mineral support under the railways; extremely difficult questions which may need a quick decision as to whether the minerals are to be purchased. Of course, finance will not come into it because that will be out of one pocket to the other, and finance was sometimes a troublesome element. Nevertheless, there will have to be a decision whether to allow the minerals to come out and risk a collapse, or whether the minerals are to be kept in situ. The closing of branch lines—where is that sort of thing to be settled? As an example of the time it takes for Whitehall to decide about the closing of a branch line, I may tell your Lordships that our board took a decision about the closing of the Fort Augustus branch. It took the Ministry of Transport eight months to confirm that decision, and by that time the line was getting really dangerous and becoming unsafe for the running of trains over it. Is that the sort of delay that is going to take place? If not, how is it to be prevented?

Then, on the subject of the functional Executives there is the commercial side. Why is there not some indication of the policy of the Government with regard to the commercial side? The noble Lord, Lord Walkden, spoke with some contempt of the canvassers of the railway. He indicated that these were gentlemen who were wasting their time and who would be much better employed doing something else. Of course, the canvassers are not canvassing purely for business, they are the public relations officers, and they are the people who tell the public how to resolve their difficulties and to whom to go. If the noble Lord thinks that the Commission will not need any public relations officers, then that confirms my worst fears—they are going to sell trans- port (as I said on Second Reading) in the said spirit as that in which the Post Office sells stamps. You queue, you take your chance, you get them or not; and the Post Office does not care a hang whether you take them or not. That will not do for the transport system of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Walkden, thinks the canvassers are simply concerned with stealing transport from the roads. It is not true at all; they are the public relations officers of the railways.

I must not detain your Lordships longer, but my Amendment provides for the hiatus—if there is to be a hiatus—in the setting up of this vast and complicated scheme, which, I maintain, cannot be done by January 1, 1948, and it provides for Parliament to see the scheme before it is given effect to. What is wrong with that? Is that not the way we do things in this country? Is it not the democratic arrangement to let Parliament see the sort of scheme which is going to be made, instead of having the noble Viscount steadily refusing to answer any questions or give us any information whatever? I think this Amendment is one which ought to command the closest attention and the support of the Government. I ask the noble Viscount once more—what is the plan? Do they propose to instruct the general managers to carry on? Of course, I am not suggesting that the trains will not run after January 1948. The trains will run for a while, but the nerve centre will be gone. "The nerve centre which decides these policy questions will be gone. For that there will be substituted, so far as I can see, a jumble, unless the noble Viscount will tell us how this jumble is to be resolved. After January 1, I, as a railway director, lose interest in this matter from the technical point of view. The boards will no longer be concerned. From the railway point of view, and the transport point of view, it has nothing to do with the boards, but I felt it would be inconsistent with my duty to the public, and to your Lordships' House, to let this rotten scheme go through without making some effort to save the Government from their own efforts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 29, to leave out subsection (1), and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think this is an Amendment which the Government might well consider. So far we have not the least idea how this scheme is going to work, or what is the plan. Indeed, it is what I said on the Second Reading—a scheme hereafter to be revealed. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, or the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, is going to take us more into his confidence when he replies on this Amendment, but hitherto we, and—honestly so far as I can see—the Government are entirely in the dark as to how the whole of this plan will operate. The Commission will be appointed, and the Commission, apparently, have to devise a plan. All this Amendment says, in effect, is that if you are going to appoint a Commission of nine wise men to devise a plan for running the transport of this country, would it not be better to give the Commission a clean slate and let them write on that slate what they think is going to be the best way of carrying on the undertaking? After all, it is not as if they were a sort of Royal Commission, appointed merely to advise. From January r next, these unfortunate nine men will be entirely responsible for conducting the whole of the transport of this country. I would have thought it was only common sense, if you are to give them that frightful task to do, and you do not know in the least how it ought to be done, to give them the opportunity of saying, when they have surveyed the field, what they think is the best organization and the best framework to set up.

It seems to me that in this the Government are making the worst of both worlds. They say: "We have no plan. We are appointing a Commission to give us a plan." At the same time, they handicap the Commission in advance by saying: "We do not know whether this is the right way to do it or not, but we are going to set up six Executives as agents of the Commission, and the Commission must work through those Executives." We do not know who the members of the Commission are to be; I do not know if the Government themselves know who they are to be. I have not even seen any advance information in the Press as yet, or any tips, although I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, is in the running, and that it world be worth almost anything to His Majesty's Government to keep him quiet. There may be other competitors. But really I would have thought that the Government might give them the chance of deciding how they want to run the business. Observe what a straitjacket this is put into. It is all to be done, radiating from the centre, by these functional, watertight Boards.

Co-ordination is what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, says we are after. It is quite true the Minister of Health says that he does not care about co-ordination, and the only thing that matters is ownership. Quot homilies, tot sententia. It is no doubt very pleasant to have the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, taking one view, and the Minister of Health taking a diametrically opposite view. Perhaps the Commission, when they are appointed, will take a view which does not agree with either of them. But I would have thought that the way to achieve co-ordination was as to do the thing in a regional way. That is not all theory, because, after all, the only working model in this business is the London Passenger Transport Board, and that is to be one of the Executives which will be set up, or, at any rate, carried on. But the essence of the London Passenger Transport is that it is regional. It directly controls the buses, the trams, and the underground railways inside London; and it exercises regional co-ordination over the suburban lines. I think that on the whole it works pretty well.

It was found that, in order to get that co-ordination, you had to get away from the functional unit of tie main line railway, the bus, the tram and the underground, and you had to have regional coordination. Yet that is the one form which is excluded by the Government's sealed pattern. We are to have a Railways Executive, a Waterways Executive, an Hotels Executive, and a Roads Executive. I appreciate that when you are running a thing like a through train it does require some centralized control. You cannot have one half of the Flying Scotsman run by one region, and the other half of the Flying Scotsman run by another region; it cannot be like one of the animals of the pantomime, with its headquarters in London and its hindquarters in Edinburgh; the whole animal must, presumably, be conducted from one place or the other. But taking an extreme case like that does not rule out regional co-ordination. I should think the Scotsmen will have a good deal to say about this, and I shall greatly sympathize with them if they have. I do not suppose they want to be told in advance that they are not to have any regional co-ordination in Scotland.

It does not seem to me to be at all reasonable that, because the Flying Scotsman has to be conducted from one centre, the local road transport, the local rail transport and the local canal traffic might not well be controlled by a regional board in Scotland. I should have thought that it was a much better way of doing the business. But then the Government say: "But we are giving a power to the Commission"—I am not quite sure whether it is to the Commission, or to the Minister, or to the two between them—" to change all this once we have set it up and we find that it does not work. If we find that these Executives, which we are determined to set up, do not work, then the Minister and the Commission can unscramble it, and rescramble it all." I would have thought it more sensible to give the Commission a free hand from the start, and let them arrange with other people to carry on the business—because it really must not break down until they have their plan in working order. When the Commission, who are going to be responsible for the whole of the transport of the country, have decided what is the best organization, and what are the best Executives and agents, through whom they should do the work. they can then put up that plan, have it approved, and put it into operation. That is all that this Amendment proposes, and I should have thought that there was a great deal of common sense in it. No doubt we shall hear from the Government what is the alternative plan, but I hope that we shall hear it with some precision, and not just be told: "We do not like your plan, and you must wait until we have appointed a Commission to see what our plan is."

5.28 p.m.

Lord LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

As one of the Back Benchers upon this side of the House, I have been very interested in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. It appears to me that the only thing which the noble Lord does not expect to happen from January 1, 1948, is that trains will stop running. Everything else, apparently, will collapse. I must confess that I am not a railway director. I have never directed a railway, but I have directed quite a number of other forms of business. If I have acquired a business I have not expected that business to stop running immediately I have taken over control. I cannot imagine that on January 1, 1948, all the directors of the railway companies will go. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, might, but he will not want a job. I expect there are other railway directors who will want jobs, and instead of being directors of a specific railway company they may be employees of the National Transport Commission. I cannot imagine that all the general managers will walk out of the railways, or that any of the staff will leave. I imagine that the majority of the staff of the railway companies will look forward with glee to January 1, 1948, when they will have a far better job and far better prospects.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

And bigger salaries?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

If they deserve them they will. I must confess that I think it was unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, twitted my noble friend Lord Walkden about his work of benefiting the employees of the railway companies. I was not perhaps in this world when the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, first interested himself in railways, but I am told that the conditions of employment and the wages paid at that time were a disgrace to any railway company. Because those conditions have been improved, and because the noble Lord, Lord Walkden—

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we must get this right. I did not twit the noble Lord, Lord Walkden. I said I greatly admired his work. The point I made was that that had been his object all his life, an object which I admired and of which I approve. But I do not think that undue weight should be attached to that side of it in the setting up of the Commission. I did not twit the noble Lord.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I think that when the noble Lord reads what he did say, he will realize that he was carried away by emotion—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

—and that he said quite a deal more than that. However, be that as it may, I am quite certain that the vast majority of the railway employees will look forward to January 1, 1948. I cannot understand the noble Lord's insistence on a reply to this—and I hope he will forgive my saying this, because I do not mean it at all in an offensive, rude or harsh manner. He knows very well that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House cannot give him a reply to his repeated questions as to what is the plan. Noble Lords laugh at that, but at least I have had some experience in industry, and I know what working to plans can mean. I know very well that while you might ask the present railway directorates what are their plans for the next five years, they might be able to say.

VISCOUNT PORTAL

Might I ask the noble Lord why he says "they might," when plans have been published for all the four main line railways? As you say, you know nothing about railways, so surely it is better not to express your opinion on such a thing?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Viscount, Lord Portal, is usually so fair and so courteous, and I am sure he would not think that this debate should be conducted wholly and solely by railway directors. I suppose the ordinary man in the street has some right to raise a voice. The noble Viscount has asked me a plain question, and he deserves a plain answer. Why I say "might be" is because I have a very shrewd suspicion that 95 per cent. of the plans which have been issued by the main line railway companies are rather window dressing or a death bed repentance. Another thing I would say, as the noble Viscount has asked me, is that I do not know where the money is coming from but perhaps they do. I remember the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, said that the railway companies were not financially embarrassed.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

They are not.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

There are quite a number of opinions about that. But if I could go on with the main argument, what the Commission will have to do is to take over a concern which I have not the slightest doubt it can mould, in the course of time, to the public requirements. But if anybody thinks the Government can sit down to-day and write out a plan to be operated by a Board-to-be, then I know quite well that it cannot be done.

Speaking as an onlooker and following very attentively, and with the respect. they deserve, the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, both on Second Reading and on this discussion, frankly I remain unimpressed with anything the noble Lord has said. I can conceive that quite a number of the things which he read from a very long list are ordinary managerial functions which should be delegated, and would be delegated in my business, to very subordinate individuals. If railway directors waste their time in considering and deciding quite a lot of the points the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has read out, they do a lot more work than I think they do. I can only repeat that, for myself and for those on this side of the House, we remain absolutely convinced that the Government's plan is the only possible plan, and that the alternative if alternative it is—

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

What is the plan?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The plan to set up a Commission and an Executive to take over the railways and run them in the national interest.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

Like the noble Lord who has just sat down I am not an expert on railway administration, and I feel certain that my knowledge of business is not as extensive as his. Before speaking to the Amendment I would like to make one or two observations on his speech. I hope at a later date that he will take an opportunity of developing one line which he touched upon, which is how the Commission are to offer a far better job to the railway men. I would have thought that present indications are that they were a little doubtful of that, and they are, as you might say, "jumping the bus" now. Does that not indicate that they would rather have it in hand than wait for the Commission? But we shall see about that. I thought it was rather a dangerous line to take and would be rather tying the hand of the Commission when they assume office. It is not an answer to questions from noble Lords on this side of the House to say that the railways were not efficiently managed before. What we are trying to find out from a Government of planners is what plan they actually have to take over the railways, and in particular what we want to know, if they are going to run transport on a new and better system, is what that new and better system is.

We also want to know how they are going to deal with the interim period. I should have thought that anybody with any knowledge of organization at all must recognize that the time factor is all-important. It really depends upon what decisions you make, because the time factor is particularly acute now. We have had a series of debates upon the economic condition of this country, and the general inference is that the economic position of this country is not at all happy. If we are to have a nationalized transport—and that is granting the principle of the Bill for the sake of argument—how are we going to make the transition as smooth as possible? The Government have not given us any plan for doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, suggested a means by which the hands of the Commission should not be tied in the extremely difficult task which will face them on only January 1. It may not be the best plan—although he speaks from long experience of railway management—but surely it is a plan, to give that Commission flexibility when they are re-organizing the vast and intricate transport of this country. If it is not the best, then let noble Lords who speak for the Government tell us what is a better plan, one that will make the transition smooth and one which will not cause the travelling public unnecessary inconvenience—because I am certain they will suffer some inconvenience. I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will not brush aside the arguments which have been advanced, but will deal with thorn with the seriousness they deserve.

5.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, looking upon it as an important contribution to help the building-up of administration. I thought when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was speaking that he was taking rather a different direction from that in which this Amendment desires to go. It is not a question whether or not nationalization is better, nor of what individuals should take various parts in the management or direction; it is a vital matter that there should be a general responsibility from the Minister to the Transport Commission and a clear arrangement to ensure that all the necessary parts of the undertaking are carried out. We have a perfectly good opportunity to lay out whatever seems to be the best system. We know what the present system is: the four main lines and the London Passenger Transport Board; but what evidence have we as to what the proposed arrangement will be? We have to find out how best to unite the various parts of the machine, and there is the problem of what to do in the meantime. I do not know what will actually happen on January 1. It will be a difficult time. It may mean very great inconvenience for those in charge, and later perhaps for the public. But, looking further ahead, when we have one Railway Executive and one Road Transport Executive, how are we to see the plan built up?

Most of those concerned with the four main line companies will agree that as units of management they are probably as big as the optimum size, or perhaps a little bigger. I believe that one of the really important things about any industrial undertaking is to see that it does not grow and grow until the central direction loses control of the far ends of it. Therefore we have a difficult problem. We have these four railway companies, which are thought by many to be bigger than they ought to be, and we are to have them all under one Executive. Is that the right way to do it? I suspect that it is not, and that is why I should like to see this Amendment agreed to. I should like to think that there will be an interim arrangement whereby the thing can be linked up directly with the Railway Commission. Let us have the arguments for and against. Shall there be a central bureau of control or such an organization as exists in each form of transport? It is a straightforward Committee point as to what is the best kind of organization to set up. This Amendment raises the matter acutely; if the present system is not the best, what are the arguments to show that the methods proposed in the Bill are better? There are a great many alternatives, which could fall naturally into the framework of this Bill. Are we really satisfied that the particular one here proposed is the best one? It is true that it can be changed; but it would be better and less time-wasting to start with the best system we can think of, and not have to change it unless it is absolutely essential.

LORD MONKSNVELL

I should like to say a word on the subject of railway efficiency. It surprises me that so little has been said about the enormous increase in railway efficiency which has taken place since 1930. I have never been connected with the railway, but during the whole of my life I have been very interested in it. I have travelled largely in America, France and Germany, made the acquaintance of all sorts of railway officials, and devoted myself to the study of the subject. Several times in the course of the last twenty or thirty years I have brought forward Motions in your Lordships' House calling attention to the deficiencies of the railways. I can assure your Lordships that the improvements that have been made since 1930 have been quite astonishing, and it seems to me that it would be absolutely unpardonable to tear from the railways the business that they are now carrying on with the greatest efficiency.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

Having no intimate knowledge of railways, and regarding them merely from the point of view of a not excessively intelligent onlooker, perhaps I may be allowed to say how this matter strikes me. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, raised comes within a very small compass. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, stated in his speech that it was ridiculous to expect the Leader of the House, or anyone from the Government Benches, to give any indication of what was the actual plan. Is it really so exacting a demand? I seems to me the position is that you have in the Bill at present certain definite Executives marked out for the future, as required. They may be the right demarcation if you have behind you the plan upon which those bodies are to operate. But if you are still in the stage that your plans behind these schemes are still fluid, then surely you are in the position that you must say: "Now we find, having made our basic plan of operation, that these are the particular bodies which it is necessary to create in order to give executive force and to make the plan an operative plan." If that foundation is right, and I respectfully suggest that it is, then surely we are making only what is an extremely reasonable and modest request. We do not say: "We want you to expound at length the entire plan"; we do say: "What we want to know is whether there is a plan beyond the mere nomination of these particular bodies; if there is, give us an outline of it, in order that we may judge for ourselves if these are the right bodies to be put into statutory form in order to make a living, breathing thing of the plan which you tell us for the first time is somewhere in existence."

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

We are told from the opposite Benches that there is a plan,, and it seems to me that the plan which we have is one to set up these Executives. In that sense it is a plan, but it is not one in the sense that a plan of operation is all ready and waiting to be put into effect by the new masters of the railways, for them to take over at the appointed time. For that reason I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who said that he would not take over any enterprise with which he was to be connected without a definite plan. I could not agree with him more.

LORD LUCAS OF CBILWORTH

Did I use those words? I do not think I did.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

Something very like them. If I have misquoted the noble Lord, I apologize, but I certainly understood him to say that as a director of companies he would not go into the operation of taking over a business without having a clear plan of what to do.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

After I had acquired it.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

After you had acquired it, yes; and I will come back to that point. But—and I am also speaking at the moment as a director of companies—I should not merely want a plan to set up some board or something of that sort; I should also want a plan of operation. Here we are, and it seems to me that we are in the position of someone who is going up a ladder and who thinks fit to let go with both hands at once. Here we are. We are parting, or we take the risk of parting, with the people who are now running the railways, and who have been running the railways, perhaps for better or perhaps for worse, for a long time; and we are going into a period in which we do not know who is to run the railways. Perhaps it is the people already operating the railways who will run them under some other name; but, equally, perhaps, it is not. We have not been told anything from the Benches opposite that would indicate exactly what is to happen to the railways, and who is to run them until the Commission have had sufficient working experience to enable them to decide what is the best plan to run the railways. Whether it is the plan that the railwaymen have been using for years past, or whether it is some totally different plan, we do not know. Nothing has happened in this debate to make us on these Benches any the wiser.

I want for one moment to look at what seems to me to be a concealed ill-effect of this state of affairs. Whatever anybody may say about the boards of directors of railways—I am speaking not as a director of a British railway, which is an honour that I have not had conferred upon me, but as a director of a small foreign railway—decisions are taken from time to time, and one tries to take them well in advance of the operation, or purchase, or whatever it may be, which is to follow as a result of those decisions. During the period which I have tried to describe as the period when people let go of the ladder with both hands, there will at the same time I think, be a period when no forward planning can take place. That period may be a period of weeks, or of months, or of years; and its effects will not be felt at the present time. Trains will go on running, and the hotels will continue to be kept open. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, promised us yesterday that he would see to it that the refreshment rooms were working in the way that they should, and all these things will go on for the time being. But, while those things are happening in front of our eyes, the machine will be running down behind; and then there will be a delay later on, when the Commission have taken a grip again and started to wind it up. No one can forecast what the results of that dead period will be, but I venture to predict very confidently that there will be a happening of that sort, and it will be all the worse because it will not be possible to see its effects at once.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I make a small endeavour to bring the House back to the Amendments that have been moved, so that the Minister who has to reply can lay before your Lordships the answers that he has to give, and in the hope that we may make some progress with this rather large Bill? The Bill itself to which the Amendments have been moved puts before the House something in the nature of a part of the plan. It says that there shall be a number of Executive Committees, known respectively as the Railway Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive, and the London Transport Executive. In so many words, the Government are indicating that, so far as the management and running of the railways and other forms of transport are concerned, certain lines have to be followed. You may agree or disagree with the proposals of the Government, but it seems to me that you are not entitled to say that the Government are proposing no plan. The plan is in the Bill, whether you like it or whether you do not.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who laid so much emphasis on the necessity for producing a plan, not only does not like the plan in the Bill but is moving Amendments not laying down a plan, but proposing a means by which future plans can be made. For instance, he suggests in one part of his Amendment that each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as can, for the time being, be delegated to them under a scheme to be made for the purposes of this clause by the Commission and approved by the Minister. If that is the policy of the noble Lord, that when a Commission is formed that Commission should itself produce the plan, I cannot understand the grounds of complaint that the Government has placed no plan in front of the House. I venture to suggest, with all due modesty, that we are wasting time chasing this demand for a plan round in the way that we are doing. The times in which we are now living are far too serious for that, and we ought to be con- fronting all the problems and overcoming them to the best of our advantage.

Finally, we do not see in the railways, as they are at present constituted, a great profit-making institution. We do not see in those railways that efficient system upon which emphasis has just been laid. We know that the railways in their present state of disorganization are a danger to the progress of this country. We know that Parliament through the generations has had to step in, for the purpose of preventing the railways abusing the position that they occupy, abusing their position of monopoly. We are trying to enter this railway and transport business not because of their efficiency, not because of the wealth now being made, but because, unless we do these things, the prosperity of this country cannot be re-started, and we cannot put into operation that aim of full employment which was the policy of the late Government as well as of this.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, before addressing myself to this Amendment, I would like to refer to one very admirable remark which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I am sure we can count on his support in preventing any abuse of monopolies in the future. I think the remark which he made was most valuable and I feel that every section of the House will thoroughly agree with him. My chief reason for speaking on this Amendment is this. As I understand—I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—we are speaking to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on page 7, line 29. It has the effect that the Commission shall be responsible for the Executives, both in number and personnel. I think that is important, and for this reason: it puts straight on to the Commission the responsibility—and the whole responsibility—for the work which the Commission have to carry out; and if there is anything in this Bill which I think causes anxiety it is the dispersal of responsibility. There are very few things more unsatisfactory.

We have, for instance, dealt with the question of salaries. We had—if I may say so—great difficulty in extracting from the noble Lord a promise that the salaries would be published. I do not see why they should not be published in the Imperial Calendar as all civil servants' salaries are published. We had great difficulty in getting a statement on the expenditure of capital. So far as this Amend- ment places responsibility fairly on the Commission, I support it. If the Amendment is not carried, I shall have other remarks to make about the subdivision of the Executive at another stage. I should like to make one further point. So far in this country we have substantially avoided what is called the system of "spoils" known in America. That is due to the extremely high standard which we have maintained in the Civil Service. There is an increasing and ever-growing tendency for patronage or appointments to be made from political circles. I feel that we run a very grave danger in that respect, and it is desirable, so far as possible, that appointments of this nature should not be made from a political source.

I wonder whether your Lordships realize that some abuse is already being made by appointments of directors to public corporations. I am going to read short passages from an article which has appeared by a director of one of the corporations which we in Parliament have set up in the last twelve months. I will not mention the name. I will hand this to the responsible Minister afterwards. One article starts with these words: The Tory M.P.s and the Tory newspapers are trying to make party capital out of the decision … to transfer … operators … That is a very good sentiment, but is not a suitable expression for a director of a public corporation. Here is another expression: The advisory council will continue its work heedless of the sneering of Tory M.P.S… I have no objection to these words, but I think from the director of a public corporation that expression is undesirable.

I would like, if I may, to express one further point. We have heard a lot about a plan. We are most deeply in the debt of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on this matter, because he said, with great frankness—a frankness which I think we all admire and delight in—that this Bill could indeed appropriately be compared with the South Sea Bubble.

VISCOUNT ADDINSON

I never said that.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It was I who said that.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Viscount the Leader of the House agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that that was an appropriate comparison. May I read what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said? It appears on page 1050 of Hansard. He said: Some criticism was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. There was a very charming part of his speech in which he resurrected our history of the South Sea Bubble, and he said it was described there as 'a scheme hereafter to be revealed.' He used those words, and I agree they are entirely appropriate. Perhaps we may amend the OFFICIAL REPORT, but that is what stands in Hansard at the present time. In those circumstances, I think we are entitled at least to some further explanation of the nature of this plan. I should say, in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that he did not regard it on those lines at all. There was a very sharp divergence between him and the noble Viscount. He considered it to be a normal business transaction. But if you went to the City of London (I am a child in the matter of the City of London) with this Bill, I rather doubt whether, as a prospectus, it would pass the company law as it stands at present.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I will not take up the time of the House for more than two moments. I do not wish to follow my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh or my noble friend Lord Lucas into the question of the merits and the demerits of the services rendered by railway directors, because I am one myself and I might be biased on that subject. I think that a point has been missed which the Government should bear in mind. The tradition and the spirit of the main line railways have been built up over more than one hundred years by the team which has run the railways during that period, and that spirit is undoubtedly going to be upset to some extent on the vesting date. I do not, of course, say that the railways will not continue to run, but it will take a little time for the new set-up to accustom themselves to the new conditions. I remember very well—as we all do—that over a year ago, when the vesting date of the Coal Board arrived, they were not ready and they had to ask the directors, or some of the directors, of the colliery companies to carry on until they were ready. That was a very natural and very understandable thing to do, and many of these direc- tors were quite happy to do so pro bono publico.

Therefore my only object is to beg noble Lords opposite to keep a wide mind on this subject, because they may require to seek some assistance from those who have the traditions of the railways at heart, and who have built up this organization. Whether it be a good or a bad one, it is a tradition that is held in very high esteem by everyone on the railways—workers, staff and directors alike. We on this side of the House are very largely concerned because we feel that the hand of the Government is always bound to be, to some extent, a dead hand, and must be applied at first gently and as lightly as possible. I submit very respectfully that noble Lords opposite will look rather foolish if, when the vesting date comes, their plan is not ready, and they have to seek temporary assistance from those who have been running the railways for over one hundred years.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

We have had a very long discussion on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the discussion has ranged wide—deliberately, of course, in the first instance, to cover the series of Amendments which are associated with this particular one, and quite properly. But in some respects it has been almost a Second Reading discussion. Let me, in the first place, reply to the point made by the noble Earl who has just spoken. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and those concerned with this business will be just as anxious as the noble Earl to obtain the cooperation, good will and help of all those who are experienced and who have good will in this matter. There is no question of jettisoning a long-established body of experience and good will. It is simply that there will be a different system of working.

With regard to the particular Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I cannot see—and I have studied them with great care—that they in any way facilitate matters more than the provisions of the Bill or make a single contribution to the formulation of the plan which he is so anxious to be revealed. In that respect, might I say that I do not remember the particular circumstances of the remark to which the noble Earl referred in connexion with the "South Sea Bubble." But at all events, of course, it is a fact that the plan which the Commission will be authorized to prepare has not yet been produced. In that respect it is true. We have not set up the Commission yet, and naturally you have not their plan before you. You cannot have it when they have not even begun to sit round a table. It would, I agree, be fatuous to expect their plan before they are appointed. It is clearly stated in the Bill that: It shall be the general duty of the Commission so to exercise their powers under this Act as to provide, or secure or promote the provision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport. That is going to be their job. That is what the Commission will be established for. Of course I cannot say before they are established what plan they will produce, and I am not going to try to do so in spite of the bludgeoning of the noble Lord below the gangway. It is the business of the Commission, and the purpose for which they are being set up. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that to ask or suggest that I, long in advance of their establishment as a Commission, should formulate a plan which it is the business of these gentlemen to produce, is entirely unreasonable, and neither the noble Lord nor I would expect anybody else to do a thing of that kind.

Whilst the noble Lord was developing his case, I was interested, if I may say so with the greatest respect, in a psychological study. Every now and then the noble Lord pulled himself together and I could tell that there was passing through his mind the thought: "I have not had a dig lately at the noble Viscount." Then he would interject a question to me. And I must say that I began to shiver every now and then, as I wondered what he was going to ask me next. Nevertheless, it was very interesting as a study in psychology. I am quite sure, however, that any feelings that the noble Lord may have towards myself are entirely of a friendly character, notwithstanding that threat of the noose with which he made such considerable play.

Now just let me ask your Lordships to recall what actually happened, say, at the beginning of the war. Quite quickly, control of the railways was transferred to the State, a Railway Executive Commit- tee was set up, and they are still functioning. They went on functioning through the war and they are still at work. None of those cataclysmic episodes that are now being prophesied occurred in that case. Of course not. The machine went on; this very efficient Committee continued to perform their duties. I have no doubt that when this Commission are set up the Minister will provide for competent people to serve as members and take part in the carrying on of the work. The noble Lord put forward, in the course of his speech, a number of items which sounded to me rather as though they had been extracted from the agenda of a directors' meeting. Among other matters he inquired who was going to repair the Woodhead Tunnel. I see that the noble Lord is shaking his head.

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

May I interrupt in order to explain? was not asking who was going to repair the Woodhead Tunnel at all. I mentioned it as an instance of the sort of question of policy which has to be decided at a high level. The question is whether it is to be repaired or a new tunnel is to be constructed—an operation which would require the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of pounds, possibly millions.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I have no doubt that that was one of the items on the agenda of a directors' meeting, and there will be lots of items like that on the agenda of meetings of the Railway Executives and other Executives in due course. It is not for me to answer in advance how the bewildering mass of administrative items which will doubtless crop up in the course of the day-to-day work of these undertakings will be dealt with. That will be their business. What we are studying is the setting up of a body of people to be in charge. Therefore, I am completely unrepentant about this matter. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord in not being able to announce details of a plan which a body of persons which we are now setting up are to produce. Of course I cannot produce it in advance—I would not suggest for a moment that I could.

Now may I come to the noble Lord's Amendment, because, after all, that is presumably what we are discussing at the moment. Under the scheme of the Bill a Commission will be set up, and the vest- ing date will be, as the noble Lord properly says, next year. I have no doubt that the first duty to be carried out after the Bill becomes law will be to set up a Commission, and it will not be a difficult matter to authorize the establishment of such executive bodies as may be necessary. Take, for example, the Railway Executive Commitee that now exists. Of course, it would continue to be responsible for the management and direction of such matters as fell to it. The railways, and various things connected with the railways, would continue to be administered by that body until other arrangements were made. It is not necessary, and it is not provided in the Bill, that all these different Executives must be set up by January 1. That is not provided in the Bill.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

May I interrupt once more? With great respect I think that the noble Viscount is wrong. I read the Bill as saying in subsection (3): The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister, but unless and until other provision is made by such an order there shall be Executives— And then various Executives are specified.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I agree, but it does not follow that they are all to be appointed by January I.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

"Unless and until other provision is made." Does not that mean January I?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It must all be qualified, clearly, by the practical working arrangements that the Commission will have to devise. For instance, take waterways and canals. The Executives for these will not be finally called into being until progress has been made with the formulation of proper schemes for dealing with those matters. As to the Road Transport Executive and the Executives for all the other various undertakings, which are to be taken over for the transport of the people, the carrying of goods on the roads, and so on, there will be schemes prepared—schemes for passenger transport, schemes for ports and other things as set out in the Bill—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I be forgiven for interrupting here? This is really the most important statement that has been made in either House on the part of the Government, I think, and I want to get it clear. The noble Viscount says that Executives will not be appointed at once. The Commission will be appointed, but he does not know when the Executives are to be appointed. I leave out the matter of the road interests which are to be taken over at different dates; but railways, canals and hotels all vest in the Commission on January 1 next. If the Executives are not to be appointed before January 1 next, what means are the Commission going to use to carry on the whole of these undertakings which will automatically vest in them?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

At the present time the administration of the various concerns belonging to the railways—such things as canals and hotels—is in the hands of the Railway Executive Committee and other bodies that may be appointed for that purpose. There is no reason at all to expect that they will necessarily have to be suddenly brought to a stop on a given date unless all the separate Executives have been appointed. That is not what actually will happen. There is no obligation here for all these Executives to be appointed by January I.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As I understand it, the position is that there are certain committees of the railways (of which either members or the chairman are members of the board) which are responsible for policy and recommendations to the boards. That is what happens at present. Who is going to make recommendations to the Commission? What machinery is to be set up? I understood that these Executives were to take the place of the committees of the railways which will cease to be, or the directors who will cease to be. Who will take the place of the directors in the meantime? Who will sit on these committees?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The first task of the Minister under the Bill is to get the Commission appointed, and as soon after that as possible he will appoint Executives. The point I am making here is that there is nothing in the Bill to say that the whole of them have to be appointed by January 1, that is, the vesting date.

VISCOUNT SIMON

It will be agreed that, say, on January 1 O next year there must be in existence some Executive or other which will look after the railways.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Certainly.

VISCOUNT SIMON

If one reads Clause 5 (3), what Executive will that be? It will not be the existing boards of the existing railway companies, because they will all be discharged on January 1 next. Suppose executive questions have to be decided on January 1 0; some executive has to decide them. I think, myself, the answer is clear, if one reads the clause a little closely. It says: The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister. I quite understand that the Minister need not make these appointments by January 1. It is the rest of the sentence which the noble Viscount has overlooked.

… but unless and until other provision is made by such an order there shall be Executives known respectively as the Railway Executive …"— and so on. I have hitherto been quite unable to understand how that can arise. unless the new Railway Executive are appointed by the Government for the time being. It is quite true it will not be a permanent body, because the permanent one may be appointed at another time. Who is going to be responsible for deciding executive questions?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No one is suggesting there will ever be an hiatus. I am quite sure there will not be. The point I was making—and I am glad the noble and learned Viscount supported me—was in response to the position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as to all the things which will happen by a given date in January next year. The point I was making was that there is nothing in the Bill that requires the whole of these Executives to be in being by that time, and in the nature of the task some authorities would come into existence later than others. I am sure that the Minister and the Commission will take care that Executives are appointed in good time to carry on their work. Of course they will. I cannot imagine anyone thinking anything else. There will be no difficulty about that.

Lord Balfour of Burleigh has proposed a series of Amendments which in his view are going to expedite proceedings. Listen to what he proposes: Public authorities to be known as Executives may be set up to assist the Commission in the discharge of their functions. Another proposal to set up Executives. There will be no greater difficulty in setting them up than those we already have. After a while these Executives shall act as agents for the Commission and "exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them." That is no different in substance from what is in the Bill. The Executives are to act as agents of the Commission: Every scheme made under this subsection shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and shall come into force at the conclusion of a period of forty days beginning with the day on which such scheme is laid before Parliament. In other words, the noble Lord is going to take care to impose a delay of forty days before anyone cart do anything with anybody. It does nor seem to me to operate for expedition.

If I may revert to my old time phraseology, this set of proposals eviscerates the scheme to get things started and would substitute for it something which is even lunch less definite than the specific proposals of the Bill. We have had a long debate and we are shortly to approach a vital matter, to discuss the character and responsibility and the appointment of the Executives, and I really think it cannot be contended by any of your Lordships that the proposals of the noble Lord will in any way whatever expedite the commencement of operations under this I am sure the first business of the Minister will be to set up the Commission getting as many capable and responsible men as he can, and I have no doubt that after that they will see to it that responsible Executives are brought into being and that the services of the country are not interrupted, but are, so far as possible, rapidly improved.

LORD BALFOUR OE BURLEIGH

I feel that the reply which has been given requires some comment. I would like to, refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who said that the points of policy I have mentioned could all be, delegated to various subordinate officials.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I said nothing of the kind. I said that a lot of points which the noble Lord had read out could be delegated to various subordinate individuals.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I accept the correction, if it is a correction. The noble Lord said that most of the points I read out could be delegated to various subordinate officials. If he will look at Hansard to-morrow he will see that they are not matters which can be delegated to various subordinate officials. If they are, all question of co-ordination by the Commission or the Executive goes completely by the board. Subordinate officials all over the country will be doing very important things on entirely different lines. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, chided the railways for being inefficient. The noble Lord evidently agrees with what was said about the railways not very long ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said: This railway system of ours is an awfully poor bag of physical assets. The permanent way is badly worn, the rolling stock is in a state of great dilapidation, and the railway stations and their equipment are a disgrace to the country. I think that was one of the most ungenerous things I have heard said about the railways. I am not going to argue it. All I will say is that what the Minister said on another occasion is more accurate. The Minister said that the railways were worked unmercifully under war-time conditions, with consequent deterioration of the rolling stock and permanent way. I prefer the view of the Minister to the view of the noble Lord. In my view, rather than introduce this vast Bill it would have been better to allow the railways to get on with first things first, and to restore their efficiency. Instead of that, half their programme for rolling stock and engines has been diverted to export. I am not here to argue the merits of the export programme, but that is why the efficiency of the railways has not been restored as quickly as all of us would have liked. May I turn to the reply of the noble Viscount? Frankly, I am left in a state of bewilderment. I certainly assumed that the Executives were going to be set up by January 1. The noble Viscount says they are not.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No, I did not. I really do object to the noble Lord continually misrepresenting me. I said they were not necessarily all to be set up by January That is quite a different thing, and the noble Lord has no right continually to misrepresent what I say.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If I misrepresented the noble Viscount—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It is not for the first time.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That is the last thing I wanted to do. If I did so, I humbly apologize because I entirely reciprocate what the noble Viscount said about friendly feelings. I have nothing but friendly feelings and the highest regard for the noble Viscount. If I misrepresented the noble Viscount, it was truly unintentional. I made the point that there was going to be a shortage of time when the Commission was set up after this Bill becomes law. They have to proceed with the setting up of the Executives, and I thought the Executives, with the exception of the Hotels Executive, had to be set up by January 1. That was my impression, and I still think, on reading the Bill, that there have to be Executives of this functional character set up. The Bill says: But unless and until other provision is made by such an order there shall be Executives …. If there are not Executives from January 1 to January 1o—the date taken by the noble Viscount—I want to know who is going to give the decisions on all sorts of matters which arise from day to day—questions of daily management.

The noble Viscount, when he said my Amendment emasculated the Bill, overlooked the Amendment on the subsequent page. Of course, owing to our freedom of discussion in this House, I can quite understand the noble Viscount doing that. It is provided in this subsequent Amendment that: Until a scheme made under the provisions of this Section shall otherwise prescribe, the undertakings of the bodies referred to in the Third Schedule to this Act … shall be carried on by such persons as the Commission, with the approval of the Minister, shall appoint … The whole object of this, if the noble Viscount will only believe in my good faith and sincerity, is to get the Government out of a difficulty which I do not think they yet foresee. I am trying to make it so that the Commission will have time to consider what is the best form of Executive, and I provide a bridge by which they can appoint people temporarily to carry on. The noble Viscount referred to what happened when war broke out, and control was transferred to the Railway Executive Committee. He said, with great pride, that the machine went on. Of course the machine went on; it Went on under the control of the boards, subject to the war-time control of the Executive Committee. That is why the machine went on, and the difference between that take-over and this is that the boards are now going to disappear, and there will not be anybody to give executive decisions, unless these Executives are appointed.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

And the Railway Executive Committee disappears as well.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I suppose the Railway Executive Committee will disappear.

"THE EARL OF DUDLEY

It is in the Bill, on page 35.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I hope I have not unduly trespassed on your Lordships' time, but I do not know where we go from here. We have had an answer which, I am bound to say, leaves me completely bewildered.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

moved in subsection (3) to leave out "provided by order of the Minister." and insert "constituted by the Commission." The noble Lord said: We now come to an Amendment which—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I interrupt? We are now opening a discussion of an exceedingly important character, and I am sure we all wish that it should be discussed very clearly. If the noble Viscount has stated his case by 7 o'clock, and if it is convenient, we might then adjourn.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I doubt whether I shall require anything like that time, because, very important as this issue is (and I agree with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, that there is no more important question. before us on this Bill than the subject of this Amendment, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and myself) yet it is a perfectly clear, concrete, and clean-cut issue. The issue is simply that, under the Bill as it now stands, it is laid down that certain specified Executives are to be appointed. These Executives are to be the agents of the Commission. The Bill lays down that these Executives are to be appointed by the Minister. My Amendment proposes that they should be appointed not by the Minister, but by the Commission. That is the plain issue before the House. That is the very grave question that I venture to submit to the House, and I shall do so briefly.

The whole of the arguments used by the Government in defence of this Bill all support my proposal that the Commission should appoint these Executives. As we proceed, the situation becomes "curiouser and curiouser." I am not surprised that the Leader of the House charmingly assented to my description of this Bill "as a scheme hereafter to be revealed." It is not going to be revealed during our debates. I do not say that is a deliberate concealment by the Government of something of which they are ashamed, or, at any rate, which they do not want to disclose, but no one is more frank with the House than the noble Viscount its Leader, and as we proceed it becomes perfectly plain that the Government have not concealed anything—they have not got anything to conceal. They really are the most innocent people. They say, quite frankly: "We do not know how this plan is going to work. We are sure it will be all right upon the night, although we are not quite sure which night it is."

We do not know which is the appointed day. We all thought that the Executives were to be appointed before all the boards dissolved. Not at all. They may, but, on the other hard, they may not. Somehow, apparently, it will all come right; the trains will run; and the cows will come home. How? This is a very autocratic Government; they come just short of the direction of labour; they vest this and that under Orders in Council and under Acts of Parliament. There is one thing that even to-day they cannot vest and transfer by an Act of Parliament, and that is the free services of free people. It is no good saying: "Of course, all this will go on. Of course, people will continue to serve." I am sure people will want to try and do their duty, however discouraged they may be, and however difficult the Government may make it for them. But you cannot transfer all of the directors, or such of the directors as you want, or the management, as if they were cattle or share certificates. You have to make arrangements with these people. Time is running on, and we do not know whether the Executives are to be appointed on the day the whole of this vast structure is vested in the Commission, or before that day. The one thing that does become clear is that the duty and responsibility on them is going to be even greater than we had supposed. There is no plan, and they have to make a plan. There is no knowing when the Executives are to be appointed, so far as I can see. Even after the appointed day this wretched Commission of nine people may be left trying to frame a plan, and also running the whole of the railways and the waterways, and, if the Minister had his way, the docks—heaven help us!—of this country. They have to be sure that they have all the functions under Clause 2.

Let us make no mistake about it, the whole of the responsibility is on the Commission. I will not read out all the things under Clause 2, but that clause sets out the whole of the duties and the whole of the powers. Clause 3, subsection (1), says: It shall be the general duty of the Commission so to exercise their powers under this Act as to provide, or secure or promote the provision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport and port facilities"— The whole responsibility for planning is theirs; the whole responsibility for policy is theirs; and the Minister, we have been told, will interfere only on the gravest occasions, where the national interest requires it. Responsibility for the whole way that policy is to be carried out is theirs; and, indeed, that must be the responsibility of a board. You cannot divorce responsibility for policy from responsibility for seeing that it is to be carried out. The whole responsibility is theirs. I thought it was a very reasonable proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that this Commission should select the agent, and decide the framework of the agencies through which they thought it right to carry out the plan which they had to decide upon and for which they are to be responsible. However, the Government do not want that. The Government have no plan in their minds, and they have done what really is the worst of things—they have set up a machine without knowing what the machine has to do. How can you devise machinery properly until you know what the machine is to do? It really is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

Here they say: "We do not know the plan; we do not know how the railways ought to be run; we do not know how the waterways or the hotels should be run, and all the rest of it. We do not know really what the scheme of co-ordination is, whether it should be regional or whether it should be functional." Although the Government do not know the plan, or how it ought to work, they are going to set up the machine to work it. I must say I do not think that is a sensible way of carrying on. However, that is what they have elected to do, and they must have the responsibility for it; and, subject to certain Amendments which I hope the House will accept, as to the particular nature of these Executives, I feel bound to accept that there shall be Executives, as set out in the Bill. Perhaps it is the only way of getting this thing going. But these Executives are to be the agents for carrying out the policy of the Commission, and carrying out that policy in the way the Commission say it should be carried out. What is more, at any time the Commission have the power to say: "We will transfer this set of powers from one Executive to another Executive." Indeed, subject to the Minister's approval, they can wash out all these Executives and set up another lot of Executives.

That is probably a necessary power, because, personally, I think the particular system of Executives which is being forced upon the country is the wrong system. I think the Government will find that to be so. But if these Executives are to be the agents of the Commission, to exercise the functions the Commission assign to them in the way the Commission say they ought to exercise them, then, surely, in common sense the right person to appoint these Executives is not the Minister, it is the Commission, for whom they work and io whom they are responsible. We have been told by the Lord President of the Council that he wants these nationalized industries conducted on businesslike lines. Whoever heard of conducting a business which was to operate through subsidiary companies — wholly-owned subsidiary companies—in which the board of directors of the parent company were not to appoint the subsidiary directors, but this was to be done by somebody from outside? Never in the whole history of business has there been such a story. Could anything make for conflict more than that? You surely want agreement; you want a team which will work as a team. Is this—the way to get team work? It is the antithesis of what anybody has ever done in business; indeed, I have never heard of a business which was conducted on that basis. It is even the antithesis of what the Government have clone in their other nationalization schemes.

Take the case of coal. The Coal Board were set up, and were to work through Regional Boards of such numbers as they thought fit. But who was to appoint the Regional Boards? Not the Minister of Fuel and Power. He is not chary in seeking powers, particularly personal ones; but we did not vest, and the Government did not propose to vest, those powers in Mr. Shinwell. Those powers were vested in the ordinary businesslike way in the Coal Board. When we came to deal with civil aviation, there were to be three separate companies. They have a lot of subsidiaries working, I understand, all over the world. The Minister appoints the boards of the parent companies, but he does not appoint the directors of the subsidiary companies. A subsidiary company is only a way of carrying on delegated management. There is nothing mysterious about calling it an Executive.

We should get the matter much clearer if we say what is the real truth. The Commission are to delegate their executive and operating functions to certain people. They are really managers for the Commission. Who ought to appoint managers? Surely not the Minister, but the Commission. All business, all common sense, all convenience, is in favour of this. What is the justification for the change? I can see one grave Objection. The only reason, I suppose, is that the Minister wants the patronage. Is that the reason? There is no reason in business; there is no precedent in Sound administration. I believe the Minister wants the patronage. That surely bad. I agree that the Minister must appoint the Commission but it is bad to go on increasing the possibility of "place men". I thought you were "facing the future"—you are doing nothing of the kind; you are facing the worst of the eighteenth century in this kind of thing. I am sure that if the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, had to make appointments he would make honest appointments. But I am equally sure that everybody would be at him to do political jobbery— I know they would, and so does he. It is wrong. The Minister ought not to be put in that position, and the Lord President of the Council—who is the great authority on these matters—has said that the object when you nationalize is to take the industry out of politics. Is giving every subordinate appointment into the hands of the Minister as a piece of political patronage taking it out of politics? On every ground, practical, moral and political, the right course is to give the Commission, who have this vast responsibility, the duty of appointing their own subordinates. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 36, leave out from ("be") to ("but") in line 37, and insert ("constituted by the Commission").—(Viscount Swinton.)

VISCOUNT ADDISON

In intervening as I suggested, and as I am sure is convenient, to suggest that the House do now resume, perhaps I might be allowed to express an earnest hope that this issue, which the noble Viscount has epitomized with great clarity, need not be discussed at great length. We have had a very long debate on the point preceding this, and I am sure that it would be an advantage to all of us if this very direct and specific issue, so clearly stated, did not take us very long, so that we could get on with the other parts of the Bill. Of course, I quite accept that this is a vital matter, but I would ask noble Lords, so far as possible, not to extend it any further than is clearly necessary, and I suggest that we now adjourn.

[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

LORD TEYNHAM

I should like to add my support to this Amendment, which is of great fundamental importance. The Commission have to be a business organization, and if they are to function effectively they should certainly have control over the composition of the Executives.

It was argued in another place, on a similar Amendment, that if the Commission appoint their own Executives, vital matters in connexion with the Executives would fall out of the field of Parliamentary question and answer. I appreciate the point of view of the Minister that he is willing to accept responsibility, but surely if the Government are seeking to set up a public corporation to run transport as a commercial concern, it is essential that it should have the full confidence of the public, and especially with regard to its agents, who are of course the Executives; and this confidence would not be forthcoming if the Commission are not to have the right that any other corporation have to appoint their own agents. In any case, if the Commission make the appointments of the Executives, as set out in this Amendment, the Executives would still be subject to the Minister's approval. As the Bill is drawn, there is a great deal of patronage, which I feel must of necessity be given to the Minister; I think this will undoubtedly cause a feeling of disquiet in the country. Taking all these matters into consideration I feel it would be far preferable for the Commission to appoint their own Executives.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I quite recognize that this is an exceedingly important Amendment, and I should like to express my sincere appreciation of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has compressed his observations into so short a space. The issue is quite simple. It is a definite and specific one: whether the Minister, after consultation with the Commissioners, as set out in paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule, should appoint Executives himself, or whether, as would happen if this Amendment were carried, they would be appointed by the Commission—no doubt after consultation with the Minister. That is the specific issue and, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, the issue is that the Minister must realize that he is responsible to Parliament and must, therefore, undertake the responsibility of the appointment of those upon whom the success of the enterprise will mainly and directly depend—namely, the Executives of different types, as set out in the Bill.

It is perfectly certain that in time to come Parliament will be continually asking the Minister various questions which go to the root of the successful operation of the scheme, and he feels that it would not be right, either to him or to Parliament, if he were able to shelter behind the Commission and thereby not accept the proper and full responsibility that belongs to him as the head of this Depart- ment. That is really the issue. It is a simple and straightforward one, and my right honourable friend and our colleagues are strongly of the opinion that the fact that Parliamentary responsibility should devolve on the Minister is right. It is a direct conflict of opinion. I am sorry that in consequence of that I am not able to accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has appealed to us to be brief in this debate, and I will take him at his word. The issue is a very simple one. It is not complex and not technical, as have been some of the questions with which we have dealt during the last few days. But it is extremely fundamental, and it is the result of this new policy on which the Government have embarked. Under private enterprize there had grown up a certain balance. There was on the one side the employer: and on the other side the employee; and in the middle was the State, which was in the position of an arbitrator, available when called upon. But under nationalization and Socialism that balance is upset. The political chief becomes automatically also the employer; and the question is, what is to be the position of the political employer vis-à-vis the organization for which he becomes responsible? How much power has he to retain in his political position and political capacity, and how much is he to devolute to the economic expert? What is the proper balance between the political and economic responsibility if this great new experiment is to succeed?

That is the issue which is raised all through these Bills. It is raised in this particular Bill, and it is raised in the Amendment which we have tabled. It is not a new issue; it is an issue which has arisen under every nationalization Bill which we have had in this House. There is no new principle which is involved in this Amendment. We are in the dilemma (and I am not saying this from a purely Party point of view) that if we give the Board or Commission, or whatever you like to call it, too much power, we interfere with the ultimate responsibility of the Minister which he must shoulder under a system of this kind; and if we give too much power to the Minister, we destroy both the authority and the efficiency of the Commission which work under him. I think it will be generally agreed by the noble Lords opposite that some authority must be left to the Commission, otherwise, apart from everything else, no distinguished or reputable people would join it. It would not be worth while their taking part in it; and even if they did join it, they could not do their job, because their own expert judgment would be constantly warped by political considerations higher up.

I would suggest, with all diffidence to the noble Lords opposite, that the appointment of the Executives is just one of those things that must be left properly to the Commission. After all, they are the experts. It is no criticism of the Minister to say that he is a political personality. He has no great experience of the subject with which he has to deal. I am afraid that is often the position of Ministers under our political system. Therefore, he appoints a Commission of experts, all people who know their subject. If the noble Lord would look at Clause he will see how carefully that is safeguarded by the Government. They say that this Commission must 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." If such people would join this Commission, it would become a powerful authority of experienced people, for they would be appointed by the Minister purely because they were outstanding men in whom he himself had confidence, otherwise he would not appoint them to the job. Surely, the Government of the day can trust those outstanding men to appoint their own assistants. After all, that is what has already been done in the Coal Board, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, pointed out to you earlier, and it was done in the Civil Aviation Act—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No, that is not quite right.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will quote Clause 3 of the Civil Aviation Act so that it will become quite plain: "Each of the three corporations,"—corporations which, after all, may be regarded as the equivalent of the Commission; there were three of them, but they were comparable bodies—" shall appoint such Committees, with such advisory or executive functions, as are necessary for the purpose of securing"—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I interrupt you for a moment?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am sure the noble Viscount would wish to state the case with complete fairness, but the corporations under the civil aviation scheme are really the Executives. They are Executives; there is no Commission between the Minister and the Executives in the civil aviation scheme. It is a different set-up.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think so. The Commission are a Commission to manage transport. The Corporations are each of them Corporations appointed to manage individual areas for civil aviation. One has charge of the aviation for Europe, one for South America, one for the Empire, and so on. They are self-contained bodies for those purposes. If I may I will now read Clause 3 again: Each of the three corporations shall appoint such committee, with such advisory or executive functions, as are necessary for the purpose of securing the efficient discharge of the functions of the corporation, and, in particular, for the purpose of securing that those functions are exercised with due regard to the circumstances and requirements of particular areas. In that clause, which I think is a very good clause, there is no mention of the Minister at all. The whole selection of the committees who serve under those corporations is left to the corporations. Surely that is wise. That is all we are asking for. We are asking that what has been done in the case of civil aviation, and done also, I believe, in the case of the Coal Industry Nationalization Act, should also be done in the case of transport.

Look at that clause; I suggest that we should follow it. I suggest that it would surely be better to give the Commission all the authority that is essential if they are to do their job properly. That, I think, is in the interests of the industry, and it has another advantage. The Minister appears to be an extremely courageous man. He has stripped away from himself any buffer or cushion that could protect him from public criticism, and that is not a very good thing. He is going to be in an extremely invidious position, in a very vulnerable position, and also in a very hard-worked position. He has to carry one of the largest industrial under- takings that has ever been known, in this country at any rate, and it is important that there should be between him and the public and the employees in the industry some buffer of experts who can take an immense number of decisions which otherwise would have to be passed up to him. I agree that he would have to take responsibility. To my mind it is one of the disadvantages of nationalization that an immense burden of responsibility is piled on a single man at the top. So give him what you can in the way of assistance. Any power and authority which you can properly give to the Commission, I believe, is not only to the advantage of the industry but to the advantage of the Minister.

I hope the Committee will believe that in the arguments that I have set forward I have tried to look at the matter objectively. It has not been my aim to make a violent attack on nationalization. But, for purely technical reasons, we on this side of the House believe that to take too much power from the Commission and invest too much power in the Minister will weaken the Commission, give it less power, less authority, and make it less efficient; and the only result will be to weaken vitally this new structure. We on this side do not like this new structure. We think that it is a mistake and that it will probably fail, but we also feel that if we are going to have it we had better have it as efficient as possible. For that reason we beg the Government to accept this Amendment.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I hesitate to intervene as I was not able, unfortunately, to hear the whole of the speech of the noble Leader. That was because I have been away from the House, and an absolutely firm promise which I had of a taxi to bring me back was not kept. I should, however, like to say a few words, for I feel that someone should speak from these Benches at this point, since we have an Amendment on the Second Schedule to the same effect—to put the appointment of the Executives in the hands of the Commission. We take the view that that ought to be done, though we do not, if I may say so, agree with all the reasons that have been advanced from the official Opposition for this proposal. For one thing, I feel that some of those who spoke from the leading Opposition Bench were tying themselves into knots on this ques- tion of the time of the appointment of Executives—and tying themselves into knots unnecessarily.

On the question of timing, I think the Bill could be much better drafted than it is. It is difficult to find out when things happen, but if you study it carefully I think you will see that the only Executive which has to be appointed by January 1 is the Railway Executive, because that is the only one which will certainly be taken over. Road transport will not be taken over for a long time after that, and it is the same for docks, where there is to be a scheme; and hotels have to have an appointed day. I draw from that an argument for the Amendment for putting things in the hands of the Commission. The Commission are the only body which will be in charge from the beginning, and I think it would be most unfortunate if they had to form their plan knowing it was to be carried out by people they did not appoint. The Commission are to be there; others are not to be there. That is a good practical reason for coming down on the Commission's side of the fence, rather than on the Minister's side of the fence. I do not worry about the argument as to which way you are likely to get more or less jobbery. I do not think that is a consideration that ought to enter into our decision at all.

I hope that if this Amendment is carried or accepted by the Government, and the Commission make appointments, something will be put into the clause to secure for the appointments of the Commission the same kind of publicity which we would get for appointments by the Minister. There is one definite advantage in giving the Minister this power: that he is subject to Parliamentary control. For these reasons I hope the Government may feel able to accept this Amendment. I believe it is a difficult balance of advantages, but I feel bound to support it, our own Amendments being in the same sense. I hope I have spoken not too long for the Leader of the House.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am grateful to noble Lords for co-operating in terms of brevity. We have given this vital but straightforward issue, as the noble Marquess called it, very careful consideration, and in view of the full and adequate responsibility of the Minister to Parliament we ought not to interpose this buffer. We must therefore adhere to the Bill. I am sorry we cannot accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

We must then obviously go to a Division. I would only say that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, by the decision he is advocating, has gone against everything he has so far said about this Bill. He said the Minister and not the Commission has this power, because he must: make all appointments that matter most. That, in effect, means that the Minister and not the Commission are to run this business. That is exactly what the Lord President of the Council said you should never do in nationalization. Believe me, there are only two ways of running a State under-

Resolved in the negative, and the Amendment agreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I beg to move the consequential Amendment standing in my name, but with a single verbal alteration. In place of the word "constituted," as set out on the Paper, I think a better word is "decided." Therefore, I would move to insert the words, "decided by the Commission." I beg to move.

taking of this kind. You must run it like the Army Council or a Government Department, where the Minister can be questioned—about everybody from Field Marshal down to private soldier. The other way is to run it as every business is run, with the shareholders (in this case the Minister on behalf of the taxpayers) appointing the board. If it is a bad board, then you get rid of it. But you must have that; it is the only way in which it can be run.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) Holden, L. Nathan, L.
Addison, V. Kershaw, L. Piercy, L.
St. Davids, V. Latham, L. Quibell, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Rusholme, L.
Darwen, L. Marley, L. Shepherd, L.
Dukeston, L. Morrison, L. Strabolgi, L.
Henderson, L. [Teller.] Mountevans, L. Walkden, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cholmondeley, M. Portal, V. Deramore, L.
Reading, M. Ridley, V. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Salisbury, M. Simon, V.
Willingdon, M. Swinton, V. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow)
Templewood, V. Gifford, L.
Abingdon, E. Wimborne, V. Gisborough, L.
Airlie, E. Grenfell, L.
De La Warr, E. Addington, L. Hatherton, L. [Teller.]
Drogheda, E. Aldenham, L. Hawke, L.
Dudley, E. Amherst of Hackney, L. Kinnaird, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Ashton of Hyde, L. Llewellin, L.
Grey, E. Balfour of Burleigh, L. Luke, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Balfour of Inchrye, L. Middleton, L.
Lucan, E. Beveridge, L. Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Munster, E. Brabazon of Tara, L. O'Hagan, L.
Onslow, E. Brassey of Apethorpe, L. Rankcillour, L.
Radnor, E. Broadbridge, L. Remnant, L.
Rothes, E. Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.) Rochdale, L.
Selkirk, E. Rotherwick, L.
Carrington, L. Saltoun, L.
Bridgeman, V. Cherwell, L. Sempill, L.
Chaplin, V. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Sinha, L.
Elibank. V. Soulbury, L.
Hailsham, V. Courthope, L. Teynham, L.
Hill, V. Cromwell, L. Waleran, L.
Long, V. De L'Isle and Dedley, L. Wolverton, L.
Maugham, V. Denham, L. Woolton, L.
Monsell, V.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 36, alter ("be") insert ("decided by the Commission").—(Viscount Swinton.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

9.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved in subsection (3) after "Railway" to insert "and Inland Waterways." The noble Viscount said: Having decided that the Commission shall have the appointment of the Executives, but having accepted the Government's thesis that there shall be certain specified Executives for the Commission to appoint, we now come to the individual Executives. It will be convenient if I say a word or two upon the next two Amendments that stand in my name, because really the two essentially hang together. The objects of these Amendments are two-fold. If I may, I would like to take the second first, because that will show why I want to put inland waterways with railways or, at any rate, wish to separate them from docks.

On the Second Reading I argued—and there was no answer whatever to this particular argument—that whatever you ought to do with docks, the one thing you ought not to do was to put docks under the same executive authorities as inland transport. The dock, the port, is essentially a link between inland transport and shipping. It has to serve both, and it must not be dependent on or be controlled by either. I believe I also argued on the Second Reading—I refer to this because it is unnecessary for me to repeat the argument in detail—that there is an overwhelming case, where a change is to be made of some kind in the control and management of docks, for following the well-established principle, established by Parliament in the Port of London, on the Mersey, and on the Clyde, of having a self-contained autonomous port authority.

No one will deny that the administration of these ports is altogether admirable. Their management is representative of all the interests of the port—the local authorities, the different services of the port, shipping, and the labour employed in it. I need not elaborate on that. Everybody knows the model of the Port of London, the Mersey and the Clyde. When there was an inquiry a few years ago as to how the Clyde Authority should be constituted, there was a tremendously strong and unanimous report which was adopted, that the Clyde should follow the well-established practice of the Thames and Mersey. Nor is there any question of profit in this, for these are non-profit-making undertakings. They pay their way, issue their own bonds, and raise their money very cheaply; and, having paid the interest on their bonds and their sinking fund and put aside whatever is proper for depreciation and development, they then do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has advocated: plough everything back into the business or apply it in the reduction of port rates. There is also introduced competition and varied experiences as between management of port and port—not competition within the port. There, in the Port of London and the Mersey, is an integrated system that has worked admirably, and no one has challenged it.

Your Lordships will have seen a series of Amendments standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and myself and others at a later stage in the Bill, to establish this principle. We give to the Commission the power and, indeed, the duty to review the port systems in this country. It may be that amalgamations should take place, and I think it is very likely, but in any case we say it should be on a well established principle of a public non-profit-making trust. It is, therefore, necessary to get docks out of this Bill. It is elementary that the railway authorities should not control the docks, any more than shipping should. I believe that that is the authoritative opinion of practically every authority upon this subject, and therefore, without more ado, I say it is necessary to take the executive management of docks out of the hands of the Commission, leaving with them the power and duty of review.

That being established, if I have carried your Lordships with me, then obviously there is no case for a Dock Executive. What, then, are you to do? There are the inland waterways which are to be taken over. I have never understood why even if docks were included in the Bill the Government should lump docks and inland waterways together, except that there is water in both docks and inland waterways. It seems to me to be the only similarity between the two. There are classical examples which leap to the minds of the Fellows of All Souls, and which are followed, longo intervallo, by Wyke-hamists. But there is no possible connexion, because a canal meanders along, and I do not see how you can link its management with the management of the dock at Liverpool. It really has nothing to do with it. No less companionable marriage could really be designed. I should have thought that if you were going to marry the inland waterways to something you would marry them to the railways and the roads. Now it the Government should prefer in the first instance—because the Government, after all, will be able to unscramble the Executives which are set up—to have a separate Executive for waterways, I would not challenge that. What I am particularly concerned about is to get docks out of this business. [Interruption.] I know the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, is so splendidly conservative. He never changes. He learned at his father's knee fifty or sixty or seventy years ago that at some time the wicked railways took over the canals and then dried them all up and ceased to run them. I am not going into tha tancient history; I believe it is completely fallacious. I believe that as a matter of true history in regard to the railways and canals the last thing in the world the railways wanted to do was to take over the canals; but Parliament and the canal companies in their wisdom insisted on linking up the two. I believe that is historically a much truer account. But even if it were true, and it may be true, that the railways did not develop the canals, that surely is no reason for not linking the things together under this wonderful new creation. We are going into a brave new world under this Bill, and it is not going to be the Executives who are going to be responsible for policy; the Commission are going to be responsible for policy and the Executives are going to be their agents carrying out the policy which the Commission lay down.

If the Commission lay down that full use is to be made of the waterways, and they are to carry as much traffic as possible, then it would be the duty of whatever Executive they employ for the purpose to do it. Therefore I really do not think, whatever early prejudices my noble friend enjoyed in the past, that he need really be so frightened about the future; it is not a very good advertisement for his belief in his own Bill upon which he was so eloquent a night or two ago. Therefore I suggest that the natural thing to do would be to marry up the waterways and the railways. But I do not insist on that. If the Government would prefer that the waterways should be separate from the railways I am content to leave the Waterways Executive in being. But one thing I am determined to do, if the Committee will support me, and that is to rescue clocks and the administration of docks from this great and hydra-headed monster. Surely, you are giving the Commission enough to do without piling Pelion on Ossa—if I may be permitted to use a metaphor. Have they not enough to do working against time, as they will be, to accomplish all this by the first of January?

We are still quite uncertain as to when the Executives are to be appointed. In the intervening time the Commission have to plan where there is now no plan. Surely in this matter we might leave well alone. We all entertain grave anxiety in this connexion—I am speaking in no light vein about this—aid I am sure the Government, too, must be entertaining grave anxiety. I thought I could see signs of it through the speeches which have been delivered, signs of great anxiety lest there should be a breakdown in the transport of this country. I hope the noble Lords opposite are not too optimistic. I hope they will not think that all will, of necessity, be well. There will have to be a most tremendous effort to avoid a breakdown. Remember that we have gone through a bit of a crisis with regard to what was a much simpler business. After all, the integrating of the coal business was simple compared with this, and yet we ran into quite a patch of trouble. I pray that we may not run into similar trouble over transport. Observe that the date of vesting is rather sinister—it comes in midwinter, not in midsummer. But at any rate let us leave these admirable ports working in the way they have worked in the past. I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 39, after ("Railway") insert ("and Inland Waterways").—(Viscount Swinton.)

9.18 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM

I would like briefly to support this Amendment, and the next which stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. The only reason for linking inland waterways with the dock executive, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is that in the past railways have interfered with the operation of the canals by competition. Perhaps it is on the principle of "set a thief to catch a thief" that they are now to be linked with the railways. We suggest by this Amendment that the Railway Executive will be the best to consider the efficiency of the canals and to maintain a properly integrated system of public inland transport as laid down in the part of the Bill relating to the general duties of the Commission. I entirely support the second Amendment; it is really consequential on a later Amendment which, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, will be moved, which seeks to remove the executive powers of the Commission from the control of the ports. I do not propose at the present time to enlarge on the management of the ports under the trust system, but of course there will be a debate later on the clause which refers to harbours.

LORD SALTOUN

I would like to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, one further question. I am sure that he must have consulted the Executive Committee of the Dock and Harbour Association on this point. I should very much like to know if they are in agreement with the Government or with my noble friends in this matter. I am a member of the Association myself, and I give you my word that I do not know what the answer is. I am sure they must have been consulted by the Government in this matter and I should like to know if they support the Government form as set out in the Bill, or that asked for by my noble friends.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am afraid I cannot answer without notice the question of the noble Lord. I Will certainly inquire and will inform him of the result; but beyond that I cannot say anything. I listened to the interesting and charming speech, full of metaphors, of the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment, but I still fail to see the strength of his argument that there is less kinship between docks and canals than there is between canals and railways. I could not follow that. Docks have water in them, and canals have water, and that seems to me a very good reason why they should go together. The noble Viscount argued very ingeniously that docks were more allied to iron rails, but that did not convince me a bit. Under the Bill, when the railway companies come over to the Commission, there will come over with them something like one-third of the docks of the country, which will be automatically transferred; and the only question which arises is: What is the sensible and practical way of dealing with this great addition to the transport system of the country?

What the Bill proposes is to set up a body which will make schemes for dealing with the docks, and waterways that are allied with them, and canals. I do not imagine for a moment that any scheme will propose the abolition of an efficient trust. I have no doubt at all that where they find an efficient body of men running a dock undertaking they will take account of their existence and incorporate them in the scheme. So the fact that you have this large volume of docks automatically transferred means that you must have a special organization to deal with the problems that present themselves; an Executive is the appropriate form, and is clearly the right kind of organization. I am afraid I cannot agree that we should leave out docks. They must come in. They are an integral and important part of the transport system of the country, and ought not to be left out. But it is quite desirable that schemes should be made which will make use of existing organizations for the competent running of the docks.

As to canals, I remember many years ago, when I was Minister of Reconstruction, appointing an eminent gentleman to make a report on canals. If you want a little disconcerting reading, the report on the canal system of this country will provide it. It was simply disgraceful. If you want a record of neglect by the railways in developing and improving and encouraging the use of canals, there it is. It is a shocking record. The real reason is that the men who are interested in steam engines and railways, and all that goes with them, are not interested in the same way in waterways or canal traffic. I am not blaming them; they are interested in railways. But it is a shocking story. We ought to associate the two water-borne systems of transport in one. I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The proposal in the Bill is quite right. There should be a Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Is this report you refer to that of Mr. Frank Pick?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It was a long time before Pick. I believe it was Sir John Snell. I speak open to correction, but I think it was Sir John Snell, and it was in 1919. It was a shocking docu- ment. Really, there is every reason why water-borne transport should be dealt with as a whole. There is no doubt about that. There is no justification, first, for leaving the docks out, and, secondly, for splitting up the executive direction of the water transport system. Therefore, I am very sorry, but I cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment, and I hope he will not press it.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

There are, of course, two points in this Amendment. One is whether the docks should be included, and the other is whether the canals should go with the railways or with the docks. I did not want to speak about what I admit is the major question—whether the docks should be included—but I listened with very great attention to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I submit that the arguments he has given your Lordships as to why the clocks should be united with the canals are most unconvincing. Really, it is playing with the subject to say that they are both concerned with water. With great respect, I venture to say that is an argument which is unworthy of the noble Viscount. The point really is that the railways and canals are both concerned with inland transport, and—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I interrupt? I am sure the noble Earl also agrees that most canals end in docks. All of them do not, but nearly all.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

It would be equally germane to say that most railways end in docks. Neither a railway nor a canal is of much use unless it goes somewhere, and inasmuch as we are an island, and people wish to export and import goods (although I admit His Majesty's Government are doing their very best to discourage that ancient practice) both the railways and the canals end in docks. But they are both concerned with inland transport. The railways have been criticized, and the noble Viscount joined in the criticism when he said that the railways acquired possession of the canals and starved them. That is a criticism that has been made, but there is another side to the case into which I did riot want to go to-night. We had, under private enterprise, the finest railway system in the world, and the canals fell into disuse. I say that it is an altogether wrong arrangement, in dealing with the problem of inland transport, to put the railways and the canals under different authorities. Surely this emerged from the speech of the noble Viscount, because he mentioned the fact that only about one-third of the docks are being taken over by the Bill, whereas all the railways are being taken over.

Just conceive the condition. Where there is a canal that leads into a dock that is not taken over by this Bill, obviously one does not get proper co-ordination, whereas canals and the railways are treated as part of the inland transport system, they can be dealt with as part of the same problem—and it is the same problem. As I have said, it is just playing with the subject to say that canals are wet and locks are wet, and, therefore, they ought to be dealt with by the same authority. The docks are being dealt with entirely differently under this Bill, and if my noble friend presses this Amendment to a Division, I will certainly follow him into the Lobby.

9.30 p.m.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I have an Amendment down covering some of the same ground, but not the whole of the ground, which the Amendment now under discussion covers. I hope it will save time if I say a very few words on my Amendment and this Amendment together. First, as regards the main point of whether there should be a Docks Executive or not, on this matter we on these Benches agree with the Government rather than with the Opposition. We feel that you must have an executive authority for dealing with the big problem of docks parallel to that dealing with the problem of railways. On the other point, as to whether the inland waterways should be with the railways or the docks, the Amendment which I have put down deliberately leaves the matter open, and I think it is necessary for it to be settled in the light of experience.

May I say that I, personally, am convinced by the arguments put forward by the last speaker, and one or two other speakers, that where the inland waterways are concerned with carrying very largely heavy traffic—the same kind of traffic as the railways—they ought to be with the railways rather than with the docks. But my Amendment does not settle that. My Amendment merely keeps the ground open, so that you do not find yourself forced to put the inland water- ways with the docks, which I think would be a marriage of great inconvenience. I want to avoid that marriage of inconvenience without a previous discussion. That is the reason for my Amendment, and I hope that the Government might be able to consider keeping that point open, at any rate, for further consideration.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I must add a few words, because in a laudable endeavour to confine my speech as nearly as possible to the Amendments I did not explain the Amendment later on, which the noble Viscount obviously has not read, which deals entirely with the question of how the railway docks should be handled. Therefore, I must say a word in reply to show that my scheme is complete. Let me first finally dispose of this extraordinary thesis that the inland waterways and the docks must go together. We have slightly abandoned, I gather, the strange defence that both contain water—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Viscount has two defences. He still maintains this extraordinary thesis that both contain water. So does a great deal of the spirit which we drink to-day, but nobody suggests that we should amalgamate the distillers and the docks—and it would be about as sensible to do that. The noble Viscount has the alternative defence that you must amalgamate them because all the canals lead to the docks. Well, they do not.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I did not say all.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Well, a large number of them. A great many of the canals in the Midlands—which incidentally are very largely used to-day—do not lead to the docks at all. But even if they did, what an extraordinary argument. "The path of glory leads but to the grave," but it does not follow that the authorities who deal with our final interment are necessarily to govern the whole of our lives. In truth, the mere fact that some of these canals do ultimately find their way to sea, and come out into port, is a very bad argument for linking up the docks with them. As I have said before, why not link them up with the ships? They are much more closely linked, as a matter of fact, to ships. The noble Viscount said you must put docks and waterways together because both relate to waterborne traffic. They do not at all.

A dock is a place where a ship comes in and loads and unloads. It is quite true that traffic is carried to and from the ship, sometimes by railways. sometimes by roads, and sometimes by canals. But there would be just as good an argument—in fact a better argument—for putting the docks under the ships than there is for putting them under the railways or under the waterways. The truth of the matter is that the docks should serve both, but should not be controlled by either, and should continue to be controlled as in the past. The noble Lord said that even if all of those arguments were right, it was necessary to do this because a number of railway-owned docks vest in the Commission. But they are run by the railway companies to-day, and nobody has yet argued that it was a good reason for abolishing the Port of London authority or the Clyde authority or Mersey authority, because there happened to be a number of docks in Hull, Southampton, and South Wales owned by railways. I think the noble Lord has certain reports on transport; and I think he will find that they all strongly advocate that the ultimate solution was not to give the railways more docks, but to take the docks away from the railways and vest them in integrated self-contained harbour trusts. That is exactly what we propose to do. If the noble Lord looks at the Amendment on page 26, the new clause to be put in after Clause 68, he will see that we do deal quite logically and practically with the railway docks. Of course, as he says, those will vest in the Commission on January I. They will continue to be managed by the Commission as the Commission think best.

It is true that following that change of authority, as to what is the right system of port management, we have an Amendment (of which I will not discuss the merits) which proposes that within five years these railway-owned docks should be handed over to autonomous public port trusts. But in the meantime they will be run by the Commission and, as the noble Lord has explained to us, the Commission will have the power to appoint such additional Executives as they desire. If the Commission consider that the best way to run the railway-owned docks during the interim period is to have a special Executive, there is nothing in the world to stop the Commission, the day after they are appointed, from setting up an Executive to run the railway-owned docks as a separate undertaking from the railways themselves.

For all those reasons we hold most strongly that you must not embroil the dock system in the country—in so far as it is not already owned by the railway companies—in this tremendous new, complicated monopoly which you are setting up. I do not want to have more points of dissention than we need. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has said that he does not like the idea of marrying the inland waterways to the railways. I do not want to force that. It will be for the Commission to appoint additional Executives. If they decide that it is good business to amalgamate railways and canals in their administration, then there will be nothing to stop them amalgamating the two Executives; but I am perfectly content to take the noble Lord's advice on that and leave the Railway Executive standing as it is; and to leave the inland waterways, if that is what he proposes, to have a separate Executive. But what I am afraid we must firmly insist on is that we eliminate the docks from this clause.

With the leave of the House what I propose to do is not to move the first Amendment in my name, but to alter the second Amendment standing in my name. The Amendment I would propose, therefore, is "In line 39 leave out the words 'Docks and'". Subsection (3) of the clause would then read: The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be decided by the Commission, but unless and until other provision is made — there shall be Executives known respectively as the Railway Executive, the Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive, and the London Transport Executive, and, as from the appointed day … the Hotel Executive.

LORD GIFFORD

I should like to point out something which may not mean much to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, but which means a great deal to me and to other noble Lords with sea experience. The docks have sea water in them and the canals have fresh water; and whereas many of us with sea experience would feel at home in a dock, we should have no idea how to hitch a horse to a canal barge.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I do not think that the lack of knowledge of the noble Lord, which I fully share, has anything whatever to do with this Bill. I am sorry I cannot accept the omission of docks from this scheme. It would involve very large alterations in other parts of the Bill. We shall resist that. I do exhort noble Lords to think very carefully as to how they use their machine majority in this matter. It is a very dangerous thing to do. The last Division we had was on a vitally important point of principle to which no person could object, and I do not raise any objection. But in this I do, because it would involve a large number of other alterations in the machinery of the Bill. The whole scheme as set up was carefully thought out. It is noble Lords' own responsibility, but I hope they will be very frugal in the use of their machine majority.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am loth to stand between your Lordships and the Division, but the noble Viscount has made a statement which I am incapable of allowing to pass sub silentio: He spoke of the record of railways in the matter of canals, and said it was a shocking record. I am not prepared to allow that to pass, because I am quite certain he believes it or he would not have said it.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It is true.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It is not true. I had a brush with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in the debate on the Address, and in his summing up the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, quoted a report called the Pick Report. The Pick Report was confidential. It was dated May 14, 1941. It was marked "Secret and Confidential." It was never published. It was circulated to railways. I have seen it. In the course of that Report many statements are made which are unsupported by evidence. All I can say is that the Pick Report has not been published, and that having seen it I can say it is not conclusive on the point which the noble Viscount raises. He is depending on the Snell Report dated 1919. Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat one sentence from the Royal Commission on Transport in 1931: It is not just to say, as some people have done, that railway companies, except perhaps in a few instances, acquired canals in order to strangle them. It is true to say that rail- way companies have, from various causes, acquired canals, it may be, with few exceptions, having little desire to do more than their barest legal duty in maintaining them. The truth is that in the great majority of cases the railways were forced to acquire the canals. Having acquired them, I do not think the railway companies can be blamed for preferring to carry the traffic on their own systems. I am not prepared to accept the version that it is a shocking record; it is not true. I say that the railways have rendered great service in the past and that they should be judged on the progress they have made towards becoming a public service.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not propose to say much on the merits of this particular Amendment because the case has already been clearly stated by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, but I am bound to say something on the last words which were used by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. He talked about our machine majority. Would he talk about the machine majority in another place?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It was elected by the people.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The point is that in any House of Parliament there are certain members who are constitutionally empowered to take action according to their beliefs, and that applies both in the other place and in your Lordships' House. Nobody can say that during the last two years of this session this House has ever taken a Party view. Noble Lords have always tried to improve Bills upon their merits. That has been done with every Bill in the past and we shall continue to do it with Bills in the future. If we make Amendments in this Bill, it is purely for the purpose of making the Bill more worthy. The Bills are discussed here, they are amended here, and they go back to another place; and the other place have a perfect right and duty to take whatever action they think fit with regard to the Amendments which are passed in your Lordships' House. But to say that we are prohibited from taking any action which we believe to be our constitutional duty in regard to any results which may accrue is a form of blackmail to which no responsible person would ever submit, and I hope that no such argument will be pursued in this House again. This Amendment is designed for the improvement of the measure before us. It will be considered in another place, on its merits, no doubt. I am sure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, when he thinks over the matter coolly, will not expect any Party in this House, or section of opinion in this House, not to take any action which they thought right merely because of possible consequences. That would be a very wrong thing and it would be a denial of all right under the Constitution.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The noble Marquess and I, I am sure, are united in our wish and in our endeavour, as we have been for a long time past, to make the working of the machinery of this House fully worthy of its reputation, and I think we have done something to enhance it. And I am quite sure of this: that the noble Marquess will be the last to accuse me of doing or saying anything which he or anybody else can interpret as "blackmail" That was the word which the noble Marquess used. I do not like it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Viscount would prefer it, I will use the words "veiled malice."*

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I can quite understand, for example, the last Division which we had. It was on a very big question of principle, a very important question of principle, and I would be the last to challenge the desirability or the necessity of having a Division on matters of that kind. But this is different. This Amendment is destructive of the machinery of the Bill. There is no doubt whatever about that—it is destructive of the machinery of the Bill. I say, with great earnestness, and I am sure I say it in the best interests of our Parliamentary institutions, that it is right that this non-representative Chamber should bear in mind that whilst it does its best to maintain its traditions—and we do effect great improvements in Bills and discuss them with great advantage—we should be prudent in our alterations to proposals that have received a very large majority of support in the representative Chamber. I will not put it any higher than that. I do not want to engage in any discussion of our constitutional arrangements. I am sure there is a score, or maybe more than that, of Amendments of this character which have been put down in respect of this Bill. If they are all put to a Division then, of course, we are completely helpless—I know we are. They will be carried, and they will smash up the Bill; that is all. And it is not right.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Of course I realize that we live in an age of rationing, and, no doubt, your Lordships' House must ration itself as everyone else does. But the fact is true—and I am sure the noble Viscount, the Loader of the House will agree to this—that it is a most moderate description of this Chamber to say that it is an advising Chamber, an amending Chamber, an improving Chamber. To carry out these functions is the object which we have in

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I do not move my Amendment to page 7, line 39, to leave out "Inland Waterways." I beg the Government to consider it between now

mind in the action which we are taking to-night.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I withdraw my first Amendment and move the second Amendment in the revised form, that is, in subsection (3) to leave out the words "Docks and."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 39, leave out ("Docks and").—(Viscount Swinton.)

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) Ammon, L. Marley, L.
Beveridge, L. Morrison, L.
Reading, M. Chorley, L. [Teller.] Mountevans, L.
Willingdon, M. Darwen, L. Nathan, L.
Dukeston, L. Pakenham, L.
Huntingdon, E. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Piercy, L.
Addison, V. Holden, L. Quibell, L.
St. Davids, V. Kershaw, L. Shepherd, L.
Wimborne, V. Latham, L. Strabolgi, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Walkden, L. [Teller]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cholmondeley, M. Long, V. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Salisbury, M. Monsell, V.
Portal, V. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Ridley, V. Gifford, L.
Abingdon, E. Simon, V. Gisborough, L.
Airlie, E. Swinton, V. Grenfell, L.
Craven, E. Hatherton, L. [Teller.]
De La Warr, E. Hawke, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Addington, L. Kinnaird, L.
Aldenham, L. Llewellin, L.
Dudley, E. Amherst of Hackney, L. Luke, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Ashton of Hyde, L. Mancroft, L.
Grey, E. Balfour of Burleigh, L. Middleton, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Balfour of Inchrye, L. Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Lucan, E. Brassey of Apethorpe, L. O'Hagan, L.
Onslow, E. Broadbridge, L. Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Radnor, E. Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.) Polwarth, L.
Rothes, E. Rankeillour, L.
Selborne, E. Carrington, L. Remnant, L.
Selkirk, E. Cherwell, L. Rochdale, L.
Clanwilliam, L. (E. clanWilliam.) Rotherwick, L.
Saltoun, L.
Bridgeman, V. Courthope, L. Soulbury, L.
Chaplin, V. Cromwell, L. Teynham, L.
Elibank, V. De L'Isle and Dudley, L. Waleran, L.
Hailsham, V. Denham, L. Wolverton, L.
Hill, V. Deramore, L. Woolton, L.

and Report stage, if they cannot agree to it now.

10.5 p.m.

LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "the Road Transport Executive." The noble Lord said: I am sorry to have to move this Amendment at this late hour, but it is one of some importance. This Amendment to leave out "the Road Traffic Executive" is followed by an Amendment, which I have put down later, to leave out Clause 39 and to substitute a clause providing for the holding of an inquiry into road and rail transport. There will follow from that a number of Amendments to leave out other clauses, which I did put down but which, in the interests of saving paper, I withdrew from the marshalled list, because they can be dealt with later. These Amendments raise the general issue of the treatment of road transport under the Bill, but they do not prejudge it. They do not prejudge the issue as between nationalization and private enterprise.

More than that, I venture to say that these Amendments, even although they would appear to take out a large part of the Bill, do not, in fact, conflict with the principle of the Bill, because the principle of the Bill was twice stated to us to-day by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House as having been accepted by the Leader of the Conservative Party twenty-five years ago in nationalizing railways. Obviously, if that is the principle of the Bill—and I have the authority of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for saying that it is—it cannot conflict with what is proposed about road transport.

The object of these Amendments is to invite fuller consideration of a very difficult problem. I think we all realize that the question of what should be done about road transport is a very difficult one. Let me say that we on these Benches are far from content with the position of road transport as it was pre-war, when a large part of it was becoming, I will not say a monopoly—that is not the right word—but substantially a closed industry in private hands. The Government have put forward a proposition to try to deal with that situation. We on these Benches do not feel that the solution they propose is a good one. I will go further and say that what they propose is so contrary to the national interest and prosperity, so productive of waste and inefficiency in a vital industry, that it ought not to he adopted. I use those words advisedly. and I shall try to make them good. I think I can make them good. What do the Government propose? What the Government propose is to take over and nationalize under the Transport Commission about 30,000 road vehicles—10,000 now belonging to the railway companies coming over under Part I of the Bill, and 20,000 coming over under Part III. But that is only a part of what they propose. The other part is that there will be maintained and imposed restrictions upon use of all the other vehicles. That is the other part of their proposition, and that is the one upon which I shall mainly speak. Two questions arise when you are wishing to get somewhere, as the Government are wishing to get somewhere in the treatment of road transport.

LORD GIFFORD

When the noble Lord gave those figures, I take it he meant road haulage vehicles as opposed to road passenger transport?

LORD BEVERIDGE

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am speaking of road goods vehicles and not road passenger vehicles. In order to shorten what I have to say to-night I wish to concentrate on road goods vehicles. I want to say something about road passenger vehicles later, but the correction is right and I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In considering any proposition there are two things to consider: How you get to your objective and what your objective is—your journey and your journey's end. I am not going to say very much about the nature of the journey which the Government propose to take to reach the end of taking over 20,000 vehicles under Part III. I think there will be a great deal more to be said about that when we come to Clause 39. To-day, I will refer particularly to what I may call the "Puzzle Corner" of the Bill, Clauses 39 to 41. I think all your Lordships will agree with my description when you realize that so distinguished a brain as that possessed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was in fact misled as to the effect of one of the clauses, in judging whether it was really concerned with long-distance or with short-distance transport. In order to be short-distance it must be less than forty miles and must be within a twenty-five mile radius. Actually, if you work within your twenty-five mile radius you can go round and round in a circle for ever, and it is still short distance. In fact, I think that is a very fair description of this Bill —a Bill for causing the, road transport industry to run in circles.

There arc 48,000 puzzles to be solved, because there are 48,000 holders of "A" and "B" licences, and in regard to each of them the Commission have to come to a decision whether or not to issue a notice of acquisition. In coming to that decision they require a return as to what journeys are made, to see whether those particular journeys count as short-distance or long-distance, or count as ordinary furniture removal or other furniture removal. They have to decide whether, when a vehicle was taking meat, the man ought to have put in a sack of potatoes, or whether, when it was thirty-nine miles out, it brought a little back or not. All that kind of puzzle has to go on. I am not going to dwelt upon that, because it will be, I have no doubt, admirably illustrated with regard to Scotland in a later stage of the debate.

It is also clear that these really are puzzles if you look at Clause 41, in which I think the Government clearly realize that the puzzles are going to be insoluble in a large number of cases, because when the Tribunal cannot decide it can just do what it thinks fit as to whether it is long or short distance, or whether the concern shall be taken over or not. The point about all this is that it is going to take a long time to solve these 48,000 puzzles, and during the whole of that time the road transport industry will be in a state of uncertainty as to its future, and unable to undertake any development. If you want to know what that means, I would call your Lordships' attention particularly to Clause 50, and see how the effect of the service of acquisition completely stymies any action by the owner of an undertaking at the time being.

Let me say a word about the journey. The journey is going to be long and wearisome and full of absurdities at every point. I use those words deliberately. The decision whether to take over or not is going to depend on pure chance. The end, so far from being good, will be absolutely disastrous. ft is necessary that the 20,000 vehicles taken over shall be worked with the maximum efficiency of which a Government Department is capable—I am not saying whether that is high or low. But all the other 400,000 vehicles are to be subject to some restriction or other. Of those that are left to private owners, 300,00o roughly will be subject to "C" licences, which means they can carry only the man's own goods—they cannot take anything back. Very often they must be running empty.

The "A" and "B" licensed vehicles also have restrictions on them. The restriction there is a simple one: the vehicles must never be more than twenty-five miles away from their operating centre. That is quite simple. The provisions of Clause 52 in that respect are rather different from those of Clause 39. There is an absolutely rigid limit of twenty-five miles for the "A" and "B" licence, and such vehicles left in private hands must run in circles; they cannot go outside that circle while carrying goods, Everyone will have the choice of either selling or restricting those vehicles or getting them taken over as a whole. That is what the Government are proposing.

At the end of this journey then, 20,000 vehicles are to ken over, costing, I should say, £10,000,000. I want to compare that with the £1,000,000,000 which is involved in this Bill as a whole. Of the rest, 400,000 odd vehicles will be run under "C" licences; running empty for a large part of their journeys because they are compelled to do so, or "A" and "B" licence vehicles running in circles. I suggest that the evil in this Government proposal is not the nationalization of 30,000 vehicles. We on these Benches are quite prepared for nationalization when a case is made out. The evil is the imposing of restrictions on the other vehicles. It is inefficiency by Act of Parliament: that is the evil I ask your Lordships to consider. It means putting valuable equipment in strait-waistcoats, and erecting barriers to individual enterprise. just think of it. You may not bring goods back—it is a good thing that that restriction did not apply to our ships when we were building up our economic greatness and our ships were taking coal to South America. Imagine their being told they could not bring anything back. That is the principle of the "C" licence, that you cannot have the double load unless it happens to he your own possessions or goods.

What I suggest to you is that the Government are proposing, at a time of acute economic shortage, when we are short of everything, a waste of our physical resources by Act of Parliament. I suggest to your Lordships that there must be some alternative to it. We must look for that alternative, and I am asking that the Government shall look for that alternative. The alternative, in the view of those who sit on these Benches, and, I believe, many who sit on other Benches, is not the continuance of the system of an industry, working for private profit, with the advantage of being a closed industry, as it very largely is. That is not the alternative. May I also suggest that the right alternative is not just to take this Government proposal for taking over these vehicles and slightly to alter it, and rewrite for twenty-five miles, perhaps, forty or eighty miles, and instead of "ordinary furniture removal" to put "all furniture removals." All those things would seem important things, but, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has himself informed us, the problems will remain whatever numbers you take. Moreover, if in fact you leave more for private undertaking than is at present proposed, if you agree to fifty miles instead of twenty-five, or eighty miles instead of forty, the effect is to diminish the number of vehicles taken over, and you might find that the Government will be doing all this for perhaps 10,000 vehicles or even less.

There must be some alternative to this destruction of efficiency by Act of Parliament. What is the alternative? The alternative suggestion from these Benches is that one should nationalize the railways. I sympathize with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but I think that the nationalization of the railways is definitely a Government mandate. They must nationalize those, and the transport that goes with the railways, but free enterprise should be restored to the rest so that there may be effective, fair competition. I want to emphasize those points. When I outlined something like this in the Second Reading, I venture to say that the Government made no answer to me at all; they did not attempt any answer. I rather think, from something that was said to me, that they thought I had been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. With all respect, the noble Lord did not answer me at all, nor my argument.

To begin with, having read what he said, I find that he slightly misunderstood me. He began by saying that he did not believe that you could have competi- tion everywhere. I never said that you could have competition everywhere. I think there are natural monopolies, and possibly the railways are natural monopolies. I think there are also some monopolies which I hesitate to term as natural, but such monopolies as arise from the great congestion of London. We have allowed London to grow, and it may be that there must be a monopoly there; but I would prefer to call it not a natural monopoly, but an unnatural monopoly; that is what London is, but that is peculiar and special. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, went on to say that if the railways had been exposed to the competition of road transport, they would all have been ruined. I want to suggest that if the competition is fair competition, then they must be ruined; that you cannot defend or justify defending invested capital against a more efficient system of doing anything, if it is fair competition, and that the worst possible way of defending your old system is to make the new system inefficient.

Suppose that when the railways were beginning someone had come along and said: "The stage coach owners are going to be ruined. In order to help them, we will arrange that no railway locomotive runs more than one hundred miles in a day or more than fourteen miles in an hour." That would have been rather like the physical limitations which the Government are proposing for the road transport vehicles which they are not to take over. If I thought that Lord Brabazon had answered me and that competition in transport was impossible, I should vote with the Government for even more comprehensive measures than they propose to-day. But we on these Benches do not believe that. I venture to suggest that the noble Lord was himself very well answered by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who pointed out that the railways went to sleep until they were awakened by the competition of the roads, and he emphasized the importance of maintaining that competition.

I suggest to the Committee that there is an alternative to inefficiency by Act of Parliament as proposed by this Government. That alternative is fair but real competition between State enterprise and private enterprise in transport. That is good for both, and good for the consumer. What do I mean by fair competition? Clearly, road transport must bear its fair share of the upkeep of the roads. Clearly, too, if one set of transport undertakings undertake the special liabilities of being a public carrier, those who will not take on those liabilities may reasonably be taxed for the benefit of those who do. Clearly, again, if you say that, for some reason of security, railways must be maintained which would not otherwise be maintained, then you must subsidize them; but I suggest you must do that by money, and not by making the competing system deliberately inefficient.

We, on these Benches, are certain that there is an alternative to the Government proposal. But we do not ask the Government or your Lordships to accept that alternative. All we ask in this Amendment is that time should be taken to look for the alternative. Therefore, our Amendment on Clause 39 says that instead of adopting the Government's scheme for taking over 20,000 vehicles and hamstringing 400,000 others—that is the proposal—there should be an immediate inquiry into the method of getting efficient and cheap road transport for all on terms that are fair to other forms of transport. We, on these Benches, only want to have a chance of making our case to that kind of tribunal.

I have spoken from these Benches, and I think that what I have proposed is liberal, in the old sense of really believing in free enterprise, not State-supported enterprise, not enterprise resting on State control. But let me say that though I speak from the Liberal Benches I am certain that there are many in all Parties who sympathize with that view. Of all the speeches I have read—and I have read all the speeches made in another place on this matter—the one that seemed to me to be most in tune with what I am trying to say to-day was made by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, who is a Conservative. That speech was an attack on monopoly of all kinds. In this House, I have felt myself in most sympathy, I think, with Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in what he said about the need for competition and about the possibility of competition.

Let me now say one thing to the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Conservative Opposition. I have been reading with great interest the publication called the Industrial Charter, which has been pro- duced by the Conservative Party. A section in it deals with the small man, and this is a passage from it. If you are a lorry driver and have saved enough money to get your own lorry, we say that you should be allowed to set up in business for yourself. That is an admirable doctrine. But what prevents lorry drivers from setting up now is the existing legislation of "A" and "B" licences and control, and they will not be enabled to set up if the Government carry this new proposal which involves a continuation of the licensing system which will press upon the small man even more heavily that it does to-day. This Bill will only make it harder for the small man and not easier. That is its inevitable consequence. That is what I say to the Benches below.

I appeal to the Government to regard my proposal for an inquiry not as a dilatory one but as one which is absolutely constructive. If my Amendment were accepted, it would be possible to start that inquiry immediately. I have suggested that the inquiry should report within a period to be laid down by the Minister and not exceeding two years. Actually it could report in a year or six months. I myself sat on a Commission which sat on quite as difficult a question as this and reported in eight months. This is not dilatory; it is getting on more quickly. It is a quicker route to a better end. I do rot know what the Government will say in reply to this. One thing I am fairly certain they will not say is that they agree with these Amendments but they think them unnecessary. They cannot say that these Amendments destroy the principle of the Bill, in view of whit the Leader of the House has continually told us to-day. They may say they have a mandate for nationalization, but may I remind them that a year ago we were debating another matter on which the Government had a very definite mandate—to employ the Friendly Societies in administering social insurance? They decided, I think on bad reasons but reasons most admirably set out by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that that was administratively wrong, and they disregarded that mandate.

I want to say one other thing about mandates. The Government may say that they have a mandate for nationalizing some road transport. But this is not nationalizing road transport; it is nationalizing 20,000 vehicles and hamstringing 400,000. They may say, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, that there is steady growth of monopoly, and this is the only conclusion. If you look at the figures there is not much monopoly in road transport. The number of "A" and "B" licence holders has fallen from 62,000 to 61,000. It will take a long time to become a monopoly at that rate. In the meantime "C" licences are increasing very rapidly. The Government say they cannot take over railways and leave road transport free to compete. If they say that they cannot leave road transport free to compete on fair terms, that is the worst condemnation of the Socialist programme that anybody could possibly make. I do not think they will make it. That would be the destruction of their own case.

I suggest that to argue that you cannot co-ordinate road and rail transport without nationalizing great parts just makes no sense whatever. What is meant by coordination from the point of view of the consumer is that buses should go to stations and not wait outside, and that there should he co-ordination about time tables. You can secure that co-ordination by the conditions of licensing, and so on, without there being any need to take over. I have already spoken longer than I should have done, but I do not think I have wasted my words. I beg the Government, with all the earnestness in my power, not to insist on any question of prestige or anything of that sort in trying to force through a difficult journey to a had end, and not to bang the door completely on what I have tried to say tonight. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 40, leave out ("the Road Transport Executive").—(Lord Beveridge.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

When the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, started the argument, which he has continued to-night, in the Second Reading, he prefaced it by saying that he brought to this problem a virgin mind. I hope he will forgive me for saying that when anyone claims virginity, it always denotes a remoteness from certain facts of life.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I did not claim it, I accepted the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Lord claimed it, and since he has been speaking to-night I have come to the conclusion that the gap between the cloistered seclusion of the academic world and the more mundane occupation of running transport is even wider than I thought. I will not attempt to argue against the laissez-faire economics which the noble Lord, in the old Liberal spirit, has put forward. I will try to answer him in about one-tenth of the time he took to expound his argument. The noble Lord says he wants efficiency. His Amendment is purely to go back to the conditions that operated before the war.

LORD BEVERIDGE

No.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Let me develop the argument. The only difference is that the road transport which is owned by the railways is nationalized. That is all that is done. I think the noble Lord has become so confused with his argument that he does not really know what he wants to nationalize and what he wants to leave out. The noble Lord, after wanting to revert to the state and the condition that operated before the war, then went into the question of the waste of "C" licensed transport. The noble Lord, if he will forgive my saying so—and I say it with great respect—just does not know how "C" licensed transport operates. The "C" licence holder has, first of all, a very large capital commitment. He has to run his vehicles, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, perhaps only one way carrying goods; the other half of the journey has to be done empty. Every mile away from his establishment that the "C" licence operator operates his vehicle means extra cost. If he can do that, and incur double expenditure, more cheaply and efficiently and with greater convenience to his business than anybody who plies transport for hire or reward and who can have return loads, then there is something radically wrong with the people who operate transport for hire and reward. If I, as a "C" licence holder, can run my vehicle 100 miles full and then run it back the 100 miles empty, and all the railway and the railway-owned transport and the "A" licence holders in this country cannot do it more cheaply and better by having return journeys, then there is something radically inefficient with them. When the right honourable gentleman the Lord President of the Council initiated, in the first week or two of the lifetime of this Parliament, the principle of nationalization, he said that the efficiency of service and the benefit to the public must be the test. I maintain that in these road transport provisions the Government have found the ideal test. Can private industry do the job better and more cheaply than those who are in the transport industry? Those who are in the transport industry whose concerns this Government seek to nationalize are those engaged in transport for hire and reward. That is the test between the two, and that is the competition between the two which will eventually redound to the public good. I do not know what the definition of efficiency is in the academic world, but in the hard industrial world the yardstick of efficiency is cost and price, and no "C" licence holder is going to run his own transport if he can get anyone else to do it better and more cheaply than he can. That is very simple economics.

I am not going to argue whether or not the "A" and the "B" licence holders should be confined to twenty-five miles, because that will come up for debate on another Amendment. The noble Lord may complain of what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, and I can quite understand why all noble Lords sitting on that side of the House want to throw the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, to the lions—he has "blown the gaff." What did he say? He said that if you take over railways without taking over road transport that plies with the railways and competes with the railways for hire and reward, you are taking over a bankrupt concern. Why did the railways enter the road transport business? Why did the railways have to take in a number of cases a 49 per cent. interest in road haulage concerns? Why did they acquire 10,000 vehicles? They did that because they had to have it as an ancillary road haulage business.

We, on this side of the House, maintain that what this Government are doing is not nationalizing road transport as a whole, but nationalizing that section of road transport that plies for hire and reward; and they are taking the sensible course of treating "C" licensed vehicles as tools of industry, to be operated by the individual concerns in industry that want to operate them. I am with the noble Lord when he says that he wants to cut out radical inefficiency. But while you have competition, you are bound to get some seeming waste. There may be an apparent: waste in "C" licensed transport running empty, but I maintain, and I repeat to this House, that if a "C" licence operator can run his vehicle for half the distance empty, and do it better and more cheaply and it is more convenient in the conduct of his business, then there is something radically wrong with all the other services that are offered to him. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will reject this Amendment. It is just going back to the chaos that everybody in this House who has any knowledge of transport condemns and never wants to see revived.

LORD MORRISON

I think it is a very great tribute to the virility of your Lordship's House that at this time of night, after such a long and exhausting sitting, there should be at least two members who are still going strong. I doubt if that applies to all the members of your Lordships' House and, therefore, I will be as brief as possible in my reply. The noble Lord is entitled to the sympathy of your Lordships' House, inasmuch as he has been called upon to make his case at very great length, and obviously after very great trouble has been taken in its preparation. If the noble Lord does not mind my saying so, it was much more like a Second Reading speech than the kind of speech to which we are accustomed on the Committee stage of Bills in this House. It is unfortunate that it should have been made at this late hour, when obviously it will not be possible for me to make a detailed reply to all the many points he raised. In brief, what the noble Lord asks for in his Amendment is that road transport should not be taken over, but that a Committee be set up to report within two years. I think that is a fair and brief summary of what he took very much longer to say.

Then the noble Lord finished by wondering what the Government would say. Well, I promise him that after I have finished with hi m the last lingering doubts in his mind as to what the Government may say will be dispelled. The noble Lord is endeavouring to set up a Committee to repot within two years, and it seems to me that he has assumed that at the end of two years this Committee would have reached a unanimous conclusion. I think that is very unlikely, unless the Committee he proposes to set up are to be a Committee of himself and his friends, and even then, judging by what happened at the recent Liberal Conference, it would be very doubtful whether there would be unanimity. What would happen if this Amendment were accepted? I suggest to him—and I do not think there is any gainsaying the fact—that the results to transport would probably be disastrous. During the two years envisaged for the production of its report the Commission would be in a state of uncertainty as to whether the future would be an integration of road with rail transport, or competition with it. It would consequently be quite in the dark as to the right lines of policy to pursue. In other words, the noble Lord's Amendment means a standstill in the work of the Commission for two years. The haulier would be in a similar state of uncertainty.

Finally, after the lapse of two years, it might be found that the Committee could not find a better plan than that envisaged in the Bill or, on the other hand, they probably would not agree among themselves. The noble Lord wondered what the Government would say, and the answer is certainly not that this Amendment is unnecessary. The answer is that this is a wrecking Amendment which would wreck the Bill. It would at once delete something like twenty-three clauses in the Bill. I do not know what unkind things some noble Lords here had to say about another place because they dared to send a Bill up to your Lordships' House with certain clauses which had not been discussed. I do not know what the reply of another place would be if we sent the Bill back again with twenty-three clauses struck out. I regret that the time is too late to make a further detailed reply to the noble Lord, because he has obviously taken a great deal of trouble over the preparation of his case. This is a wrecking Amendment, and I regret that the Government are not able to accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would like to say only one or two very brief words. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was a little unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, because, as I understood him, he accused him of wanting to get back to laissez-faire. As I understood the noble Lord's speech, all he asked for was that there should be an objective inquiry, and he was quite ready to abide by the results of that inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in his reply, said that it was useless to have an inquiry because you would never get agreement, which did not seem very strong support for the Government case. I suspect I am speaking for a good many noble Lords on this side of the House when I say that I have very considerable sympathy with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said. I thought he made a brilliant and persuasive case for a greater relaxation of the restrictions which are imposed in this Bill. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that elaborate machinery, however efficient it looks on paper, is very often not so practical as a greater measure of elasticity, even though elasticity involves some relaxation of some of the features of a plan. I felt that the noble Lord was almost getting back to his arguments about the "economics of the jungle" which we all enjoyed some months ago.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

And to which I hope we shall return again.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We shall look forward to the noble Lord returning to the jungle at an early date. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, must also face the fact that this is, in effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, says, a wrecking Amendment. If we were to pass this Amendment we might just as well have thrown out the Bill on Second Reading. We have made it our practice in this House not to throw out on Second Reading Bills which were on the Government programme at the General Election. We got into some trouble about half an hour ago because we passed an Amendment which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House criticized and no doubt felt showed a spirit of controversy on the part of your Lordships. But those were good Amendments. The question whether the Minister or the Commission should appoint the Executives was a matter of policy; and if you do not include docks (to take another matter) it is not going to kill nationalization. But this is different; it would mean, in effect, destroying the Bill, and I do not think it would be possible for us of the Conservative Party to support the Amendment in view of the attitude we have adopted. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, will not press the matter to a Division, but I have the greatest sympathy with many things he said in his speech.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I am very much disappointed but perhaps not wholly surprised at the attitude which the Government have taken in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, attributed to me a virgin mind on this matter, but let me tell him that only last night I was talking to a man who is the owner of a large number of "C" licences, a man who works himself, and he said that the waste which was occasioned because he was not able to use his vehicles for other purposes was quite horrible. I can give many thousands of those cases.

From what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said, I do not think he can have heard me. I said this inquiry was to produce a report in six months. The noble Lord persisted in saying "Two years." My Amendment says that they shall make their report within a period, not exceeding two years, which the Minister may fix. May I assure the noble Lord that he can get an objective report upon facts which might lead to agreement. I happen to have had something to do with that kind of thing in a document called "The Beveridge Report."

I must reject the idea that this is a wrecking Amendment. It might be that at the end of an inquiry you would get recommendations to do exactly what the Government propose. I am afraid there may be another occasion for me to say something—on Clause 39. I hoped that the Government would have found it possible to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggested. I suggest that the case I have put against what was proposed, not as regards nationalizing, but as regards restricting, is unanswerable and will remain so, and that what the Government are proposing is inefficiency in the transport industry by Act of Parliament. I beg the Government to consider that and see whether they cannot find an alternative. Having said that, there is nothing else for me but to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.