Lords Sitting of 12 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF LUCAN on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LUTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
BOROUGH OF HEMEL HEMPSTEAD ORDER;
BOROUGH OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF BRAINTREE AND BOOKING ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF COWES ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF WEDNESFIELD ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF WOLVERTON ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending section one of the Act to the said areas be approved.— (Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

TRANSPORT BILL.
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we proceed to the business of the day I have one word of explana-
598
tion to make. Your Lordships will remember that the night before last, in the course of an exchange of views between the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and myself with reference to the Government's attitude, I used the word "menace." My attention has been drawn to the fact that in the OFFICIAL REPORT I am reported as using the word "malice." Of course that is not at all the same thing. "Menace," whether you agree with it or not, may be regarded as fair comment; "malice" is an offensive expression. I am sure the Leader of the House will appreciate that the last thing I should wish to do to him is to use an expression of that offensive character. I therefore wanted to take the earliest opportunity I could to correct an error which I am sure he will believe was not of my own making.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I am sure that every one of us knew quite well at the time that the noble Marquess said "menace." We all understood it in the interchange of views. I am sure the noble Marquess would be the very last person in the world to use the word "malice."
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 5:
The Executives.
(3) 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 by such an order 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, 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 made and approved or that an instrument has been issued, and specifying the place where copies thereof may be purchased, shall be sufficient compliance with

599
the provisions of this Subsection as respects the publication of that scheme or instrument in that Gazette.
(9) As respects matters for the time being falling within the scope of any such delegation, the following provisions shall have effect except as between the Executive and the Commission, that is to say—
(a) any rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers and liabilities of the Executive, and the Executive only;
(11) 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 as to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (3), after "Transport," where that word first occurs, to insert "(Carriage of Goods) Executive, the Road Transport (Carriage of Passengers)." The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name and my own. It concerns the creation of a Road Transport Executive. I think your Lordships will agree with me that the body with which this Executive will have to deal is very large and widespread. It resolves itself naturally into two parts: that dealing with road transport and that dealing with passenger transport. It would appear desirable that these two functions should not be placed in the hands of one Executive. Lower down in the list of Amendments is one in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, the effect of which is practically the same.
Your Lordships will observe that in the Bill the Commissioners' duties include that of preparing and submitting to the Minister a scheme as to passenger road transport services. They are to consult every local authority within the area to which such schemes relate, and I submit that the point whether there should not be established at the outset a body with the responsibility of making those necessary negotiations on behalf of the Commission should be considered. Its
600
establishment would be possible if this Amendment were agreed to. In the case of the railways a certain amount of experience has been gained. It may be advisable in the case of the railways to have one Executive, but there is a great divergence between the two subjects to be dealt with by the Road Transport Executive. In the case of railways considerable experience of the co-ordination of control has been gained during the war, but with road transport that would not be available. I suggest, therefore, that in the case of road services there would be a greater difficulty with which to contend.
Another advantage which would result from dividing this Road Transport Executive into two would be that you would get greater accuracy and more favourable form in the course of running both services. I venture to suggest that it is an important consideration in dealing with road transport, as it is indeed with all other services that are to be controlled under the Bill, that we should know what each service costs the State. I quite appreciate that in another place the Parliamentary Secretary made the point that the Road Executive would have to deal at first with the question of road haulage; they would not, in the first instance, have to deal with the passenger services, and there would be no operational work for passenger services to be done until the Commission had put up schemes to the Minister and they had been approved. But from what I have already said, I think there is an argument for separating the Executives in the first place, instead of waiting until that later time comes. Therefore I suggest that the principle of the Amendment is sound, and that it would be far better to put it in the Bill now instead of waiting until later on.
I do not think there is more I can say at this moment. I trust that the Government will take the suggestion into serious consideration. It is, of course, put forward in no sense of criticism of the measure, and there is no intention of defeating the aim of the Bill in any shape or form. As with so many other Amendments put forward in your Lordships' House this is submitted merely in an endeavour to make something more practicable than does the Bill, which, in its present terms does so much to create chaos. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, alter (" Transport ") insert "(Carriage of Goods) Executive, the Road Transport (Carriage of Passengers)" —(Lord O' Hagan.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think it may save time if I say a word now, because I have an Amendment three or four lines lower down the list dealing with the same subject in rather a different way. Since these Amendments were put down, of course, we have altered the Bill in an important particular. The Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which would have given complete latitude to the Commission, was riot pressed. On the other hand, your Lordships have decided something that I think is very important—that the Commission, and not the Minister, shall appoint the Executives. The Commission will, of course, have the power to change the character of the Executives and, moreover, their functions from one to another. If these watertight Executives had been left entirely as they were, and everything were left in the nands of the Minister, I should have felt bound to support my noble friend in this Amendment. On the other hand, as we have taken what on reflection probably nearly everybody in this House will agree is the wise course of entrusting the Commission with the real power and the real discretion, I think it would not be wise to fetter the Commission by saying that they shall appoint this or that Executive, or that they shall appoint it at such and such a time. You are now to treat the Commission as the board of a great controlling company. Having done that it is wise to leave discretion in the hands of the Commission, and therefore, I would respectfully suggest to my noble friend that this Amendment, which would be completely mandatory, should not be pressed.
It will be quite possible under the Bill, as I understand it—although I would like to be assured of this on legal authority—that if the Commission thought it wise to appoint separate Road Executives, a separate Road Hauliers Executive, and a Road Passenger Transport Executive, it would be competent for them to do so. Your Lordships will see that, in effect, the Amendment of my noble friend Lord O'Hagan affects mine—which is the fourth one down. My Amendment is that
"the functions delegated to the Road Transport Executive may be exercised by sub-
602
Executives to be known respectively as the Road (Carriage of Goods) sub-Executive, and the Road (Carriage of Passengers) sub-Executive."
I am sure it would be wise that the Commission should have the power to do that if they think it right. Very likely it would be done, because the carriage of goods and of pasengers by road is quite a different thing from those operations on the railways. On the railways the two naturally intermix. It is true that the bus and the truck go along the same road, yet they are two entirely different operations and catering for different sorts of people. I would suggest to the Government, when we come to my Amendment, that there is nothing obligatory in it; but if there is any question that the Commission would not have this power of sub-delegation and of splitting up, it might be wise to accept my Amendment. Therefore, when we come to my Amendment, I will just formally move it in order to get a reply upon it, unless the Government like to reply upon it now, when dealing with my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: I find myself almost in agreement with what the noble Viscount has said. There can be no question that in the operation of the two forms of transport the technique is different. Therefore it seemed to me, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that the only point of argument was contained in three words he used in discussing whether this should be applied from the outset. The three words to whch I refer are those last three words: "from the outset." It seems to me, on the balance of argument, that while it may be possible—and, indeed, I should think almost probable—that at some time it will be necessary to have two separate Executives, it would be better, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton said, not to deal with this matter immediately but to leave it for the Commission to decide. It is possible that the Road Transport Executive may have to be split in two. Meantime, as has been pointed out, there is no immediate urgency to do it at the present time. This could be done when required, and would be possible under the powers conferred under Clause 5 (3).
That also answers the question which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has put to me about his Amendment. If he

603
will look at Clause 5 (3) as printed he will see that it reads:
"The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister."
That was how that subsection, as it was originally in the Bill, began. But, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, under the Amendment which was carried against the Government the other night, if that Amendment stands, the word "Minister" will be changed into "Commission."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that is satisfactory—subject to this. There are questions which are really questions of legal interpretation, and which do not involve any difference between us. The noble Lord said that you could appoint the Road Transport Executive, and that certain things could be done later. It may well be that when the Commission get to work one of the earliest things they will decide is that they desire to run road haulage and road transport separately. I want to be quite clear as to the law. Can they do that, and can we be sure that we shall not have the rather stupid business of first creating one single Executive and then going through a whole process of metamorphoses? I think it is all right, in view of the wording of Clause 5 (3) as altered by the Amendment. It will 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 by such an order there shall be Executives known respectively as—"
and then follows a catalogue of the Executives.
There would be nothing, I take it, to stop the Commission in the first instance appointing two Road Transport Executives instead of one. If that is so, I think we are entirely in accord. The noble Lord also said he thought there was power, without putting in any words, to deal with my point (which is an alternative method of doing it) of having one Executive dealing with Road Transport, but splitting it into two sub-Executives. The noble Lord said that we could appoint any number of Executives. I want to be quite clear as to the law upon that. If, in the opinion of the Commission, it was better to appoint an Executive with two sub-Executives under them, I take it that that would be within their powers.
LORD MORRISON: I am assured that the answer to both the questions put by the noble Viscount is in the affirmative.
LORD O'HAGAN: If the legal point is cleared up completely—and I understand that it is—and my noble friend Viscount Swinton is satisfied, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD CROMWELL: Before the Amendment is withdrawn may I ask what would be the effect if it were decided that the word "Minister" should remain in Clause 5 (3), and there was a difference of opinion between the Commission and the Minister and the Minister held up some recommendation of the Commission?
LORD MORRISON: I cannot answer that on the spur of the moment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I be permitted to point out here that we have abolished the Minister from this function and the whole responsibility rests with the Commission. It is not for us to anticipate what might happen if a subsection came back to us in a different form from that in which we have left it. We might say "we do not like that," and decide to take some further action, but I think we had better deal with the different parts of the Bill as they are left as we go along.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to make it quite clear that I do warmly take up this point: The right is reserved, if this should be brought back to us in a form that we do not desire, to move some such Amendment as this.
THE EARL of RADNOR: In view of the previous Amendment, which gives the Commission much greater freedom, I should like to know what the position is. Subsection (3) in the Bill begins:
"The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister—"
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. We have altered that passage, and the subsection, as altered by us last time, now reads:
"The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be decided by the Commission, and unless and until other provision is made—"
they shall be so and so.
LORD O'HAGAN: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3), after "Transport executive" to insert "Scottish Transport Executive." The noble Earl said: I think this ought really to be a formal motion. I would put it even higher and say that this is something which ought to have been incorporated in the Bill before it was printed. In the first place, I wish to make two points. There is no rigidity of any kind in this Amendment and any remarks in that sense which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, may have made do not apply here, because this Amendment allows the Commission perfect freedom to do what they want to do. This is merely an expression by the Legislature of what they consider should be done in the circumstances.
My second point is that there already exists in this Bill provision for what might be called a geographical distribution. There is, for instance, the London Passenger Transport Board. That is on a geographical basis. I think it can be claimed—indeed I can claim it on the authority of the Minister of Transport himself—that the problems existing in Scotland are at least as divergent from those existing in the rest of the country as the problems of the L.P.T.B. are, say from those of the Midlands. The Minister himself remarked that Scotland presented an entirely different problem in the field of transport.
I submit to your Lordships that this is a correct Amendment—that is to say, that it is an Amendment which deals with an essential item. I would ask your Lordships to refer to Clause 5 (9) (a) which reads:
"any rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers and liabilities of the Executive, and the Executive only. …"
Paragraph (b) reads:
"the Executive shall, to the exclusion of the Commission, be treated as the employers of any officers or servants of the Commission so long as they are by virtue of the delegation under the control of the Executive."
That is to say the Executive shall be the employers of personnel. It means that they will have rights at law. They will be the persons to be sued in the event of any catastrophe or anything of that nature taking place. These are two essential items required in any necessary form of devolution. I have said that this should
606
be a formal Amendment, because the Government have repeatedly expressed their intention and desire that in nationalized industry effect should be given to decentralization. I must say that the manner they propose this is not the way in which effective decentralization can be brought into being. I would like to refer, if I may, to the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. He says in respect of certain recommendations by the Scottish Council:
"I do not think that between the views of my right honourable friend and those of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry there is any point of major difference in this matter."
I am afraid that is a misleading statement: it is quite contrary to what the position is in fact. There is a vast and wide difference.
May I now read what the Scottish Council has said on this matter? I should explain that the Scottish Council is representative of local authorities, Chambers of Commerce and co-operative societies and, as such, is broadly representative of all sides of active political opinion in Scotland:
"The Council feel very strongly, however, that if firm provision is not made beforehand for a system of control in Scotland which will be satisfactory in practice, there is no guarantee that a satisfactory system will in fact be provided. The Council, therefore, urge the Government to ensure by direction beforehand, either by the insertion of a suitable clause in the Bill that … that provision must be made by the Transport Commission for the. fullest possible delegation of effective administrative authority to offices in Scotland …"
I submit that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is completely misleading. Is there any other body in Scotland whose opinion your Lordships would like to hear? Might I suggest the Scottish T.U.C.? In a memorandum on the Transport Bill, the T.U.C. say:
"In reaching the conclusion that there are good grounds for the establishment of a Scottish Executive, the General Council has also had regard to the following observations made by the Right Honourable Herbert Morrison.."
I need not worry the House with these observations; they are recorded in Hansard of December 18.
Is there any other representative body in Scotland from whom you want an opinion, a body more representative than the Scottish Council and the T.U.C.? I will take

607
the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. If I may say so, in this Mother of Parliaments, there is no more competent, democratic assembly than that of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It is representative of 25 per cent. of the whole population, and very few churches can claim that at the present day. A resolution passed last month in the General Assembly said:
"The General Assembly, seriously considering the possible invasion of human rights and local independence by large-scale collectivism, and noting the continued disregard of Scottish sentiment and the claims of Scotland as a nation in many matters which vitally affect the prosperity of the Scottish people, declare their conviction that schemes of nationalization must be accompanied by a large measure of devolution and decentralization if the achievement of a genuine democracy is not to be frustrated."
I do not think that anybody can say from what I have read that the opinions I am expressing are those of a small sectional interest. They are very widely held, and after the remarks we heard the other night about representative government they are opinions which should be observed carefully by the Government and not turned down lightly. These views are to-day frequently regarded as an anachronism, a nationalistic expression; but what is the sense of common interest over a large area but a form of nationalism? Because whatever one's views are, the first duty is to set one's own house in order. If it is not set in order, one has little right to explain to other people how they should set their house in order.
I wonder whether it is appreciated that very little is known about the feeling in Scotland to-day. I refer to a very simple remark from the noble Lord, Lord Walkden—I admit he was speaking with some exuberance and I will not press the point. He said: "There is nobody unemployed." During the last year from 80,000 to 100,000 people in Scotland were unemployed. I admit that is only half the number unemployed in 1939, but it is a considerable number, and when people here in London talk about shortage of manpower, it is sheer nonsense so far as Scotland is concerned.
Another example of the degree to which these matters are not understood was given in a speech by a very distinguished politician with an experience greater than
608
most—I will not mention his name. In this speech which he made in Scotland, he gave figures of English house building. Anyone who knows Scotland knows that English house building before the war was, in Scotland, a matter of anger and rebuke to the Government, which was not of the same complexion as the Government of the present time, because in those days English house building was going ahead very much more quickly than Scottish house building; and to come up from England and speak in Scotland about house building in England was to rub salt into the sore. That is an example of the sort of error which even a politician of great experience can make. I will explain the reason for this. It is not generally known, that at the present time virtually no newspapers published in London are also read in Scotland and none of the papers read in Scotland is read in London. That is because all the so-called national papers have two or three versions, and news which particularly applies to that area is sent to the northern editions. The result is that we are not reading the same newspapers, and those living in London cannot appreciate the strength of public sentiment which exists 300 miles away.
Perhaps zoo years ago there was a report by Lord Durham in which he used the expression of Canada, "There are two nations warring in the bosom of a single State." That is a danger which may happen to-day unless we are very careful, and that is why I am pressing on your Lordships, with such clarity as I am able, the nature of this Amendment. Because not only is there a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem, but by centralizing control here you are taking from the people resident in Scotland the ability to resolve their own problems. Unless the matter is dealt with very carefully one of two things will happen: either Scotland will become a liability to the United Kingdom or she will break herself away into a separate organization. I am afraid the danger of that is not unreal, because there is ever growing in London—and I say this deliberately—a very evil desire to dominate and control other peoples lives. I do not know why it is growing but it is, and it is not confined to one particular Party by any means, but it finds its greatest expression at the moment in the seats of Government.
May I recall to You a very famous expression by Doctor Johnson? Doctor Johnson, you remember, said:
"The noblest prospect which a Scotsman ever sees is the high road that leads him to England."
Dr. Johnson was quite right, and he is still right, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, took that road. I do not for one moment grudge his taking it. It will be within your Lordships' knowledge that there are many Scotsmen living in this city who are quite capable of looking after themselves. I am not speaking for them, I am speaking for the five million Scotsmen and Scotswomen, very few of whom would dissent from what I am now saying. They have a very keen and definite appreciation of where their interests lie, and they must be able to resolve their own problems. The problems which they have to face are problems which they alone can resolve, and it is proper in a Bill of this nature that they should be asked to shoulder the responsibility and not be treated as distant bondsmen and bondslaves under a regulation issued somewhere else.
I will not keep noble Lords any longer except to say that this Bill is built on functional representation. There are many here who doubt the wisdom of that functional representation. I submit that unless some regional organization is introduced, this Bill will not and cannot work. It is for that reason that I am moving this Amendment. I am quite certain that in the proper interests of a nationalization Bill that is the only way in which it can be carried out.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, after ("Transport executive") insert ("Scottish Transport Executive").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I rise to support this Bill with a certain amount of diffidence because it was only the day before yesterday that I committed a breach of privilege in your Lordships' House by invading the sacred precincts and addressing your Lordships from the Bench of the right reverend Prelates. I had no opportunity to apologize at that time, as there was no right reverend Prelate present, but I do so now, and I have taken the precaution to remove myself as far as possible from that Bench in case, as sometimes happens, we get hot-headed when we discuss Scottish affairs. I am fully conscious that I can
610
never hope at any time to aspire to the lawn sleeves or to any other reward awaiting the right reverend Prelates.
I find there has been a tendency during most of the Committee stage of this Bill for noble Lords to declare their interests. I want to tell noble Lords once again that I have no interests either in rail, road, or water. I will leave it at that. But I have one interest which your Lordships will probably hardly credit; therefore, I give it in absolute confidence—it is that I am a Scot. Sometimes I wonder whether we are not what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition describes as a "veiled menace" in your Lordships' House. It is obvious that the one interest I have is to watch over the best interests of my country of Scotland. There is no need for me to go into very deep detail, because the whole case has been put so admirably and devastatingly by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
But I would say this: that, as was stressed on the Second Reading again and again, transport so far as Scotland is concerned, and more especially in regard to Part III of the Bill, requires decentralization. Road transport is, above all, an industry which is dependent upon quick decisions being made. At various times the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has stated very concisely that what is' really needed in Scotland is resident responsible management. That is really essential in a country with a conformation such as we have in Scotland. Consultative Committees, though meant for the best, really cannot help us, and they would be of no earthly use. One has only to look at the example of the Consultative Committee in Civil Aviation which (I am quite certain the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk will agree) is not working well at present.
The further one gets from London the more difficult the problem becomes. During the debate in your Lordships' House on the Town and Country Planning Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, when speaking of the regional physical planning committees said that they could not decide anything themselves; they could only recommend to their Minister, and all decisions of any importance would have to be taken by Whitehall. I do not know exactly how far the noble Viscount lives from London—possibly 100 or 150 miles —but what must be the case when one gets 600, 700, 800, or even 900 miles from London? I would earnestly ask noble

611
Lords to give this Amendment most careful consideration. I have heard it said, sometimes in this House and sometimes off the floor of this House, quite often in fun but sometimes quite seriously, that we who are in Scotland come down to speak for Scottish nationalism. We do not. What we want to do is to make this Bill work in Scotland.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist—yet. But, as I have said before and I say it again, unless Scotland is allowed a larger measure of control over its own domestic affairs, the people will be driven to what many of us think would be a great mistake, and something which would not be in the best interests either of Scotland or of England. I mean, of course, separation. I am, perhaps, not exactly a hereditary member of your Lordships' House; I am an elected representative Peer of Scotland, and it is my duty to try to put before your Lordships what I believe to be the concensus of opinion in that country. If the people of Scotland are not allowed this measure of control over their own domestic affairs, they will be driven to something which we really rather dread and which we consider would not be in the interests of both countries.
I am speaking, not for myself nor, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk said, for a small part of the community in Scotland. This is a large and growing volume of opinion in Scotland; it is not the opinion of cranks, it is the opinion of sane, sound, reasonable thinking people of all sections who have gradually become exasperated at the frustration which is preventing them from carrying on their own business and running their own affairs better than at present. Centralization is only going to foster a slowing up by the throttling system known as control and red tape. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, mentioned the views of various bodies. They were, it is quite true, birds of all sorts of feathers —queer birds, perhaps, but certainly a comprehensive lot. You could not find a more representative opinion than that of those three bodies—the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the General Assembly. I feel that some attention should be paid to these bodies, who, after all, must be conversant with the conditions as they exist
612
in that country. They must know the geographical obstacles which are so over-whelming.
I assure your Lordships that this feeling is becoming so strong, that it will be difficult for us to persuade people to keep cool heads. We shall be forced into a situation, sooner or later, which I feel we may regret. I would respectfully suggest to His Majesty's Government that they must stop ignoring Scottish advice. After all, these Scotsmen speak from experience and with a knowledge of their own affairs. What we want is some concrete fulfilment of this decentralization—not just lip service with Consultative Committees. What we are asking is not unreasonable. We want this Executive resident—and I stress the word "resident"—because that is the only way to obtain efficiency. We want a responsible chance to take decisions which suit the actual conditions in our country; we want management without continual reference to London. In other words, we want to be able to run our own domestic affairs.
This is not a wrecking Amendment. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said that this House does not care to wreck Bills which come into the category of holding a mandate from the country. This Amendment, as moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is designed to improve and make the scheme workable in Scotland. It is not the slightest bit of good telling us that there is no room for an Executive Committee, or something of the sort, in Scotland. If His Majesty's Government continue to say that, then all I can say to them is that they must make room, because, if they do not make room, sooner or later we will take it.
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I feel that I must support this Amendment with a few words, even if only because I am brought to my feet by being called a "queer bird" by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I have the honour to be the Vice-President of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and perhaps I can speak with a little more intimate knowledge than either of the previous speakers of what that Council stands for, and of what it consists. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, gave your Lordships some idea of the component parts of that Council. He said that it consisted of representatives

613
of local authorities, the cities, the burghs and the counties; representatives of chambers of commerce, of the T.U.C., of individual firms, of individuals, and of the banks. The only qualification which is necessary is that the member should have at heart the welfare of Scotland. But there is one further point which has not yet been mentioned, and that is that this Council, as representing this complete body of Scottish opinion, is recognized by the Secretary of State and by the Government as being able to speak for Scotland as a whole.
The Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has moved has arisen, I think, largely from discussions on this particular subject between the Scottish Council, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport, In those discussions, after a considerable number of meetings had taken place, and letters had passed, the Scottish Council received a declaration or statement which purported to be a statement made in the name of the Government. I will quote only one paragraph:
"The Government have no doubt, however, that the Commission, in framing its administrative arrangements, will provide for the maximum practicable degree of decentralization and devolution. There are many matters of railway, dock, canal and road transport operation which must be settled immediately on the spot, and it is the Government's intention that the greatest possible amount of executive authority should be given to local offices. …"
The object of this Amendment is to put the Government's intention into practice.
If I may, I will just stress the point already made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, in regard to the irritation and restlessness which is felt in Scotland as a result of this distant control from Whitehall. We have experienced it already in the matter of railways, and we have experienced it, and are experiencing it still, in the matter of roads. Apparently it is quite easy for the Minister of Transport to make up his mind to build a bridge across the Severn; and it is quite easy for him to make up his mind to make a tunnel under the Thames or the Tyne. But when it comes to bridging the Forth or the Tay, there is indecision, and the matter is put off until such time as there' may be need for work which will employ persons instead of their being on the dole. That is the
614
kind of treatment which Scotland is being given now, and which—as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, have said—is already giving rise to a great deal of feeling on the subject.
It is claimed (I think quite rightly) that in setting up the Executive, or some such body as is embodied in this Amendment, we are merely following the analogy of something already established in the Bill. We are not taking it outside the Bill, and there is no question of wrecking the general construction of the Bill; it is following exactly the analogy of the London Passenger Transport Board. Here you have an illustration of a body which is given a region to look after, and has the responsibility for that region. Certainly, as a Scot, I shall never think of Scotland as a region; but the analogy is correct. You have in Scotland the same forms of transport, which must be brought together and concentrated under one head, and that head must not be situated 300 miles away. As I understand it, the machinery of the Bill allows for Scotland to have some sort of decentralization and devolution by having sub-committees of the Executives. But all that would happen as regards Scottish questions then would be that the Railway Executive sub-committee in Scotland would have to communicate with the Railway Executive in London if there were some matter of concentration between road, rail, and waterways in Scotland which needed to be solved. And it would be through London that the concentration would come, and not under the single head within Scotland.
It is for that reason that we press for the establishment in Scotland of some responsible resident head, and without that kind of tying up I think it is inevitable that there will be not only a great deal of feeling in Scotland, but also a great deal of chaos. The Government's suggestion, which was brought about as a result of representations in another place, that there should be—whatever happened in other districts—a regular Consultative Committee of transport users in Scotland, does not in any way meet this point. The Consultative Committee may be consulted, or they may not be consulted, and even if they give advice the treatment which may be accorded that advice—according to this Bill—is that the Minister, if he does not like the advice can dissolve the Committee. Although that is not apparently within his

615
powers in regard to Scotland, I think one may say that if this is the way the Consultative Committees are to be treated it is not much use having them. For that reason I will do anything that I can to support the Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and impress upon the Government that at the back of this there is the real solid feeling of the whole of Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I rise to support in a very few words, the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. After the powerful speech he has made, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, there is very little for me to add from that point of view. But I deplore that this debate should have to take place at all, and that we should, in a sense, be wasting our time over a matter of this kind. It ought to be conceded and placed in the Bill without any debate of this character. It happens every time. We had it in regard to the Forestry Commission, when we wasted hours obtaining our own representation in Scotland. On civil aviation we wasted more hours in achieving our own position in Scotland. Now with the Transport Bill, the same thing is happening. The Town and Country Planning Bill is coming, when the same thing may happen again; and we shall have the Electricity Bill, in which, no doubt, the same question will arise. I cannot understand the Government's attitude on this matter. Whether they are influenced by Whitehall, or whether they are influenced by their idea that Scotland likes to be ruled from London, I cannot understand; but it is a fact that in all these Bills there is no decentralization so far as Scotland is concerned; Scotland is governed from London.
I want to go back to what happened after the First Great War. During the First Great War, Whitehall—I use the word advisedly—gained control of everything in the country, as it always does during a war. After the war, the same sort of difficulties arose so far as Scotland was concerned: Whitehall tried to keep control, and Scotland tried to de-control. Finally, after a great struggle what happened? St. Andrew's House was set up in the early 'thirties in order to give Scotland a measure of de-control, under which, up to a point, she could look after her own local affairs. This last war came
616
and the same thing happened. Whitehall held control again, and it was the same old story. Whitehall is now trying to hold on to it again, but this time we have St. Andrew's House. And what will happen? As my noble friend has pointed out, we will go much further this time and finally local government will have to be conceded to us to look after our own local affairs. Like the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, I do not agree with the necessity for that if the Government will only see the justice and reason of letting Scotland have control of affairs of this sort.
The other evening, in the so-called interchange of views between the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess, the noble Viscount referred to this Chamber as being non-representative—not like the other House, representative of the people —and he inferred—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not say that. I said it was "elected by the people."
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I accept the correction—not like the other House, "elected by the people." He suggested, therefore, that this House should be very careful in what Amendments they pressed in regard to this Bill. Actually, when the noble Viscount made that statement, I feel sure that he had forgotten for the moment that this Bill has been sent up to your Lordships' House in an ill-digested and chaotic state, and that many of the clauses were never considered in another place: neither were many of the Schedules nor, I believe, hundreds of Amendments. Therefore, so far as the Transport Bill is concerned, this House, as the House of revision, is in a very different position, from that in which it may be with regard to other Bills. I would point out that even if we are not representative of the people as elected representatives, we Scots in this House definitely represent Scottish opinion on this subject. We represent Scotland 100 per cent., and I do beg the Government to realize that and to give way, not only on this particular Amendment, but to look into the other Bills which are coming, the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Electricity Bill, and to put down Amendments which will allow Scotland to look after her own affairs in those matters. I have risen to say those few words, and at the same time to support

617
as strongly as I can the Amendment of my noble friend, as supported by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I am sure that your Lordships are getting rather tired of hearing Scottish opinions, but I shall be only five minutes. I do not want what I am going to say to be taken in a Party spirit, because it is not meant in that way. But I must point out that ever since this Government have come into power—or under a great part of their regime at any rate—Scottish people have suffered disappointment and disillusionment. That is not because the Government are a Labour Government, because after all a minority of Scotsmen voted Labour. It is not because they are a nationalist Government, because many deluded Scots voted nationalist. This irritation, as has been said by other noble Lords, is due to the fact that the direction of nationalization comes from London, and Scotsmen would prefer to carry out their own nationalization in their own way.
I support the noble Earl's Amendment because I think it is necessary to have on the spot men who understand the country and its topography, which is so different from that of England, a country of mountains which, especially as regards traffic, might entail quick decisions, particularly in the winter. Then there is the matter of tourist traffic. As I have said, there are 800,000 Americans in America of Scottish descent who are going to try—or a large number of them are—to come to this country, bringing their dollars. I hope many of them will be going to Scotland. Executives are to be set up for ordinary traffic arrangements, but in arranging for an influx of tourists many things are needed, such as foresight, the right national spirit, and close co-operation with the Scottish National Tourists Association. If too much reliance is placed on London these would not be forthcoming. It is in the interests of the country that tourists should be catered for in a proper manner in their travels and at the hotels. We do not want to go to London for the necessary permits, where nothing is known of the prevailing difficulties.
Ten years ago the idea that Scotland should be a self-governing country was laughed at and Scottish Nationalists were derided. Owing to the action of the
618
Government in the matter of the set-up of civil aviation, the future of Rosyth and other matters, there a strong feeling in Scotland that we should be given a great deal more self-government than we have. If any of your Lordships think I exaggerate, I suggest that those of you who sometimes go North of the Border to partake of the amenities of Scotland should go into the pubs and find out what people think. I have done that and I have found out. Scotland wants a Scottish Transport Executive Committee to be set up in Scotland under this Bill, and noble Lords opposite would be wise to give my noble friend's Amendment sympathetic consideration in order to indicate that they have some understanding of Scottish aspirations. This is not meant as "blackmail" or as a "veiled menace"; it is a mere suggestion. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have asked the advice of the Scottish Traffic Commissioner on this Bill as it would apply to Scotland, or is he in general agreement with its terms? I do not know him personally, or his views, but it would be of interest to know what they are. If the noble Lord goes to a Division, I shall support him.
LORD SALTOUN: I am perfectly aware that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, may say that under the subsection we are now discussing it is quite possible and quite open to the Commission to appoint a Scottish Executive. But I think there is a reason why it should actually go into the Bill, and that is to make quite sure that the first steps that are taken under this shall be to see that there is a Scottish Executive. The noble Lord, if he remembers our native country, will realize that the larger half of it is divided by great diagonal lines of mountains; possibly the larger part of Scotland lies beyond those mountains, cut up by great firths and sea and ridges. Communications are difficult in that area. But communication has been carried on for a very long time by private enterprise, and as my noble friend knows, the transport concerns that are carrying out their job sometimes have to face eighteen-foot drifts, and drifts even deeper than that, and throughout the winter have great difficulty in getting about.
I believe that you have to get a definite body on the spot ready to tackle these emergencies. The noble Earl, Lord Airlie,

619
complained in your Lordships' House the other day that people in his glens, who are not beyond that mountain mass but are this side of it, had not been able to get enough to eat during the recent crisis. His Majesty's Government replied that the arrangements were all there and that the whole thing was being beautifully managed—and no doubt it was so, on paper; but people cannot eat paper. That was really the gist of my noble friend's complaint. He complained also that the matter was being managed from the South, and that the people were short of food. I hope my noble friend will give way on this subject and let us see that it is going to be done.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Last summer I had the honour and privilege to represent your Lordships' House on the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Committee which meets annually in Edinburgh. The principle task of that Committee was to examine the Forth Road Bridge scheme. In connexion with our investigations of that scheme the members of the Committee had to examine in some detail the transport system of Scotland, and I should like to support the noble Lords from Scotland who have hitherto spoken on this Amendment in their remarks as to the complexity and the peculiar character of Scottish transport problems. I very much hope that His Majesty's Government will see their way to make a substantial concession, I will not say to Scottish sentiment, but to Scottish realization of the complex character of their own problems.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Common sense.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Common sense, as my noble friend so properly says. I would make one point more. If a Whitehall authority, acting for the whole of the United Kingdom, has, contrary to the advice of my noble friend, set up an authority, I am quite sure that that authority will try to do justice to Scotland—but I do not believe that justice will be seen to be done in Scotland. The feeling in Edinburgh, at any rate, upon the neglect of the Scottish transport problem surprised me very much on my recent visit to that city. I believe my noble friend would do well to visit Edinburgh and learn how strong that feeling is. I hope my Scottish friends will believe that
620
there is a great deal of sympathy with them South of the border.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I feel, as a Scot who has taken the road to London, that I must join my voice to those of the noble Lords who have supported this Amendment. As the Government have not seen fit to listen to my advice that the Commission should be left perfectly free to set up suitable executives, I join in urging that this Scottish Executive is one which must and should be set up.
LORD SHEPHERD: As a man long resident in Scotland I am at all times anxious to yield to Scottish opinion on Scottish matters, and I would be disposed on this occasion, if I were quite clear as to what is required, to give some support to it. Unfortunately, we have had about five or six Scotsmen from beyond the Border who have told us a great deal about Scottish conditions, about Scottish aspirations, but practically nothing about Scottish transport—hardly a detail of Scottish transport has been dealt with at all. The noble Earl, the Earl of Selkirk, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Elgin, suggested that what they wanted in Scotland was something like the London Passenger Transport Board.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to misrepresent me. I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that the London Passenger Transport Board represented a geographical division of transport authority; I said nothing whatsoever about a comparison. May I ask the noble Lord, when he is talking about plans, to bear in mind that the Leader of the House said on Tuesday: "We have not set up a Commission as yet, and naturally we have not their plans to place before you." You cannot expect it, and it would be fatuous to expect their plans before they are appointed.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would not like to misrepresent what the noble Earl has stated, but I certainly gathered the impression from noble Lords who have spoken for Scotland that what they wanted was the same facilities for Scotland as the Londoners enjoy. All I want to point out is that, in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board, the only services dealt with are those

621
which carry passengers from point to point. The Board have nothing whatsoever to do with goods traffic; they have nothing whatsoever to do with main railways; and they have nothing whatsoever to do with canals. I would like to know from some authoritative speaker from across the Border whether that would satisfy Scottish opinion at this stage. If it is not likely to satisfy Scottish opinion at this stage, I would like to be informed what it is they require, because in this Amendment we are not given much direction. In the clause of the Bill appear the words "the Road Transport Executive"; in the Amendment it is proposed to add after the words "Transport Executive," the words "Scottish Transport Executive." Are we being asked to make a Passenger Transport Board for road transport in Scotland, or are we being asked to make a Transport Board which will deal with the whole of Scottish transport?
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I did not like to interrupt when the noble Lord was speaking, as he was referring to my remarks regarding the comparison with the London Passenger Transport Board. In that regard I said we had that in the Bill as an analogy. Naturally, Scotland is in a very different situation from London, but I do not know, as a matter of fact, and I do not know whether any of your Lordships know, what the London Transport Executive are to control. It may be the services now run by the London Passenger Transport Board, or it may not. I was taking the same point as the noble Earl, the Earl of Selkirk, using it as an analogy: that here is a region with its own Executive, and here is Scotland, which has its various branches of transport, and they should be dealt with as a whole. It was an analogy; that is all.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to support this Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lords from Scotland. We are, in fact, from the right side of the Border, and we have been acquainted with the Scottish people in various ways for a long time. That might suggest that we should cry a halt somewhere, and that they should take their troubles, including their railways, as far away as they can! However, that is apart from the point. I would rather
622
speak on the actual operation of the Amendment itself. I feel that it is the right kind of policy—firstly, on the ground of decentralization, and, secondly, on the ground of a regional organization for transport, where co-ordination and combination can take place, rather than the functional scheme proposed in this Bill. We have discussed this at great length already, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, very much regret that that system has not been tried. I think that, from the operational point of view, most people would agree that the Scottish system could be worked on its own, but I believe that so far as rail transport, at any rate, goes, it would not be an economic or self-supporting undertaking.
I cannot say anything for the road side of the business, but surely now that we have a system whereby one part of the road-rail system can be balanced against another, it would be proper for the transport system to be run, as the Bill says, on an economic and self-supporting basis, the one part, perhaps, having to support the other. It is interesting to remember that in about 1921 or 22, when the present main line companies were formed, I believe I am right in saying that Scotsmen of all kinds, from all quarters, represented that they did not want their own separate Scottish undertaking because it would have been difficult, owing to the very hard natural circumstances against which they have to operate, to make the thing financially supporting. But, as I tried to suggest, I think that obstacle no longer remains.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I sincerely trust that the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, does not represent the view, or constitute the answer, of His Majesty's Government. It was, if I may respectfully say so, a singularly jejune and unfortunate answer to the case made by the mover and seconder of this Amendment, and supported in other speeches. It was said that the speeches did not go into the Amendment in very great detail in regard to what was required. I have listened to every speech made, and I should have said that a good deal of detail was given of what was wanted, and of how it would work—both in the speech of my noble friend who moved the Amendment, and in the quotation read by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, from an extremely authoritative Scottish

623
body who made a Report and a recommendation which was quite precise in its character. Indeed, if we are to deal with this, not on merit but on the basis of argumentative dialectic, it would be extremely easy to retort that there is not very much in the Government clause as it stands. We know there is no plan. After all, all we are told is that there are to be some Executives, undefined in their function, and it is a singularly unhelpful criticism for a speaker to say that an Amendment—quite correct in its form—to add a Scottish Executive is insufficiently precise.
The speeches were made with deep sincerity and, if I may say so, with studied moderation, on a subject in regard to which I know the Scots feel—and I think quite rightly feel—very strongly. They constitute a case which the Government must meet. It would be a case to meet even if it rested only on the presentation which has been made in this House. But, as has been indicated in the speeches to-day, the noble Lords, the representative Peers of Scotland, are voicing a most authoritative and representative body of opinion in their country. There is the Scottish Council. I have had the privilege of dealing with them. They were appointed, I think, a little while before the National Government finished or, at any rate, during the time of their successors. They constitute a most representative body, and they are a most practical body in their recommendations. Then there is the Scottish T.U.C. I hope the Government are going to pay some attention to them. After all, if report be true—and certainly there are similarities to be noted in the drafting—the General Council of the T.U.C., or the Special Committee of the T.U.C. have had a good real to do with the drafting of this Bill. I hope that a modest Amendment which has the backing of the Scottish T.U.C. may be given at any rate careful and courteous consideration. Then there is the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Now those make up a formidable trinity, and this is an occasion on which it is a trinity in unity —complete unity. So, I say that this is a case that must be met.
I do not believe that it is at all an unworkable proposition to establish some body, whatever you are going to call it,
624
which would have a large measure of decentralized power and authority in Scottish transport. I think it is very desirable to do so. After all, this Bill, as it stands, is going to do more than take away a great deal of the freely operating transport which exists in Scotland, where people can put their goods on whatever lorry they like. Do not let us forget that these extraordinary provisions with regard to 40 miles and 25 miles become quite ridiculous when you begin to try to apply them in Scotland. Observe what will happen to the existing licensing authorities in Scotland. There is the authority which licenses passenger vehicles and the authority which licenses road transport vehicles, and, if the Bill stands as it is, their powers (they will be very carefully considered, of course, when we come to them) will be very severely curtailed.
To-day passenger road transport and road haulage in Scotland are governed by a Scottish local body. You have a licensing authority for passenger road transport in and for Scotland. I think that one covers the whole of Scotland. Under the old Labour Government's Bill of 1930, it was thought wise to treat Scotland as a region for that purpose. Scotland is also treated as a region for road haulage purposes. Therefore, there is a tremendously strong case for giving Scotland this local consideration. Under the Bill as it stands, a good deal is going to be taken away, and existing facilities and powers are going to be drastically curtailed.
Now there is no doubt about this. I am not going to talk about the merits of nationalization, but it is certain, at least on the evidence before us so far of what has happened, that a nationalized industry tends to become a centralized industry. Everything that matters, and indeed a great many things that do not matter very much, and which ought to be decided locally, tend to be referred to the centre. Everybody who knows the working of the Coal Board knows that whereas in the old days (whatever you may say about the coal industry) there was great decentralization—a competent manager got on with his job—now the tendency is more and more to bring everything up to this centralized Board in London. That is a fact. There is the risk not only that existing Scottish facilities will be curtailed

625
but also that unless some clear reform is introduced in this Bill transport in Scotland will be run by something much more centralized than is the case to-day.
I take up the point which Lord Shepherd made. It is claimed that because there are certain services which concern both Scotland and England, like through main line expresses, which cannot be entirely decentralized, that is an argument for not decentralizing the control and management and day-to-day operation of one hundred and one local road and rail services. It really is complete nonsense. You can well have, if you like, main-line expresses run in some centralized way. But is that any earthly reason why local road traffic, local rail traffic, and local water borne traffic should not very largely be controlled and operated by a local Executive? I am quite certain that unless great powers are devolved on such an Executive there will not only be great delay and extra expense, but people will not get the services in respect of either passengers or goods, which they have the right to demand. Therefore, that argument, I think, will not hold water for a single moment. It is perfectly easy to devise a system which devolves upon an effective authority in Scotland those things that ought to be and can conveniently and usefully be dealt with in Scotland itself, exactly as road transport of passengers and goods is dealt with by the Regional Commissioners in Scotland at the present time. This is a case which must be met.
I agree that the Commission need to have a wide discretion but if the Minister is to have any power at all—and there is the power to intervene in the national interest—surely this is the kind of case where it is right that policy and principle should be laid down. I consider that Parliament has that right and has that duty. I ask the Government to tell us what is their intention as to how these perfectly valid and reasonable Scottish claims should be met. I think that it is essential—and I believe the Government will accept this—that what is done should satisfy Scottish needs and Scottish fair claims, and, at the same time, be workable. I do not see why the necessary provision should not be in the Bill, at least in general terms; for perhaps every detail cannot be worked out. It may be said that we should deal with this more
626
effectively, or arrive at a final decision more effectively, when we see how the Bill emerges from the Committee in its complete structure. But whether we insert a detailed provision or not, I am quite certain that just as the Minister is given power to give general directions, Parliament should not part with this Bill without at least giving general directions as to the way in which these Scottish needs have to be met. I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to meeting us along these lines.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We have had, as I anticipated, a full discussion on tins Amendment and that is all to the good. If I may say so, wits great respect and some trepidation, I think our Scottish friends who have spoken have exaggerated a little the dependence of Scotland on London. I have been in the Cabinet, like some of the noble Lords opposite, for a good many years, and I have always found the Scottish Secretary to be rather an aggressive person. I have never found him backward in asserting the claims of Scotland. I wonder if the noble Lords have not a little exaggerated the intensity of nationalistic feeling in this regard. We all know it is a thing which must be met and should be met, and everyone is anxious to meet it, but still I do not see, at all events in the records of Scottish elections, any very dramatic demonstration of the kind of feeling some of the noble Lords have been expressing to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What about Scottish Universities?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: One or two Scottish Nationalist candidates lost their deposits and there is not a single member elected to the House of Commons on that ticket.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: They stand on a separatist and not a local position.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am only pleading in as gentle a way as I can that I think noble Lords have exaggerated a little. It is essential that in regard to expressions of that kind, that—to put it in the excellent words of the noble Viscount who has just spoken—"Scotland's fair claims should be dealt with in a fair way." It could not be put better, and I entirely agree with him, and we will endeavour so to do. Most of the discus-

627
sion has, quite frankly, been not so much on the transport problems as on what might be called national claims. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, suggested that some of the difficulties which occurred in regard to feeding people in snow-blocked districts were due to the need of reference to London. There is a Scottish Traffic Commissioner who deals with these things and deals with them very effectively. What necessity is there to refer it to London? There are many such districts in England and people on the spot have a great measure of authority, and I am sure they exercise it as well as they can.
LORD SALTOUN: The whole trouble was that the food control did not give these people the right to get food in the way they were accustomed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am not aware of the details of the Ministry of Food organization but I think they are decentralized in exactly the same way.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I cannot accept that without some investigation. I am quite sure that the Regional Food Offices in Scotland must have a considerable measure of authority and command over supplies, and therefore I could not accept that it was due to having to refer something about food to London. The noble Lords have rather confused the nationalist sentiment with what is a practical problem of transport. Health, housing, and education are decentralized for Scotland. Only the other day the Secretary of State presented a Scottish Bill which was like a three volume novel, and it seemed to receive general approbation, showing how levelly it had been considered. A large number of services which are capable of decentralization are decentralized. If any Englishman dared to interfere with the administration of the Scottish Secretary over matters of health or housing or education, I think he would regret his rashness before he had finished. My experience was that if the Scottish Secretary put something up, I made terms with him as best I could, as quickly as possible, and I think that is the experience of every Minister.
In reply to the Earl of Glasgow, I would say that I have made inquiries and I find the Scottish Traffic Commissioner is an
628
officer of the Minister of Transport, and naturally we should not, in a case of this kind, where responsibility belongs to the Minister, quote the views of any officer. That would be quite wrong, and I have no knowledge of whether or not he has been quoted. The Minister must accept responsibility.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Surely the Government as a whole made a point of getting the advice of the Traffic Commissioner in Scotland before proceeding with this Bill with regard to Scotland. He is the man who knows everything. While thanking the noble Viscount for his answer, surely some more information should be given.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Every Minister in framing his proposals consults such officers of his Department as he feels should properly be consulted, but in no case would we dream of quoting what a particular officer advised. The final decision must be that of the Minister. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that it must be the business of the Minister in this matter to decentralize as much as practicable. If anything of this kind were put in the Bill, it would mean that we would have a transport body set up which, allowing for the exception of main line trains to which the noble Viscount referred, would have to deal with roads, canals and railways and the whole thing so far as Scotland is concerned. I suggest that is a functional mix-up which would be wrong. Under the scheme you have a Road Transport Executive, Rail Executive, Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Inland Waterways Executive.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. They are designed on a functional basis and a Scottish Executive would not work if you set up a single Executive to deal with every form of transport. It does not seem to me to make administrative sense. I think it would be the duty of the Minister, and he fully accepts it, to decentralize as much as possible so far as control and services are concerned. I have made some inquiries and find that the L.M.S. and the L.N.E.R. have a Scottish division which controls certain services. I do not know whether it controls them all, or the extent of its control, but they have developed,

629
to a certain extent, a national scheme of control; and clearly that kind of system must be extended as much as is administratively possible. I am quite sure we can rely upon the Minister, when he sets up this Executive, to decentralize as much control as can practically he decentralized. I am quite sure it would be a mistake to put the whole lot into one body, as is suggested in this Amendment. We are anxious to meet this desire so far as is physically possible, and I wish to assure the noble Earl that this is so.
I do not agree with the noble Lords who spoke slightingly of the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee. I can see how powerful these loyal patriotic Scotsmen are in this House. I notice they are powerful all over England, and, as I look round this House, I see most potent gentlemen who are controlling English industries with singular efficiency. One sees more of them in England than one sees Englishmen controlling Scottish industry in Scotland. They are rare birds up there. I cannot imagine that the Scottish Users Consultative Committee. which is to be set up under the Bill, will be anything but an exceedingly active and, if need be, an aggressive body. Supposing the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, were Chairman of it; nobody could possibly imagine that it would not be a very assertive body. Or the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, might be Chairman. He is Chairman of a very efficient Scottish body. I think they are not speaking as appreciatively of their own fellow countrymen as they ought to do when they cast aspersions upon the activities of the Scottish Consultative Committee which is in the Bill and which it is necessary to have.
Putting all that on one side, I think we should have regard the definite necessity of a decentralizing control, in a regional form, so far as is practically possible; and we should build on what is already being done without mixing up the functional discharge of responsibility with mere regional demarcation; that, I am sure, would be wrong. But having regard to the provision of the Scottish Consultative Committee, I think it would be right and fair to leave it now to the Commission to set up such Executives as they feel necessary, without adding any more to the Bill, and without charging them with the duty of setting up functional executives—and the bodies set up here are functional. None of them is regional
630
and I sincerely hope we shall not depart from that necessary classification.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I am not a Scotsman myself, I feel rather an interloper in this discussion. I listened with the utmost interest, as I always do, to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but I did not find his arguments convincing. I do not think he really convinced himself. I regarded it as a very charming example of special pleading. The noble Viscount said that the Scottish Peers who had spoken on this question exaggerated the dependence of Scotland on England. That really was not the argument which they put forward. What they said was that the Government, with every Bill they passed, were increasing the dependence of Scotland on England; that they were destroying local enthusiasm and local independence, and concentrating everything upon Whitehall. They were warning the noble Viscount of the dangers of the present policy, as exemplified in this and other Bills. If it is now said that there his not in the past been dependence of Scotland on England that is only a sign of how far the situation is deteriorating under the Government. The noble Viscount said that, so far as he could see, there was no strong nationalist feeling in Scotland.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, no. Of course, every Scotsman in is a strong nationalist; in whatever part of the world he is. The noble Earl (whether it was a "veiled menace" or not, I am not quite sure) threatened separatism. It was that to which I was referring.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I said the noble Viscount would drive us into that.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Well, it was a veiled menace.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In any case, I think it is a real danger if the noble Viscount will allow me to say so. There was a time, if we go back 150 years, when there was no very strong separatist feeling in the American Colonies. In fact, it was extremely difficult for the British Government to arouse that feeling, and they did it only because they did not allow the American Colonies to retain a certain measure of control over their own affairs. If the Government had taken a different line, which most Parties now think would have been wiser, it is possible that the clash

631
which has altered the world might never have occurred. It is no good saying one does not see a thing until it is before one's eyes; it is the essence of statesmanship to have vision and to see what is likely to happen in the future. I think that the warning given by the noble Earl was a well-merited warning, because the Government, instead of moving in the direction of satisfying these aspirations, are moving in the opposite direction and centralizing more and more in Whitehall.
I think there is a danger in every Government speech I hear. They rely upon the efficiency of paper schemes; they say it is much neater and more logical. But it is not human. It takes no account of human feelings and human passion—such as patriotism is—and one can see what is happening as a result of their beneficent administration. We see frantic appeals in every direction: "Work or want." Why do they have to put out those appeals? They do so because they have not given any incentive to the people to work. That is the result of their policy over the last two years, and noble Lords are asking the Government to give the Scottish people the incentive to work and to be proud of their country. That is what the Government are denying, but that is the real incentive. I am sure that if we get a local Scottish Committee every member of that Committee—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Do not misrepresent me, there is a Scottish Committee in the Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: A Consultative Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do not let us quibble over words. The noble Viscount knows quite well what I mean. It is called Executive in the Bill, and I am quite ready to say Executive; but if we have that Executive Committee every member of that Executive will be anxious to make the Scottish system of road and rail transport as efficient as it can, and one of which Scotland can be proud. That is an incentive, and in these difficult times the one thing you want to give people, in whatever part of the country they live, is that sort of incentive—a stimulus to their national feeling. That is the sort of thing which the Government, in their purely academic detached atmosphere, seem to ignore. It is deplorable, and it will do a great deal
632
of harm in every walk and sphere of national life.
I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said—that there are arguments for postponing to a later stage in the Bill a decision on this point. For one thing, the Bill is evolving, and in the course of the Committee stage it will evolve still further. We might look at this point again later on. It will give the Government a chance to reconsider their position before the later stage, and I hope they will, because I think their case was utterly pulverized this afternoon. I think that will be the view outside this House not only all over Scotland but in England as well. I feel sure there are good arguments for postponing a decision, and I would suggest to the noble Earl that he should not press this matter to a Division to-day. But I would also recommend the noble Earl to reserve the right absolutely, if the Government do not reconsider the position, to take whatever action he thinks right and proper when we get to a later stage. I do not want the noble Earl, in any sense, to withdraw from the position which he has taken up. It seems to me to be a perfectly logical position, and the noble Earl has stated it with great force and power. But I do think it may be premature to force this to a Division to-day, and I suggest that the noble Earl should postpone his action until a later stage.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: We on these Benches have waited to hear the whole of this debate, and particularly the statement of the Government, before deciding on our attitude. Having heard what the noble Viscount had to say, and also what the noble Marquess who has just spoken has said, we certainly think that the line proposed by the noble Marquess is the right one. On the whole, the balance of argument is rather in favour of the Amendment than against it. What the noble Marquess has said as to the feeling in Scotland is undoubtedly true. Further, what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said as to the effect of more nationalization and more centralization is also true; and in passing these measures of nationalization we ought to beware of strengthening that tendency, and insert in the Bills which we pass provisions calculated to make head against that tendency. At the same time, as the noble Marquess has

633
just said, the House as a whole does not want to cause unnecessary embarrassment and controversy. This is only the Committee stage—there will be other stages—and, while most of your Lordships, I believe, think that in substance the Amendment is sound, it might be well not to press it to a Division on this occasion but to give opportunity for further consideration.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank all noble Lords who have been good enough to support me on this Amendment. I would particularly like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. The noble Viscount comes from Newcastle, and they have a similar problem in that part of the country to that which exists on the other side of the Border. I should also particularly like to thank the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for what he has said. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, if I may say so, based his case substantially on the existence of a Consultative Committee. It may well be that the noble Viscount would like to know what the Scottish T.U.C. think of the Consultative Committee. I will read it to your Lordships:
"The General Council, whilst welcoming the provision of a Consultative Committee for Scotland, considers that such a Committee with functions limited to those laid down in Clause 6 (5) will not adequately meet the wishes of the Scottish people. …"
That, if I understand it rightly, is the linchpin on which the noble Viscount based his argument.
The other point he made was that this is a question of feeling. This is not a question of feeling; it is a question of economics. I have not bothered your Lordships this afternoon by talking economics, but if you like I can develop the economic case from the time of James Watt and tell your Lordships just how things stand to-day. On another occasion I will do it at length. This is not a question of national feeling, but a question of realizing that economic action springs from the initiative and energy of the people who know how to use the resources in the place, and not from far-distant planning. We are getting somewhat accustomed to unsatisfactory replies in regard to this Bill, and I feel very disappointed that the noble Viscount had no answer to this at all.
I feel, with great respect to the noble Viscount—for whom we all have the highest regard—that there was no reply.
634
All that was put out was simply a theory, and no adequate answer has been made. We did not base our argument on feeling; we based it entirely on economic requirements. Anybody who has lived in Scotland—and I say this without exception—knows that this is necessary, and knows that this must come. I go further, and say that if it does not come, some other arrangement must be made. With those few words, I will accept what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said, and will take up this matter again on the Report stage. But I do ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to consider this matter, if he will, before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am glad that the noble Earl has seen his way to withdraw his Amendment, and I promise him with great faithfulness that I will bring all these considerations to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice to move, in subsection (3), to leave out "and" (where that word occurs a fourth time) and in a second Amendment to leave out "as from the appointed day an Executive known as." The noble Viscount said: These Amendments can be discussed together. As your Lordships will see, the Executives have their names stated in subsection (3), as printed, as "the Railway Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive and the London Transport Executive." Then there is this rather curious phrase: "as from the appointed day, an Executive known as the Hotels Executive." I do not go back in the least on what I said yesterday and to-day about the desirability of giving the Commission the widest possible discretion as to the Executives to be appointed; indeed, I hope on the Scottish case they will recast the whole business and make the thing regional.
I am not at all sure that the right system of devolution is not a regional rather than a functional devolution. That is one of these extraordinary theoretical ideas that, with great respect, doctrinaires, and sometimes some civil servants, get into their heads, not knowing the facts of life. The facts of life are rather jumbled up, and if you are to handle the facts of life properly you had better not try to put

635
them all in watertight compartments where they never meet; otherwise the union will not be very fruitful. What I cannot understand here is why, if there are to be these named Executives, and they are to be appointed (though the noble Viscount the Leader of the House left us in some obscurity as to when they were to be appointed) you should delay the appointment of the Hotels Executive by Order. It is not even done by the discretion of the Commission. I do not mind if the Commission have that discretion, but why delay by Order the appointment of the Hotels Executive to an appointed day, which is obviously intended to be—or the phrase can have no meaning—after the Executives have been appointed. It is really most illogical.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has justified, in so far as he could justify, resistance to the last Amendment on the argument that you must have functional Executives at once. That means that you must have a Road Executive managing the roads, a Railway Executive managing the railways, and an Hotels Executive managing the hotels. But the hotels are all going to vest in the Commission on January 1, on exactly the same date as the railways and the waterways are going to vest; indeed, the hotels will vest long before the roads will—the roads do not vest until the scheme is made for this or that particular region, and this or that particular company. But the Road Executive is to be set up at once, If you take the aggregate of the whole of the hotels owned by all the railways of this country, it must be much the largest hotel business in this country, if not in the world. If the argument of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is right, that the Executives must be functional, then, if the hotels are to vest at once, as they are, and if it is right to establish all the other Executives without delay, what on earth is the point of giving a mandatory instruction (I do not mind the discretion) to the Commission that they are to delay the appointment of the Hotels Executive? I do suggest that the words "as from the appointed day," are much better struck out.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, leave out ("and").—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I should like to support the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend. It is important that the Minister should tell us the meaning of these mysterious words, "as from the appointed day," and a little more about the intention of the Government in delaying the appointment of this very vital Executive which is to control the hotels. As the noble Lord has just said, the Commission would become the largest individual hotel proprietors in the world. Most of us on these Benches think that is a very undesirable thing. We do not feel that the Government have any mandate for going into the hotel business on this scale, or that the taxpayers' money should be used for this purpose. But if it is being used for this purpose, then surely the taxpayer has a right to know who is to control the hotels when the Hotels Committee of the main line railways give up that job on the vesting day. They particularly want to know who is to control the hotels when they give up that responsibility, and it is important that they should know that. Is the Railway Executive to control them? If the Railway Executive is to control them, and is to control them properly, what is the object of appointing a Hotels Executive Committee?
A proprietor of a large section of the hotel industry—which the Commission will become—must make immediate plans, not only for the proper control of the hotels, but for their future development. In the interests of the public he must immediately consult with the other members of that industry in regard to the general development of hotels and catering arrangements all over the country. We all know that everybody, and particularly industry and commerce, is suffering very much at the present time from lack of hotel accommodation; plans have to be made, not only for that reason, but also for the important reason of building up our tourist trade, which is vitally important to us. If everyone has got to wait for an indefinite period—and it may be an indefinite period under the Bill as it stands at present—for the Hotels Executive to be appointed, none of these plans can be made. The other hotel proprietors do not know how the railway hotels will fit into the general nationalized pattern of the hotel catering industry, and there will be a delay which will do a great

637
deal of harm. Apart from this, the British taxpayer, having had his money put into this venture by die Government, without a mandate and against his will, has a right to know who is to control these hotels. I hope we shall hear from the noble Lord a great deal more than we know at present about the matter.
VISCOUNT PORTAL: I am going to say only a few words on the Amendment moved by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley. Most of the points have been brought out by those two speakers, but I feel strongly on this—in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said: that other people should take part besides those interested in the railways. This is the first time I have said a word during the debate, except for an interjection which I made to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which took up only half a minute of your Lordships' time. The point I wish to make is that if the railways are to be taken over, and the Railway Executive is to be formed on January I—the date on which the railways will be taken over—you have the position the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, pointed out. The biggest proprietors of hotels in the world, the four respective companies, will he left, to put it mildly, without a plan of any kind—unless you are to continue running the hotels under the railways. As the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, said, if they were to be continued for a year under the railways, then you might as well say, "Why have you taken them away from the railways?"
I wish to put another point in going from the whole to the part. In spite of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, telling your Lordships that the plans of the railway companies might possibly be window dressing, I can assure you that the plans for which some of us were responsible on our line were not window dressing at all, and one of the chief features of the plan was to build new hotels in industrial places. One was going up at Cardiff, one at Swansea, a further one at Birmingham and another at Bristol. The two in South Wales had priority and the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, knows the reason why those hotels have not been built. The noble Viscount who leads the Government to-day knows as well as I do that house building, in some cases, has had to have
638
priority over the hotels for materials and licences. Not a minute has been wasted and we were prepared to go on building those hotels. If you are to take over the hotels it is more vital than ever that the hotels which the people require in this country should be built as soon as possible, and that is why I think the question of forming the Hotels Executive is just as urgent as that of any other Executive. Therefore, I support what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said; and from the railway point of view I think it is all-important.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure we need not spend any further time in discussing what is, to a very large extent, a verbal Amendment, and I was not able to connect with it very closely the very delightful speech of the noble Viscount. Somehow he brought in the fertility of nature in various guises. But still, he has a more recondite mind than I have. What I am interested in is that whilst noble Lords have been all in favour of giving the Commission elasticity, time to consider arid formulate their plans, and all the rest of it, here noble Lords are moving an Amendment, which takes away from them that opportunity. In the Bill it is provided that as from an appointed day an Executive, known as the Hotels Executive, shall be appointed. The result of adopting this Amendment will be that this time to think about it, to develop plans and to make the necessary arrangements, will be taken from the Commission. So far as possible—of course it is not a statutory obligation—the Executive will have to be appointed straight away. I confess I do not quite follow the reasoning. I should have thought that those words would have been exceedingly pleasant to the noble Viscount, because they give the elasticity, the time to think and make arrangements and all the rest of it.
I am quite sure that what the noble Viscount, Lord Portal, said as to the plans made by the railway companies is right, and that they are not window dressing. He has my complete assurance that I am quite sure that any plans for which he was responsible would riot be window dressing, but would be real proposals; and I hope they will be given effect to as soon as possible. This vast property in hotels will be transferred with the railways. They are an integral part of their pro-

639
perty, and I have no doubt at all that the Commission will make suitable arrangements, through existing organizations, to carry them on in an effective way. But I am exceedingly perplexed as to why we are asked to take out these words. I do not think it makes a bit of difference whether they are in or not. It says earlier in the clause, "The acts shall be such as may from time to time …" Therefore it does not make any difference whether the words are in or not. While emphasizing the necessity for common sense and making their arrangements carefully and letting other people know about it, I should have thought these words were exceedingly desirable, and I cannot see any reason for deleting them.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I cannot understand the noble Viscount saying he is in perplexity. It is not illogical, it is entirely logical to leave these words out. I was anxious not to give the Commission orders as to the appointment of the Executives, but to let them decide on their own plan and as to what Executives or forms of management are to run the business under them. The Government objected strongly to that in regard to an Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and we did not press it to a Division. They have said that the whole thing can be unscrambled again—I am not so certain about that—and that you have a set-up of certain Executives in the first instance. If that is not the right way of managing, it is, at any rate, the way the Government under this Bill are going to order the Commission to manage—functionally, in watertight compartments.
They say that the hotel business is to be managed by an Hotel Executive, the railways by a Railway Executive, the roads by a Road Executive, and the waterways by a Waterways Executive. Railways, waterways, and hotels, all vest in the Commission on the same day. What is the sense or the logic in saying that you are to appoint functional Executives for railways and waterways, but at the same time giving an indication that there is a difference in the date at which the functional Executive for Hotels should be appointed? I agree that it does not matter very much, because the Commission can appoint the day. But surely, the Amendment is
640
logical, it is common sense, it improves the Bill and, in the opinion of everybody, it is obviously more workable. Are not the Government really doing their cause a little harm in obstructing a practical Amendment of this kind? I think that sort of attitude does show the world that they want to make the Bill as unworkable as they can.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice of an Amendment to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) The functions delegated to Road Transport Executive may be exercised by sub-Executives to be known respectively as the Road (Carriage of goods) Sub-Executive and the Road (Carriage of passengers) Sub-Executive."
The noble Viscount said: In view of the assurance that this power is already fully possessed by the Commission, I will not move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice to move in subsection (4), to leave out from "Commission" where that word last occurs, to the end of the line and insert, "constituting such Executive." The noble Viscount said: I do not want the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to pass this over without being quite clear upon it. I do not mind whether these words are in the Bill or not, but what are necessary and consequential are some Amendments later on where the initiative lies with the Minister and where the initiative will not rest with the Commission. That is a matter which I will leave to the noble Viscount's consideration.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I would like it to be left in.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I will not move the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, in subsection (4), at the end to insert:
"Provided that where the Commission are of opinion that in order to secure a properly integrated system of public inland transport the discharge of their functions can best be assisted by the regional integration of transport services any such scheme may provide for the delegation of the said functions to boards, to be called regional boards, for such areas as the Commission may determine, and the regional boards shall contain such number of persons as the Commission may determine who shall be appointed by the Commission and shall include as well as members of each of the Executives responsible for any means of

641
transport in the area, such persons as the Commission may think fit representative of the chief commercial and industrial activities in the area."
The noble Viscount said: I should say at the outset that the proposals in this Amendment have certain features in common with proposals in the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and supported by other noble Lords from Scotland. It is not quite the same, but I think my remarks on this Amendment can be shortened a good deal if we cast our minds back to the arguments used by noble Scottish Lords, and if we realize that if we stripped them of their trappings of, I will not say Scottish nationalism, but Scottish sentiment, there stands behind those trappings a very solid argument indeed in favour of a regional organization of some kind. Scotland perhaps may be the best instance and the strongest argument for regional organization, but the fact remains that Scotland is only one of the places where a regional organization may be necessary. Many other places will spring to your Lordships' minds: Tyneside, the Birmingham area, Lancashire, West Riding, South Wales, and so on. In all these places there is a strong case for regional organization of some kind or other.
This Amendment differs in certain respects from the proposals which were made on the subject of Scotland. In the first place it is permissive. It simply seeks to point out that regional organizations of some sort will be necessary, and as we all saw from the discussions the day before yesterday, the plans of the Commission are completely fluid. We want to make it quite clear that if they find it necessary to establish regional organizations, as I am sure they will, they will have all the powers in their hands which they need to do so. The noble Viscount who leads the House, in talking of the Scottish Amendments, referred to the "functional mix-up" which might result if regional organization were wrongly applied. Here we are faced with what is the real problem of organization. No one on this side of your Lordships' House is suggesting that there should be delegation of main policy. That certainly would be a functional mix-up. What we are suggesting is that policy should be so far delegated that matters which are of purely regional interest as affecting the different Executives can be
642
dealt with on the regional level and need not be referred back to London.
I would press this point very strongly indeed. It would lot so much easier to press it if we were in a Committee Room upstairs, and we were allowed to display organization charts and such things. It is a common form of organization, as has already been said in another connexion. It happens to be the form of organization in use in the Commands of the Army at home, where you have representatives of all the different Services, and arms of the Services, assembled in a Command Headquarters, with sufficient power delegated to them to settle only those things that affect those Command Headquarters, and without sufficient powers to interfere with policy which belongs to Headquarters.
I want to make this point as strongly as I can: that there must be sufficient delegated machinery to deal with local matters which do not affect the main policy. I want to make one further point, and that is that if delegation is not provided, then nothing whatever will be decided. I beg you, as earnestly as I possibly can, to study this question of the time factor in the administering of the industries that are going to be administered in these nationalization Bills. Unless we take every possible step to avoid clogging the works, the works will be clogged. There will be hosts of timid little men who have the excuse for not taking a decision because they have the opportunity of referring it to London; there will be other hosts of lazy little men who will have the excuse of not taking a decision because they have the power of referring it to London. It is to avoid this grit in the wheels arid these spanners in the works of the organization that I put forward this particular Amendment.
This Amendment is not the same as the other one to which I referred. It has certain main. features but it is permissive, and it is framed to exclude the main points of policy. It is also framed to do one other thing. May I just read the words? It is framed to include in the boards" such persons as the Commission may think fit representative of the chief commercial and industrial activities in the area." Therefore, apart from attempting to simplify the organization, it also attempts to bring the best local opinion to bear on local problems. It is really

643
hopeless to expect a problem which affects the integration and the co-ordination of the traffic in Liverpool, Manchester, the West Riding, or wherever you like, to be solved by people who, however expert they may be in their own line of business, are in London and are not familiar with the local conditions. So, without further ado, I will put forward this Amendment as a point of organization, and I hope it may receive consideration in that light from the noble Lords opposite. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 7, line 46, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think the noble Viscount, who speaks with great experience in the military field, would recognize that the powers provided for the Commission are ample to cover all that is set out in his Amendment. As to his desire that there shall be provision for focussing the feelings of any part of the country, he will find that in Clause 6 we propose that there shall be no part of Great Britain which is not within the area of a Transport Users Consultative Committee. So far as the local aspect is concerned, that is amply provided for in the Bill as it is. As regards decentralization of operating responsibility, I have no doubt at all that, as a body of sensible people, these Executives will decentralize in regions so far as they find it necessary to do so. But I do not think that we should go out of our way to require, by Statute, the setting up of regional boards. For my part, I have not that affection for some forms of regional administration that the noble and gallant Viscount has. In some cases I have not found regional administration to be all that might be desired. But, putting that matter on one side, this is a functional business, and it must be left to the Executive in charge of the business to say to what extent, and where, and how, they will decentralize their work; and they have full power to do it under the Bill as it is. So far as focussing the needs and wishes of the community is concerned there is separate provision in the next clause of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Would the noble Viscount kindly tell me in what clause the Commission have these powers?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly; it is in Clause 5(3), where it says: "The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be constituted by the Commission." They can appoint whatever they like.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think this point ought to be reconsidered. There is an old principle in law that delegates are not entitled to delegate. There is a Latin phrase which is often heard in the courts to that effect.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If the noble Viscount would read the next subsection, subsection (4), he will see there it says "Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission," et cetera.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Yes, but they can only appoint the Executives under subsection (3).
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes; but when they arc appointed they will have the authority.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I would be very glad if I could see where it is. This is not a Party question in the least; it is only a question of how the thing is to operate. Speaking with great deference to the noble Viscount—because he knows the Bill upside clown and I do not, although I have read it more than once—I should have thought that the Executives were limited in number and could be appointed only under Clause 5; and I should have thought that although it is true that under Clause 6 they may appoint Consultative Committees, those Committees are not given any functions of operation.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh, no.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Do you agree or are you doubting?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Consultative Committees are for a different purpose. I was dealing with the question about focussing the needs or wishes of the community.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Then it follows that the Consultative Committees will not be able to exercise the functions which are hoped to be given by the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and, if that is so, or if there is substantial doubt about it, it really would be better to insert the Amendment. The noble

645
Viscount the Leader of the House admits that there will be a probability that a great deal of delegation will have to be done by the Executive. For my part I have grave doubt whether there are sufficient powers in the Bill to enable, for example, the Railway Executive to transfer authority to somebody—we will say for the Great Western district. I doubt very much whether they can. I think that the duty is upon them, and I doubt very much whether they can delegate it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have great respect for the legal opinions of the noble and learned Viscount. All I can say is that I am advised quite definitely that the Executives can, if they wish, appoint Regional Executives. But in view of the opinion which the noble and learned Viscount has expressed, I will certainly return to this matter, have it inquired into and I hope, obtain an answer which will put the question beyond doubt. That, of course, is quite different from saying that we accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think we can take a decision on this now. I am afraid that we shall have to come back to it. We are not perfectly clear as to the position, and I am not saying that at all offensively to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The noble Viscount is in a very difficult position, for he has not the equivalent of a Law Officer with him now, and so many of these things are mixed questions of law and administration. I want to be quite clear what it is that we want to do, and whether there is power to do it. Let me sweep aside this question about Consultative Committees. I am not dissenting from the clause which sets up these Committees. Nobody knows better than the noble Viscount that a Consultative Committee have nothing whatever to do with delegated powers of administration. Therefore, it is no answer to an argument dealing with delegated powers of administration to say that in certain areas there will be Consultative Committees. I dare-say there will be a good many of them, but, as a matter of fact, I think that these committees will find it extremely difficult to do their jobs unless there are delegated administrative bodies with whom they can discuss local matters. I cannot conceive how they can exercise their functions properly unless they have something of that kind.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If the noble Viscount will look at subsection (7) of the same clause he will see that it covers the whole point.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged, I see that it states:
"Any such delegation—"
that, I take it, is delegation of powers
"may be framed as to empower the Executive to perform any of the functions delegated to them through agents."
I am glad that the noble Viscount has drawn my attention to that, because it shows that the Bill does not provide powers which, rightly or wrongly, are asked for in this Amendment. We are not seeking, under this Amendment, simply to have a functional Executive, delegating its water-tight functional powers to an agent. I will not express an opinion as to whether, without these words in, it could be done. What we seek to do is something quite different. I hoped that there was to be a great deal of delegation, and I was a little unhappy when the noble Viscount, having said the Minister would delegate as much as he could (as a matter of fact it will be the Commission and not the Minister which will have the power), said in the next breath, that he himself did not much like these regional bodies. That, I am afraid is where I differ fundamentally from the present Government. They love centralized administration; I hate centralized administration.
If I were a Socialist Minister trying to embrace everything under my control, my object would be to give general directives on policy from the centre and devolve responsibility for carrying out that policy so far as I could. What we are seeking to do, here, is not to maintain this water-tight functional system throughout. We have deliberately made this permissive because. I feel sure the Commission, if it is really a business-like body, when faced with this job, will find that it has to get out of its, water-tight compartment, not only to meet things like— I will not say Scottish sentiment, but Scottish business claims. What we asked was not that the Executive should have power of devolution of its, limited powers as an Executive, but that the Commission should have the power, where they thought it was the proper way of running transportation, to devolve upon Regional Boards such part of their functions as they saw fit. As I say, this is purely permissive. We do not wish to take

647
a final decision upon this to-day, but, as the noble Viscount suggests, when the Report stage is reached, we shall want to know whether, if these words are not inserted in the Bill, the Commission will have power to do what is here proposed—namely to set up Regional Boards, not on water-tight functional lines, but to exercise such of the combined functions of the Commission as the Commission think right. If there is any doubt, certainly we shall wish to return to the charge and to give the Commission that power—not a directive but a permissive power—which, I think the noble Viscount will agree, they ought to have. On that understanding, having cleared that up, and subject to anything anyone else might have to say I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I assure the noble Viscount that I will make an inquiry into this, as I have already promised. But, as I have said, I am advised beyond all dubiety that the Executives have this power.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not wish to prolong the debate but I should like just to say this. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has put the matter with great clarity, and there is this possible obligation which we must foresee. If, as is now suggested, these functional Executives are to delegate to agents functions which are not their own functional duties consideration should be given to what is stated in subsection (9) of the clause,
"… and legal proceedings shall be brought by and against the Executive accordingly, to the exclusion of the Commission."
What will happen in that connexion if the Railway Executive, for example, delegates functions (and it seems astonishing that a Railway Executive should be able to delegate to a subordinate body functions other than its own) and some other body is going to act as the agent of the Railway Functional Executive? It seems to me that under a further subsection you will have great difficulties about who is to be sued. I suggest that that is a point that should be looked into.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Would that not be covered by the different Executives, whether Road or Rail, delegating functions to some subordinate body? That makes it clear, and the point will be met
648
by the subordinate body referring the matter to whichever Executive is the right one.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Surely the point is that you want a Regional body that can deal with all functions.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKhad given notice to move, in subsection (5) to leave out "and Edinburgh" and insert "Edinburgh or Belfast." The noble Earl said: This is a small formal Amendment referring to the publicity which is to be given to schemes made under Clause 5. These are very important schemes and they should receive as wide publicity as possible. The Amendment provides that in subsection (5) there should be with the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, the Belfast Gazette. If it is convenient to the noble Chairman I will take the next Amendment in my name, at line 5, to leave out "or Edinburgh" and insert "Belfast or Edinburgh." In this Amendment there is a clerical error and with your Lordships' permission I should like to correct it. It should read "Edinburgh and Belfast" not "Edinburgh or Belfast"—that is an original error in the Bill itself—
"Provided that publication in the London or Edinburgh Gazette of a notice stating that a scheme has been made and approved …."
A large number of publications come out under this Bill, and it is important they should be easily available, and the supply at His Majesty's Stationery Office is clearly inadequate. They are not easy to obtain. There are Gazettes in England, one in Wales, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland. A scheme published in the Gazettes should be easily available and widely read because of the large number of legal and other matters of great interest to the variety of citizens concerned.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, leave out ("and Edinburgh") and insert ("Edinburgh and Belfast").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I must confess that when I first saw the noble Earl's Amendment I wondered what motive he had in moving it, because he seemed to me to

649
be setting up a competition between Edinburgh and Belfast and putting on someone else the onus as to which would be selected. Knowing where the noble Earl hails from, I could not understand why he put temptation in some one s way of making an announcement, not in Edinburgh but in Belfast. Now he explains that it should be Edinburgh and Belfast I have no objection to accepting the Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("or Edinburgh") and insert ("Edinburgh and Belfast.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (9), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: I shall begin by giving the assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, whose courtesy is recognized even by some of us who cast a glare at him across the House, that I move this Amendment with a purely virtuous desire for enlightenment. If I read the words I propose should be left out, I think the House will appreciate the need for enlightenment:
"Any rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers and liabilities of tie Executive, and the Executive only."
On the face of it, that looks like a contradiction in terms because, so far as these delegations go, if the rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission are to be treated as the rights, powers and liabilities of the Executive only, it would appear that the whole powers of the Commission are vested for the time solely in the Executive, without control by the Commission.
But a little higher up we find these words:
"the following provisions shall have effect except as between the Executive and the Commission …"
That seems to override the possibility of the Executive only having the powers. It certainly wants clearing up. There are some who object to the obscurity of theological doctrines, but I do not know of any theological doctrine so much in need of interpretation as these words in the Bill. Are they necessary at all? I ask your Lordships to listen to what has already been passed in subsection (6). There it says that:
650
"whether or not the relevant delegation is expressed to be subject to any conditions or limitations, every Executive shall, in the exercise of their functions, give effect to any directions which may from time to time be given to them by the Commission."
That overrides all there is in subsection (9) (a).
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 3—(Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD MORRISON: I thank the noble Lord for the complimentary references to myself, and shall endeavour to deserve them. I am not sure in this case that I can add to his enlightenment. If he had informed me that he merely put the Amendment down for enlightenment and without any definite object in view I might have been more ready. Its actual effect is to create what I know the noble Lord does not desire to create, a centralized bureaucracy. The effect of his Amendment would be to create such a piece of centralization that it would flood the Commission with a multitude of claims by and against them. The practical effect of the Amendment would be that every action, other than those relating to master and servant, would lie against or be brought by the Commission. The very purpose of the setting up of the Executives is to create bodies for the day-to-day working of the undertaking, and it is only logical that claims in connexion with the Executives' work should be dealt with by the Executives. The effect of the Amendment would be that the Commission would have to deal with these claims and they would not be dealt with by the Executives.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: If that is so, why does it provide that in subsection (9) (b):
"The Executive shall, to the exclusion of the Commission, be treated as the employer."
There is some difference between the powers of the Executive and Commission as between paragraphs (a) and (b). The words "the following provisions shall have effect except as between the Executive and the Commission" seem to override both (a) and (b). I admit that the words in subsection (6) give the Commission absolute powers in all these cases. I think there is a real difficulty and confusion here. Whatever the intention might be, the wording seems to be completely inconsistent.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I hope that somebody with legal knowledge will give us the benefit of his opinion. I feel strongly with the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that there is considerable substance in it. Can we say that the Commission can ever really divorce themselves from "rights, powers, and liabilities," any more than any noble Lord can divorce himself from liability when he appoints an agent to act for him? The Executive is an agent of the Commission, and later on in the Bill it says that if the Executive is sued and becomes liable for damages, and payment is not received after a certain period of time, then the Commission are bound to pay. That shows, logically, that the Commission always remain liable, and I think there is a considerable legal point involved here. I feel that the responsibility ought to remain with the Commission. That is my natural feeling, as I think it is the natural feeling of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Since I have been invited to express an opinion on this matter, I must say (and I hope that neither of the noble Lords on this side of the House who have spoken on this subject will be annoyed by my saying so) that I think this clause will work, and I think I understand the meaning of it. Having said that, I will add that I also think it might possibly be made a little clearer, especially to the layman, at a later stage. As I understand it, what is meant by the Government, what is desired, and what I think is the real effect of this clause, is that the Executives are the people to be mentioned in any contracts between the public and the railway undertakings as a whole. They are also the people who are to be sued for any damages which are incurred by the body as a whole, whether by accident, breach of contract or anything else.
For instance, suppose there is an accident on the Waterloo railway. Somebody complains of the action of a porter, and falls down and hurts herself. She may not know against whom she ought to bring the action. This clause will tell her. The action has to be brought against the Executives. The Executives had nothing in the world to do with the accident. That does not matter. They are put there as the people to be "shot at." Having started by trying to put
652
that clearly, it occurred to the draftsmen (and I think properly occurred) that it is only as between the public and the institution that you want this. You do not want it as between the Executives and the Commission. They are different people. They have different functions. They may quarrel and, for all one knows, might conceivably have some sort of litigation between themselves. They are separate and always will be, except that the Executives have only delegated powers under the words of the Bill.
Having put that in in the third line of the subsection, the Bill goes on to repeat it, in effect, in the last passage referring to contracts or documents, and says:
"… legal proceedings shall be brought by and against the Executive accordingly, to the exclusion of the Commission …."
My feeling is that it would be simpler and easier to understand if in the first few lines of the subsection something were put in to show the object of the clause, that is to say, something like this:
"For the purposes of any contract or document or legal proceedings brought by any person the following subsection shall apply."
Then I think my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, and the noble Lord who also spoke, would be content. It might be that a little consideration would be a good thing, although, as I confess, I believe the subsection will result in what the Government want.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Might I ask my noble and learned friend whether the words in subsection (6), beginning at line 15, are really consistent with the views he has put forward?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am not quite sure where the inconsistency is. I read them without thinking they were inconsistent. I am not prepared to say that my noble friend is wrong. Perhaps he will tell me afterwards what the point is, and, if there is still an inconsistency, we can consider it later.
LORD MORRISON: In the light of the legal explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given us, for which I am sure we are all much indebted to him, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, will not persist in this Amendment. May I add that I will see that the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion, that there should be other words put in, is considered, so that they can be

653
before us on Report stage if it is found necessary?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I cannot say that I am entirely convinced, even by the learning of my noble and learned friend. But in view of what he has said, and the assurance that further consideration will be given to this matter (I trust that the matter will be cleared up) for the time being I will withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should add one word which I intended to say, and that is with reference to the proviso. Whatever damages you suffer, you bring your action against the Executive. There may be a very large sum which the Executive are not prepared to pay at the moment, because Government Departments have not always the cash, and they have to get it from some other source. This proviso is quite right. It says that if the Executive have not paid within fourteen days after the judgment you may then force the Commission to pay. I think that is very useful provision. It really does not, I think, touch the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour's point as to the earlier words of this subsection.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I wonder if the noble Lord could answer the question I put. Perhaps he did not make a note of it. At an earlier stage I raised the question of the proviso to this subsection and about what a trader was to do who obtained judgment against an Executive. The trader obtains his judgment against the Executive if there has been some damage and the Commission have to pay. My question (perhaps it could be looked into) was: What happens next? Has he to undertake another process against the Commission to get his money, or does the judgment against the Executive automatically carry the right of payment? I do not expect the noble Lord to answer that question now, but I should like to know what the answer is.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord does not expect an answer now, and I would not like to risk making an answer on the spur of the moment. But I will see that an answer is given to him.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Thank you very much.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of
654
my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury. This Amendment is merely a consequential Amendment on a previous Amendment which ensures that the Commission and not the Minister shall appoint the Executive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, leave out from ("where") to ("abolish") in line 14 and insert ("the Commission").—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (II), to leave out "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" and to insert "the Commission may make such transitional provisions as appear to them." The noble Lord said: This, again is a consequential Amendment due to the fact that the Commission, and not the Minister, are to appoint the Executive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, leave out from ("Commission") to the first ("to") in line 22 and insert the said now words.—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: On the Motion that the clause stands part of the Bill, I would like to return for a moment to some of the great questions about the Executives which we have discussed. It seems my unfortunate fate to rise to ask a question of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, at a moment when he has been compelled to absent himself for the purpose of getting a little well-earned bodily refreshment. I gave the noble Viscount notice that I was going to mention this, and make no objection to his going to have a cup of tea, of which I am quite sure he is in urgent need. At the same time my duty to the House does not permit me to allow the clause to go without putting this question, because I venture to submit that it is a question of the very first importance.
In the course of the discussion on my Amendment to give the Commission freedom to set up their own Executives, a statement was made which my noble friend Viscount Swinton described as the most important statement that had been made by any Minister in either House in the course of these debates; that was that it was not necessary lo set up the func-

655
tional Executives by January 1. We gathered from the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, that the intention (and this is what I want to confirm although I am pretty sure of it) is to set up by January 1 perhaps the Rail Executive only. The Rail Executive will, therefore, be responsible for running the railways, including, of course, the subsidiary and ancillary interests of the railways in the way of road undertakings and harbours. There is no difficulty about that; I quite understand it. It is new light to your Lordships, but we are glad to know that that is the intention.
But that does not alter the fact that the Railway Executive to be set up on January 1 will have to be ready to function. My anxiety still remains, because I think the time will be extremely short. First of all this Bill has to pass, then the British Transport Commission have to be set up, then the Commission have to set up the Executive. The Railway Executive has to be ready to function and to take over everything that is at present being done by the four main line railways. The Executive has to face the difficulty of organizing all that, having regard to the fact that the boards of the four main line companies will disappear. I know that the noble Viscount does not think the boards are really necessary, and he is not anxious at all about their disappearance.
I am afraid I now come to the point that only the noble Viscount can answer. He made a statement which shows, I think, that he is under some misapprehension. On the evening before last, in talking on this very point of the emergency arrangements for carrying on, the noble Viscount said:
"Take, for example, the Railway Executive Committee 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."
That shows that the noble Viscount, like the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, thinks that during the war the Railway Executive Committee administered the railways, because he said they would go on doing it. That, I must tell your Lordships is a complete illusion. There is a confusion of
656
words here. The Railway Executive Committee (what we know as the R.E.C.) does not bear much resemblance to the Railway Executive which is to be set up under this Bill, and that is why it is an illusion to think that the Railway Executive Committee administered the railways. The Railway Executive Committee was, and is, in fact, the medium through which the Minister expresses his wishes to the boards when the national interest requires it. The R.E.C. is the agency through which the Minister gives directions to the railway boards when he is satisfied that national considerations require those directions. The R.E.C. have nothing whatever to do with the day-to-day administration of the railways, so it would not be possible for the Railway Executive Committee to go on doing something which they have never done.
But there is another reason which may appeal even more strongly than that to the noble Viscount. It is that under this Bill, the R.E.C. itself will disappear on January 1 next. This will be found on page 35 of the Bill, which says:
"The orders in force at the passing of this Act under Regulation sixty-nine of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, shall, so far as they relate to the undertakings of the bodies of persons specified In the Third Schedule to this Act, continue in force until the date of transfer and shall then cease to have effect."
It was under that Regulation that the Railways (Control) Order (as I think it was called) was passed. That comes to an end. So not only have the R.E.C. never administered the railways, but, even if they had, they could not go on after January 1, because they would no longer exist. In the light of that, I think we are entitled to some explanation from the Government, and I do not think it would be right to leave this clause until we have given the Front Bench the opportunity of clearing up this curious misunderstanding.
LORD NATHAN: I understand from the noble Lord who has just sat down that he gave notice to my noble friend that he proposed to raise this question. It may be that this clause has been reached rather earlier than was expected, but my noble friend is attending to his bodily comfort. Let me say that the answer, as I understand it, is that of course there must be no confusion between the Railway Executive Committee (which ceases to exist on the vesting date) and the Railway Executive to be constituted under the pro-

657
visions of this Bill. As I apprehend it, the position will be that as soon as may be after this Bill becomes law, the Minister, or the Commission if the Amendment passed on Tuesday should persist, will create a Railway Executive (not a Railway Executive Committee) with such necessary delegated powers as would enable it on the vesting date of January 1 to take over those activities which, on that date, will vest in the Commission, and to exercise such powers as may be delegated to it as being necessary for that purpose.
I think my noble friend the Leader of the House, in the speech referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, expressed the hope (and indeed the conviction) that many of those who had been associated with the conduct of the railways and other activities which would so vest would, under a feeling of public duty, be prepared to assist in the interim period during which transitional difficulties would be bound to arise, with a view to easing this until the system was more completely elaborated and articulated. That I understand to be the position. The noble Lord will understand that I am answering his question on the spur of the moment, but I think that this is the answer which my noble friend, the Leader of the House, would have given had he been here.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his reply. He made a gallant attempt to fill a very difficult position. I see that the noble Viscount has now returned, and I would like to explain that I am not just having a "dig." It would be too bad to have a "dig," particularly at a moment when the noble Viscount had gone to have a well-earned cup of tea. Probably the noble Viscount might be prepared to answer the question. Perhaps the noble Viscount was under a misapprehension in thinking that the Railway Executive Committee either had administered the railways or would be able to continue to administer the railways. The R.E.C., as it is called, is a body which is merely the medium for the Minister to express his directions to the railways if the national interest requires it. The Railway Executive Committee do not administer railways, they never have and, moreover, under this very Bill they are going to disappear on January 1, 1948, because the emergency legislation which created them goes. Therefore, I think
658
the noble Viscount was perhaps a little misled. I do not want to press this too far; my object is not to embarrass the noble Viscount who has a great burden upon him and may possibly have made a little slip. All I want to do is to try to emphasize once again the difficulty of getting the Commission into working order, and that getting an arrangement to work the main line railways is more difficult than it looks and more difficult than the noble Viscount thought.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say, following on what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said when he stated that he foresaw that certain of those who were at present administering the railways would be required to carry on in the interim period—
LORD NATHAN: I would not wish to be misunderstood. I said the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had expressed a hope that some of those who had been responsible for conducting these great enterprises would, as a matter of public duty, be prepared to lend their aid during the transition period.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I just want to know what the noble Lord meant by that. Does he mean the officers, the executives, the present boards, or whom? I think we need a little further elucidation on that point.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will look into the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who knows much more about the internal management of railways than I know or have ever professed to know. However, I am informed, with considerable confidence, that there will be no more difficulty in carrying on the management and conduct of the railways as from January and during the transition period, than there was at the beginning of the war. As to what particular department manages what, I agree that I have no inside knowledge, but I do not anticipate that there is any likelihood of a breakdown.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope the noble Viscount will not count upon the R.E.C., because they will not be there.
LORD CROMWELL: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House suggested that the position will be the same as when

659
war broke out. That was a situation which you could not foresee. We can foresee the difficulties in this case, and that might well be a reason for postponing the date.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should have said that the sensible thing would be to prepare to meet the difficulties, as we will know them in advance.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Consultative Committees.
6.—(1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions of this section a Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain and, for such areas in Great Britain as are mentioned in subsection (3) of this section, either—
(4) Every such Committee as aforesaid shall consist of such number of persons appointed by the Minister as the Minister may from time to time determine, being—

(a) an independent chairman;

(b) members appointed, after consultation with such bodies representative of the interests concerned as the Minister thinks fit, to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities; and

(c) members appointed from among persons nominated by the Commission:
Provided that—

(i) in the case of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, the persons nominated by the Commission shall include at least one member of the Commission; and

(ii) members need not be appointed under paragraph (b) of this subsection to any Transport Users Consultative Committee to represent any of the interests mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection which in the opinion of the Minister need not be represented on that Committee.

(7) Every Committee appointed under this section shall consider and, where it appears to the Committee to be necessary, make recommendations in regard to any matter affecting the services and facilities provided by the Commission which has been the subject of representations (other than representations which appear to the Committee to be frivolous) made to the Committee by users of those services or facilities, or which appears to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given, or which the Minister or Commission may refer to them for consideration; and every such Committee shall meet when convened by the chairman thereof, but in no case less frequently than twice a year, and, without prejudice to the discretion of the chairman to call a meeting of the Committee whenever he thinks fit so to do, he shall call a meeting thereof when required so to do by any three members of the Committee.
(8) Minutes shall be kept of the proceedings of every such Committee and copies of the
660
minutes and of the recommendations or conclusions of any such Committee shall—

(a) in the case of a Transport Users Consultative Committee, be sent to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and to the Commission;

(b) in the case of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, be sent to the Minister and to the Commission,

and where a copy of a recommendation of the Central Transport Consultative Committee is sent to the Minister, the Minister may give such directions to the Commission with respect to the matters dealt with by the recommendation as he thinks fit, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
(10) The Commission shall provide every such Committee with such officers and servants, and such office accommodation, as appear to the Commission to be requisite for the proper discharge of the Committee's functions or as may be directed by the Minister; and they may pay to the members of any such Committee allowances in respect of any loss of remunerative time in accordance with a scale approved by the Minister and the Treasury and such travelling allowances and such allowances in respect of their out-of-pocket expenses as the Commission may determine.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), after the first "section" to insert "a Harbour Consultative Committee for Great Britain and". The noble Lord said: For the convenience of your Lordships, may I suggest that the first Amendment in my name on the Order Paper, on page 9, line 26, and three other Amendments on page 10, line 12, line 19 and line 33, be taken together? The two Amendments on page 10, line 24 and line 27 are really consequential on the main Amendment on page 10, line 33. The first Amendment, on page 9, line 26, seeks to set up a Harbours Consultative Committee in addition to a Central Transport Consultative Committee. At a later stage an Amendment will be moved—as has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—to withdraw the executive control of the Commission over the docks, but still allowing them to retain the power of review.
I have referred to this later Amendment because your Lordships might think it was unnecessary to move the present Amendment in order to appoint a Harbours Consultative Committee, when the executive power of control may be removed from the Commission. The reason is, as I have already tried to explain, that the Commission will still hold a power of review of the dock system of the country as a whole.

661
There will undoubtedly be many matters in connexion with harbour schemes which will require consultation with representatives of shipping and other commercial users of trade harbours. The Amendment on page 10, line 33, sets out the composition of the Harbours Consultative Committee, and lays down that the members shall be appointed after consultation with representatives of shipping, and other commercial users of trade harbours, as the Minister thinks fit. In other respects, this Amendment is similar to subsection (4) as already drafted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, after ("section") insert ("a Harbours Consultative Committee for Great Britain and").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD ROCHDALE: I would like to support my noble friend in this series of Amendments. It does seem to me that the members of these Consultative Committees, although they will be part-time in their earlier years, will be very busy. They will have a lot of work to do, and to have a special Harbour Consultative Committee to deal with the very specialized problems that will arise would be a great advantage and make for considerable smoothness of working and a speeding-up of results. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that when a similar Amendment was raised in another place the Minister, who replied for the Government, said that he admitted there was some force in the argument; in fact, he went on to say that he felt sure there would be something on these lines on a voluntary basis. It seems to me that if His Majesty's Government are prepared to go so far in this matter, they might just as well put it down in black and white in the Bill itself.
LORD GIFFORD: I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in these Amendments. I feel most strongly that harbours and ports are such a specialized business, and there will be in the initial period so many problems to be settled, that His Majesty's Government would be most wise to agree to the appointment of a Harbours Consultative Committee. There are all kinds of interests involved. A harbour port is a most intricate thing. There are the shipping interests, both coastal and overseas; there are the stevedoring firms, the shipbuilders and the ship repairers; there are the dock workers, of course, and their
662
union, and those owning and controlling warehouses; there are the docks, both seagoing and harbour docks, and there are lighters. There are many other interests also involved, and I think His Majesty's Government would be very wise (and I would strongly press them to do so) to accept these Amendments, which are not at all controversial and which would help in making this section of the transport industry work better, particularly in the early and difficult stages.
LORD MORRISON: I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that the is in no way controversial. The only question is as to whether we would be wise to tie ourselves up too tightly with machinery of this sort. Those of us on this side of the House, and I think noble Lords in all parts of the House, feel that there should be as much elasticity as possible left in the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, referred to the discussion that took place on this point in another place. I noted that as a result of the statement that was made then, similar Amendments to those now moved were withdrawn and were not voted upon. I assume, therefore, that members in another place were fairly satisfied, inasmuch as they did not press the Amendments. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who moved these Amendments, would agree that for the convenience of the House the whole of these six Amendments might be discussed together. I think that was his intention.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should prefer to discuss the next Amendment, which I think is on page 10, line 19, separately.
LORD MORRISON: If I may give the noble Lord a little information in advance, that is one of the Amendments we look upon more sympathetically, and we will probably accept that. With regard to the other Amendments, the machinery of the Consultative Committees, as outlined in Clause 6, is designed to provide, under an independent Chairman, a forum at which representatives of users of transport can discuss with the Commission the services and facilities which the Commission provide. It is intended to keep the Commission in touch with the user interests in the widest sense. The Central Committees will rarely be able to deal with detail matters, and while the area

663
Committees will be in closer touch with detail, it cannot be expected that they will be able to cope with the many intricacies of the particular needs of particular classes of users, which must be dealt with, in the first instance, between the user concern and the local representative of the Commission.
It seems to me much better that this should be left to the good sense of the parties concerned. The Minister, of course, cannot bind the Commission for the future, but I am authorized to say that the Minister fully expects that the Commission will establish joint machinery on a voluntary basis which will enable shipping interests to express their views on port development and port problems generally. I hope that with the assurance that this might be better done if it were done on a voluntary basis rather than under compulsion, the noble Lord may reconsider his position.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance which he has given. I do not propose to press the Amendment, because I see under Clause 65 (3) that the Commission must take into consultation persons engaged in harbour undertakings. But, none the less, I do feel that a Harbour Consultative Committee would be of great benefit to the Commission as a whole, and in fact such a Committee will have to be set up, whatever it may be called, and whether it is put in the Bill or not. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word on this? I only want to suggest, for the consideration of the Government, something which seems to me of some importance before this matter is finally settled. I am thinking of a very mundane matter. Suppose that two gentlemen or more are to be appointed by voluntary arrangement to consider and co-ordinate the work of the very valuable and important ports and harbours. I agree that that may be done by the Minister or by the Commission, but what I do not quite follow is how you are going, and how the Minister is empowered, to give the directions which can be given under subsection (10) of the clause we are considering, unless there is some provision in the Bill about it. Under that provision, the Commission may provide officers and
664
servants—in particular, no doubt, secretaries—and office accommodation, and they may pay to the members of any such Committee allowances in respect of any loss of remunerative time in accordance with the scale. Now I think, as a matter of common sense, that it is very desirable that the Minister should have power, if and when he appoints people to act as a Consultative Committee with regard to harbours and ports, to put them in the same position as one of these other Executives who can be treated in this particular way. I hope that will be considered, because my present impression is that the Minister would have no power to expend public money unless authorized by either express words or the necessary implication in the Act.
LORD MORRISON: I will look into the point which the noble Viscount has raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out "an independent" and insert "a." The noble Lord said: This is a rather small point, but I again have to ask for enlightenment from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. Apparently the Minister is to appoint an independent Chairman, and I want to know of whom is he to be independent. The phrase is a common one where there is a clash of two interests—it may be of employers and employed or it may be others, but in this case that position does not arise. What I conjecture may be meant is that he is not to be one of those representing interests referred to in paragraph (b)—that is to say, agriculture, commerce, industry, labour, and local authorities. If that is so, I suggest it might be better for it to be stated, because he is to he appointed by the Minister and I should have preferred his being appointed by the Commission. However, we cannot go into that now. What I want to know is: What are to be the qualifications of independence? I beg to move.
Page 10, line 15, leave out ("an independent") and insert ("a").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord has moved a curious Amendment to leave out the words "an independent." He has made what he himself suggested was a debating point. What is an independent person? As almost everybody will be concerned in some way or another in transport, there is no such thing as any-

665
one who can be described as independent. That is a useful and interesting debating point and, if I may say so without offence, I am very glad that the noble Lord, since he left another place, has lost none of his cunning in putting these points. I am given to understand that it is not intended to select as a Chairman someone who had a very definite practical and material interest in the work. It would be the Minister's endeavour to select as Chairmen persons of high standing in the localities who were not too definitely connected with one of the user interests specified in the paragraph—namely, agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities.
The noble Lord raises the point: Then who is left? The answer is that this still leaves the field of professional occupations upon which to draw, and the Minister would no doubt feel free to appoint any person whose background was, for example, commerce or industry, but who might not be an active member of the local Chamber of Commerce or the Manufacturers' Association. There comes to my mind a type of independent Chairman, as, for instance, Sir Arthur Salter, who presided with great distinction over the Road Rail Conference in 1932.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Then members of the local authority would be excluded under this clause? It looks like it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word on this subject? I am afraid that I am rather inclined to take the view that the Government ought to consider it a little more carefully than they have done. I want to compare the word "independent" with the phrase used in the Second Schedule on page 130. An executive is more important than a consultative officer, and no doubt the Government have done the best they can to produce a really good clause to satisfy themselves that the executives are proper persons to appoint. It does not say that they are independent, because the Schedule prefers to state what meant—
"that the Minister shall satisfy himself that the person will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member of the Executive."
I think that is an admirable phrase. Supposing he has £100 invested in railway stock which has been turned into some-
666
thing else, or some other interest which has become a Government at interest, he still has, in a small way, such a financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions. That is enough for the Minister in this regard, and why should it not be enough in regard to a Consultative Officer? Paragraph (4) goes on:
"the Minister shall also satisfy himself from time to time with respect to every member of an Executive that he has no such interest."
The phrase, up to there, is quite admirable, and I would suggest to the Government that a very short phrase in connexion with the paragraph we are considering would show that "independent chairman" has the meaning which is attached to the worth referring to an executive officer which are contained in paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule. That seems to me a reasonable arrangement for a consultative officer. If you say "independent" I do not believe that any Judge on the Bench will be able to say what "independent" means in connexion with a consultative officer. All sorts of possibilities arise. Is he independent if he is a member of a local authority which has some connexion with a railway? It is impossible to tell.
LORD WOOLTON: Those engaged in industry are always a little afraid of the expression "independent chairman." We are afraid that somebody will be appointed whose main qualification is an academic one—a University don or something. We would rather risk the gentleman not being quite so independent if he knew just a little about the commercial world. If the Government could accept the suggestion which the noble Viscount has made we should perhaps get some solution of this difficulty.
LORD MORRISON: I am not in a position to accept this suggestion but I think the advice given by the noble Viscount is excellent and describes the kind of "independence" that I have in mind. I will gladly look into it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: As the noble Lord has added this to his list of addenda and corrigenda I will, with your Lordship's leave, withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAMhad given notice to move, in subsection (4) (b), after "industry" to insert: "British shipping

667
interests." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that shipping interests shall be represented. It is certainly strange that as the clause stands, shipping, one of our most important industries, is to be left out or grouped under some other heading. Ship owners are important users of inland transport. One of the most important factors in connexion with a ship is that she should be turned round quickly in port. If this is not done the sailing date may be delayed, for several reasons. For instance road and rail organizations may not be properly integrated, and ships' stores, such as dock and engine room stores, and spare anchors and cables, are frequently carried by road. It is necessary that the integration should be there. The case may also arise when the right type of vehicle might not be provided by the Commssion, or perhaps the frequency of the service is inadequate. Therefore it is vitally important that shipping interests should be represented on the Consultative Committee.
LORD GIFFORD: I have in my business an Entertainments Committee, and I have to inform the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, with deep regret that I could not give him a job as a conjuror because he spoilt his best trick of the afternoon by letting the rabbit poke its head out of the hat far too soon. I was going to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, but in view of what he said I will be very brief.
As Lord Teynham said, the shipping industry is one of the greatest users of inland transport, and I suggest that it is particularly important that it should be represented on this Committee at the present time, in view of the great need for our exports to be carried from this country with as little delay as possible. In connexion with coastwise shipping, they are, I understand, to carry almost half as much freight as the whole of the main line railways, so that from the point of view of both the overseas and the coastwise shipping the industry should be represented on this Committee.
LORD MORRISON: I hope I shall never be in the position of having to apply for a post as conjuror, but if I am, I am sure the noble Lord will treat me very well. With regard to this
668
Amendment, if the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, would be good enough to reduce it by two-thirds, that is to say to reduce it from three words to one word, I should be in a position to accept it. The last word of the Amendment, "interests," is unnecessary, and the first word, "British," is also unnecessary; the Minister has no intention of appointing a Laplander to this position. Therefore, if the noble Lord will agree, I shall be in a position to accept the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting my Amendment. We all agree to the rewording of it.
Amendment, as amended, moved—
Page 10, line 19, after ("industry") insert ("shipping").—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (4), at the end to insert:
"but this proviso shall not apply to members to represent the interests of local authorities"
The noble Lord said: This proviso refers to Transport Users' Advisory Committees, and the members who are to be appointed are indicated in subsection 4 (b). It seems to me to fall into two somewhat distinct categories. There are those who represent interests such as agriculture, commerce, shipping and industry, who are direct users of the transports concerned in a particular area. The local authorities are, it seems to me, the only representatives of the general public who use transport.
Your Lordships will see that the proviso indicates that the Minister may leave out some of those persons in cases where he thinks fit. This will be readily understood in certain areas; some may not be necessary; in a mainly agricultural area you may not want commerce; in the centre of a town you may not want agriculture. It is suggested that on these Committees there must be a representative of the public. The local authorities are probably much more in touch with the local and travelling bodies than any other persons laid down. It is easy for the ordinary man and woman in a locality to get in touch with the representatives of his or her local authority, and for the local authority to find out the needs of transport in their own area. In the area in

669
which I am interested we have already made representations about additional bus services to bring some of the people from the villages into the market town. Again, it is the local authorities' representatives who endeavour to see that the bus which people may wish to use does not leave the station five minutes before the train arrives. Therefore, the Amendment suggests that the Minister should not be entitled to exclude the representatives of local authorities from any of these Committees. It is probably not the intention of the Government that they should be excluded, but I think that should be specified in the Bill, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, at end insert ("but this proviso shall not apply to members to represent the interests of local authorities"). —(Lord Addington.)
LORD MORRISON: it is certainly not the intention of the Government that representatives of local authorities should be excluded, but what the noble Lord is asking for is that it should be obligatory that they should be included—which is a somewhat different thing. Like the noble Lord, I have a very long experience of local government, and with that experience I think that what ought to be aimed at in this connexion is that the services of the best people should be acquired, irrespective of whether or not they are members of the local authority. I concede this point in regard to the noble Lord's reference tc the local bus leaving the station early and a complaint being made to the local council. The local authorities, it seems to me, are clearly the proper custodians in the interests of the travelling public, and as such they ought clearly to be represented on the Transport Users Consultative Committee. But one must remember that transport consists of much more than moving passengers about, and if separate Committees are set up in respect of goods traffic, the interests of users could more appropriately be catered for by people selected from agriculture, commerce, industry and labour than by local authorities; and they would have a more useful contribution to make. The position, therefore, is that so far as making it obligatory that representatives of local authorities should be selected to serve upon all Committees is concerned, the Minister does not see
670
that that is necessary in the case of Committees which will deal largely with goods traffic. I do not think the local authorities' interests are likely to be overlooked in this matter, and they will probably have their share of representation; they will continue to be, as they always have been, recognized as the representatives of the public interests.
LORD O'HAGAN: I think there is a little more substance to this Amendment than that which has already been given. After all, even if this public local authorities' representation in the district does not continue, they are just as much concerned with the proper ventilation of what is required for transport or its purposes as they are for passenger services. I hope the Government will consider this matter still more carefully.
LORD MORRISON: There is only one further point that I would make, and I think the Government will appreciate it. It has been my experience over a long time that when a local authority are invited to attend a committee or meeting they do not always send the best member of the local authority. Sometimes it is the next man on the rota. Often, members from local authorities have no great interest in the job, but, as they have been elected to the council they consider that they are in duty bound to go. Undoubtedly the local authorities will continue to occupy an important place on the bodies to be selected, but I hope the noble Lord will not expect that it should be obligatory in every case that they should be appointed.
LORD ADDINGTON: There are two points I wish to make on that. First of all, the general public do use transport, not only for themselves but also for goods and parcels, so they should be represented, even in those bodies which concern goods as well as passengers. There is one other point. I do not think it necessary, so far as I can see under the clause, that the people who represent the interests of local authorities should necessarily be members. It should be quite open for the local authority to put forward someone in the area to represent the public. It is the public, rather than the local authority, representation, that I am pressing for because, unless the Amendment is accepted, no other people except the representative of the local

671
authority will represent the public as a whole. I would urge that at any rate in administration, whether the noble Lord will allow it in the Bill or not, there should be very rare ocasions on which the public are not represented on every single one of these Consultative Committees. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4) at the end to insert—
"(iii) in the case of each Transport Users Consultative Committee in respect of passenger traffic the Commission shall secure that the interests of persons who use passenger transport services shall be represented on such committee."
The noble Earl said: May I take this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gifford? You have in substance here the same Amendment as the one that has been moved, but not applying to local authorities. I had some doubts, in the first place, as to whether this Amendment was necessary, but the more I have heard of this debate the more convinced I am that some Amendment of this character is absolutely essential, because this is, in fact, a Transport Users Committee, and so far as I can see, and from what I have heard, it is to be filled substantially by certain specific interests. Those interests have been stated and arc here in subsection (4) (b): "Agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities." But they are not by any means all the people who need to use transport; nor do I quite understand how anybody in this country can be independent of transport, or be independent of some section of the people who want to use transport.
I do not wish to labour this point, but the object of this Amendment is to ensure that in each case the Transport Users Consultative Committee shall secure the interests of persons who use the passenger, transport services, and that they shall be represented on the Committee. The point of this Amendment is to ensure that every housewife—the person who goes shopping —and the ordinary man in the street, who is not specifically connected with an interest already specified, is represented. It does not lay down how that representation is to be obtained, and it is always a difficult matter to get what is called a Consumers' Council.
There is one example which is quite interesting, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. I do not say this is a very good example, but it is an example. What is laid down here is really an obligation on the Minister to ensure that the ordinary man in the street is, in fact, represented on the Transport Users Council, and I have much pleasure in moving the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, insert the said sub-paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD GIFFORD: I should like to add a word about this Amendment, which is put down jointly with the Earl of Selkirk and the Earl of Rothes. I think it is a desirable Amendment, and, if I may say so, my views on this have been much strengthened by a remark which was made just now, by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, about how often the local authority sends a representative who really is not interested in the local bus, or local transport. This Amendment makes it necessary that the people who attend the meeting shall be interested in transport, and, of course, the reason why they will be interested in transport is that they use it regularly. I would suggest that suitable people would be commercial travellers, a technical representative of some firm, or even, like so many noble Lords in this House, a "daily breader" who every day comes up from the country to this city.
LORD MORRISON: The difficulty about accepting this Amendment is that up to date there has not emerged, so far as I know, any body fully representative of the interests of the travelling public. It is true that in certain places, in certain localities, there are, and have been, local associations with a more or less precarious existence. It is believed that, in general, they emerged to secure some remedy in travelling facilities in a narrow area, but when they have secured that purpose they appear to have insufficient cohesion to maintain an active existence. If any widely representative association of passengers does emerge, the Minister would no doubt be willing to consult with them about the appointment of a representative to the Consultative Committees. But it would be wrong, on the basis of present knowledge, to create a statutory right for a body which simply does not exist. In the Railways Act of 1921, and the London Passenger Transport Act of

673
1933, the local authorities were recognized as spokesmen for the travelling public in their areas—a task which they have performed with a sense of full responsibility. Unless, and until, passengers care to organize themselves, the Minister will continue to recognize local authorities as the custodians of passenger interests—and the Consultative Committee procedure provides for their recognition in Clause 6.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Government really are most extraordinary people! More and more, it seems, have we to be regimented. Here is a Bill which touches everybody. Why on earth should it be said that there must be a vested interest of some kind before there should be a representation? Why has everybody to join a trade union? That is what it comes to. It is said on behalf of the Minister: "I cannot have anyone representing the ordinary travelling public, the 'daily breader,' the commuter who hangs on to a strap as he goes to his work; I cannot recognize these people until they have joined a union and the union is big enough, and vocal enough, to claim representation." I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in replying to Lord O'Hagan, said that the Minister did not want to commit himself to local authorities because he did not know that local authorities would pick the best men. He wanted the Commission to have their hands free to pick the best men for the job. I do not say that that is unreasonable. What I assert is unreasonable, is to say that the ordinary humble passengers, millions of whom are crowded into buses and trains every day, and still more of whom will be crowded into such conveyances after this Bill is passed, should not have someone selected to represent their interests.
We do not like to have our interests represented by someone who does not really represent them. Why should it be so very difficult to find representatives of the common man? The noble Lord, if he should ever find himself in the situation of being prosecuted for some crime, will, of course, be judged by his Peers—at least if he commits a felony; but not if he commits a misdemeanour. But suppose that before he reached his present exalted position on the Front Bench he had committed a crime—and I think the position would be the same under Scottish law—there would then be no difficulty in em-
674
panelling a jury to try him simply because there is no trade union from which a jury can be drawn. If you want to empanel a jury of matrons, you do not have to consult the Mothers' Union. This position really becomes quite fantastic.
I would quote a practical example. Many years ago we had what was called a Consumers' Council. I think I was responsible for setting it up. I appointed several people who were representative consumers to sit on that Council. I did not say: "I have to find some trade union or trade association from which they can be selected." I remember that I picked a couple of women, very sensible women, and they did good work. Really, having regard to the other functions which the Minister is to exercise under this Bill, is it to be said that it is impossible for him, or for the Commission, or for the two in consultation, to pick a simple representative of the ordinary common travelling public to sit on a Consultative Committee?
6.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: This Bill proposes to set up a gigantic machine, and many people in this country—not directly interested in politics but interested in the welfare of the ordinary public—are wondering how in the world they are going to make any impression on the machine when it gets into operation. What is one to do: write to one's Member of Parliament and hope for the best? Or wait for a period of so many years—two, three, four, or five—before one can secure a change of Government and get a more benevolent attitude? The Minister says that he does not know of any sort of organization to which he could appeal to select someone to represent the travelling public. I will give him a suggestion—let him approach the Housewives' League. Let us have representatives of the Housewives' League on the Committees. I am certain that they will know how to deal with Consultative Committees—and with the Minister too if they do not like him.
LORD GIFFORD: I entirely agree with what has been said by my noble friend Viscount Swinton. May I be allowed to add just two or three words because I think that they epitomize what is felt by noble Lords on these Benches? On the vehicles of London Transport recently we saw representations of a pathetic little

675
figure: "Billy Brown of London Town." We want to see "Billy Brown of London Town" on a Committee of this sort.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure we do. But may I ask the noble Lord to come down from these transcendental observations to the practical realities of the Bill? It has been asked: How are people to find out things and get their complaints ventilated? The question has been asked: Are they to write to their Members? It is expressly provided on page 9 of the Bill that:
"There shall be no part of Great Britain which is not within the area of a Transport Users Consultative Committee."
It was already provided in the Railways Act of 1921 that local authorities were to be represented as spokesmen for the travelling public in their areas In this Bill we have provided that there must be representatives of local authorities on these Committees. In subsection (4) (b) it is stated that the Committee shall include
"members appointed, after consultation with such bodies representative of the interests concerned as the Minister thinks fit to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities."
That is the proviso. This clause deals with the matter of Consultative Committees. One noble Lord wanted "Billy Brown of London Town" to be on a Consultative Committee. What is suggested in this Amendment is that there should be an additional sub-paragraph, sub-paragraph (iii), under the proviso, that there must be someone representing the travelling public. I am pointing out That under the Railways Act, the local authorities are represented as the spokesmen of the travelling public. We have provided that local authorities should be represented in matters in which they are concerned—and clearly this is one—on the Consultative Committees. Really, it is completely unnecessary (if I may say so with respect) to describe the Government's ideas as fantastic. I may say that I have never heard anything more fantastic in relation to this than some of the observations to which I have been listening. The provision to which I have referred is in the Bill. What more can you want?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, this is not quite so fantastic as the noble Viscount suggests. If he would read the whole of the Bill he would see that
676
what he has said would have been very relevant of subsection (4) (b) stood by itself. Members shall consist of an independent chairman and
"members appointed, after consultation with such bodies … as the Minister thinks fit, to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities."
And the noble Viscount asks, "What are you quarrelling about? All these gentlemen are to be in it." If he looks a little further on at the proviso only ten lines down the page, he will see that it says that members need not be appointed to any Transport Users' Consultative Committee to represent any of the interests in paragraph (b), which in the opinion of the Minister need not be represented on that Committee.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That only proves my point. Under the Railway Act local authorities are regarded as spokesmen of the travelling public and therefore clearly they will not be excluded by these words.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This cannot be covered by some ancient Act of 1921. I do not know and I would like to get legal opinion; perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, would advise us on this. As I read it—and it is really a simple question of plain English—subsection (4) (b) says that you have to appoint a Council representative of these interests, among whom are local authorities. The Minister says that provided you appoint somebody representative of the local authorities, then the consumer is represented. That might be a very good argument if it was not modified by paragraph (ii) of the proviso, which says that in spite of subsection (4) (b) the Minister can dispense with all or any of these representatives and it is perfectly competent for him, exercising the power under (ii) of the proviso, not to appoint to the Consultative Committee any representative of a local authority. In that case, where does consumer representation come in? I would withdraw at once if I could be shown that I have put a wrong construction on it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure it is absolutely fully provided for in the two provisions, and I cannot imagine any Minister concerned with covering the interests of the travelling public thinking that it meant excluding local authorities. He would certainly include them.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Viscount says it is in the Railway Act of 1921. I see in the schedule that a great deal of the Act is cancelled. Is he quite sure this part is not?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That part is not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The previous Amendment, which definitely provided that local authorities should be represented, was resisted by the Government because they did not want local authorities to be represented. It is not necessary to have representatives from local authorities, but you can have them if you like. What we wish to ensure is the primary, indispensable principle that there is representation of the travelling public.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, one question. Everybody says that we are anxious that the public, which means chiefly the travelling public, the biggest public of all, should have their interests consulted and should be represented so far as possible on the Consultative Committee. We have already added shipping to subsection (4) (b). Would the noble Lord object to adding at the end "and the interests of the travelling public"? Because that would make it clear that the Consultative Committee, consisting we hope of very distinguished people, will have to consider, among other things, the interests of the travelling public, and if possible the members of the Committee should include somebody to represent them. As a lawyer, I am surprised that anyone imagines that a person cannot represent an interest without being personally interested. I have represented in my life two or three hundred different interests, and some of them with great success, and you may get a man to represent the travelling public because he is a member or secretary of one of the big travelling organizations. He might be a good person although he may not be a railwayman.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure the statement I made was correct and sound. It would not matter much if we put in the words "and the interests of the travelling public." I undertake to have a look at it and if it placates anybody, I will put them in. I do not see that it makes much difference. But of course I cannot do it now.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Viscount very much for what he has said. On the understanding that it is to be examined on Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice to move in subsection (7) after "provided "to Insert "and rates charged." The noble Viscount said: I understand that if I moved this Amendment in a slightly different form it would be acceptable to the Government. The object is to make sure that the Committee can take into account changes of rates and charges. I put my words in the wrong place. May I move, in place of the Amendment standing in my name, that on page 11, line 3, after "matter" we insert the words "including charges."
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, after ("matter") insert ("including charges").—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am glad to accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved in subsection (7), after "Consideration," where that word occurs a second time to insert:
"and for the purpose of the proper discharge by them of their functions the Commission shall provide every such committee with such information as they may reasonably require in regard to the matters; to be considered by them."
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this Amendment in the name of my noble friends and myself. We come back to the functions of these Consultative Committees which we were discussing earlier on moving Amendments about regional organization. At that time the suggestion was made, which we did not accept on these Benches, that the Consultative Committee would create some substitute for regional organization, but now we come in this subsection to what are the real duties of the Consultative Committee. I am sure everyone will wish the Consultative Committees to be as efficient and real as we can make them. This clause, as I understand it, provides for three main kinds of duties—first, of investigating complaints; secondly, to deal with any matter which appears to them a matter to which consideration ought to be given; and thirdly, to deal with those matters which the

679
Minister or the Commission may think fit to refer to them for consideration.
We on these Benches feel that it is very important that the tasks laid upon them in this subsection shall be a reality, and that the Consultative Committees should have the fullest possible facilities to enable them to discharge their functions thoroughly, to get to the bottom of every complaint and every matter which seems to them to require attention, and to deal faithfully with any matter which the Commission or the Minister may think fit to refer to them. As I say, it is important that they should be people really capable of doing their jobs, and they should have the information available to them, because if they are not going to be given facilities for discharging their functions, all the problems which we discussed just now—of getting proper representatives—will not arise, and it will not be necessary to look further than Madame Tussauds to find exactly the right people for the Consultative Committees.
Therefore, we are moving this Amendment, which, as noble Lords will see, lays down in terms that "the Commission shall provide every such committee with such information as they may reasonably require in regard to the matters to be considered by them"—that is to say, the matters mentioned in this subsection which they have to consider. As the Bill stands, there is no provision for anything of that sort, and this raises the question whether, if the Committees start to consider any of these matters referred to in this subsection, the Commission or the Minister might take the line that they are not entitled to the information which they themselves think should be laid before them in order to discharge their functions. This Amendment is directed to enable the Committees to do their job as thoroughly and as satisfactorily as possible in the interests of those whom they represent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1o, after ("consideration") insert the said words.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Viscount with great ingenuity has conjured up quite a large number of difficulties. The position is that these Consultative Committees will be appointed and, in order to give them complete authority, it
680
is proved in paragraph (i) of subsection (4) on page 10:
"in the case of the Central Transport Consultative Committee the persons nominated by the Commission shall include at least one member of the Commission."
In other words, one of the real head men is going to be on this Central Consultative Committee. Can anybody imagine, with that authority on the Committee, that they will be asked to look into something and be refused any necessary help or information? Of course not.
Subsection (10) goes on to say that the Commission shall provide every such Committee with such officers and servants, and so on, as may be required. They will provide officers for the purpose of doing something—namely, to collect the information, sort it out, get papers ready for the Committee and all the rest of it. What else would they be appointed for? I cannot imagine any other purpose. There is no statutory obligation of this kind in any other Act of Parliament that I know of. One might envisage a case in the Courts where enough information had not been given, and other instances. Really, the noble Viscount is conjuring up difficulties which will never arise in real life. There is a member of the Commission on the Committee itself to see that it works properly and with full authority. There are officers and premises to be provided, and so on. Surely it necessarily follows from that that the Commission are going out of their way to make these Committees a success. There is no necessity whatever for a statutory obligation of this kind in the Bill.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I wish I could be convinced by what the noble Viscount has said, but I am not, because with all the premises, with all the palaces and gilded cages and everything else provided for the Consultative Committee, it still does not follow from the Bill or, with great respect, from anything the noble Viscount has said, that the influence of the officers and members of the Commission is going to be used to provide information; nor does it say whether that influence is going to be used in withholding it. Speaking as one who has spent a certain amount of time inside Whitehall, I am afraid that I cannot share the view of the noble Viscount that they are always only too anxious to give outside people all the information—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: They are not outside people.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Outside people in the sense that they are private individuals. However, this is not a matter that we intend to press to-night. But there is a danger here which, frankly, has not been removed by anything the noble Viscount has said, and a danger which it will be our duty to watch. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (1o), after the word "such" to insert "permanent." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I must apologize for the wording perhaps being not quite as clear as it might appear to be. The Amendment seeks to insert on page 11, line 35, after the word "such" the word "permanent." If your Lordships will look at the line, you will see that the word "such" occurs twice. The Amendment as moved should read "with such permanent officers and servants, and such permanent office accommodation …" In view of what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just said about the great importance that His Majesty's Government attach to these Consultative Committees, I very much hope that the Minister will see his way to approve this Amendment. It seems to me of very great importance, because the whole conception of the Consultative Committees is one that can make or can mar the working of the Commission as a whole.
I believe that throughout the country users are putting tremendous reliance on these Consultative Committees, and everything possible should be done to make them a success. In the early days a great number of recommendations will be made to these Committees; meetings will have to be held at short notice; cases will have to be analyzed and looked at; records turned up and so forth, and if the premises or the officers are only to be loaned by permission to these Consultative Committees, or by one of the Executives for a particular meeting, the Consultative Committees are not going to have a fair chance. They will not be able to work as smoothly as they otherwise would. Therefore, I would urgently ask the Government to accept this Amendment
682
with the view—which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has so clearly stated—of the Commission going out of their way—he used those words—to seeing that these Committees work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11 line 33, after ("such") insert ("permanent").—(Lord Rochdale.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope the noble Lord will not press us to put that into the Bill. We have been accused of glorifying Government offices, and making too much elaborate accommodation, and all that kind of thing, yet now the noble Lord wants us to put into the Bill that all these people have to have permanent office accommodation. I can visualise the poor Minister of Works having a bad time because we should have to have this accommodation up and down the country. Why should we not hire some rooms? To have a new lot of permanent accommodation for all these people would be asking too much of the unfortunate taxpayer.
LORD ROCHDALE: I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has read a great deal more into this than is actually in the Amendment. Nothing extravagant or elaborate is wanted; just a single office, or two offices perhaps, in the buildings of the Commission or the Executive; but something that is permanently there and that is convenient for the particular Committee to do their work in.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: I would like to support the noble Lord in this, because I have had a certain amount of experience of trying to run things without any permanent staff or permanent office accommodation. What is required is some permanent staff who can look after records. To my mind, it is absolutely hopeless to try to run a Consultative Committee of this type unless they have a place in which to keep their papers, and somebody to look after them.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure that what the noble Lord says is perfectly right. The Bill states:
"The Commission shall provide every such Committee with such officers and servants, and such office accommodation, as appear to the Commission to be requisite for the proper discharge of the Committee's functions…"
What more could one ask? It might apply only to an office where there is a telephone, but there is no advantage in putting up more permanent buildings.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the real idea behind this is, as the noble Viscount himself said, that we want these Committees to be effective and for people to be able to get to them. A permanent office is wanted, in the sense that if somebody has a complaint to register he would know where to go; therefore, this body should be regarded as in permanent session, so to speak—not that we think they ought to sit, like we unfortunately have to, from 2.30 p.m. until 11 p.m. every day! But it should be there and not just somebody ad hoc. I certainly do not want to multiply staff, and I think that probably on that understanding my noble friend may agree to withdraw.
LORD ROCHDALE: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
The sitting was suspended at four minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.
Clause 7:
Acquisition by Commission of undertakings by agreement.
(2) Where any such agreement is made, the Minister may make regulations for enabling the undertaking or part of an undertaking to be carried on by the Commission in lieu of the persons theretofore carrying it on, and any such regulations may include provisions for transferring rights, powers and liabilities to the Commission, may adapt, modify or repeal any statutory provision, contract or document relating to the undertaking or the persons theretofore carrying it on, and may make such transitional provision in connection with the transfer as the Minister may think necessary or expedient.
THE EARL OF ROTHEShad given notice to move to leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
"(2) Where any such agreement is made, then as from the date on which the agreement becomes operative the Commission shall, to the exclusion of the persons carrying on the undertaking, have all rights and be subject to all liabilities in connection with the undertaking or the part of the undertaking acquired which those persons had or to which they were subject immediately before that date."
The noble Earl said: I should like to say a few words on the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends the Earl of Selkirk and Lord Gifford, and myself, and in due course on one or two
684
other Amendments. I venture to hope that your Lordships will extend to me the indulgence that is customarily extended to one who speaks in your Lordships' House for the first time.
I think I ought also to tell your Lordships that I am a director of the British Electric Traction Company, which has substantial interests in road passenger transport. Subsection (2) of Clause 7, as originally drafted, gave the Minister wide powers for dealing with contracts and agreements between a third party and an undertaking, or part of an undertaking, to be taken over; in fact, I am advised that his powers were so wide that he could do anything he liked with such a contract, with the result that the contracts and agreements of a third party, entered into voluntarily and in good faith with an undertaking liable to be taken over, were rendered most insecure. In consequence of that, the Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself was put down. But subsequently the noble Viscount the Leader of the House put down an Amendment which—although, if I may say so with great respect, it does not go quite so far as our Amendment—is satisfactory, inasmuch as it limits the circumstances and scope of the Minister's power in that connexion. In view of that, my noble friends and myself do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in our names.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from the second "regulations" to the end of the subsection and insert:

"(a) may include provisions for transferring rights, powers, and liabilities to the Commission, and where the said persons are a body corporate, for winding them up;

(b) may, to such extent as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the undertaking or part of an undertaking to be carried on by the Commission in lieu of the said persons or for the purpose of enabling the said persons to be wound up, adapt, modify or repeal any statutory provision;

(c) may, to such extent as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the undertaking or part of an undertaking to be carried on by the Commission in lieu of the said persons, adapt or modify any contract or other instrument of or relating to the said persons or relating to the undertaking; and

(d) may make such transitional provision in connection with the transfer of the undertaking or part of an undertaking as the Minister may think necessary or expedient."

The noble Viscount said: I am sure with the approval of the whole House, I may

685
congratulate the noble Earl upon addressing us for the first time. From what the noble Earl has said, I gather he has mastered what is a very detailed matter.
In the course of the proceedings in another place, in order to safeguard those undertakings which were taken over, subsection (3) of this clause was added by agreement in another place. My right honourable friend undertook that he would prescribe more precisely what the regulations were to be, and what they were to cover in these cases, in order to make sure that the undertakings were properly safeguarded, and that the continuance of the undertakings in the new ownership was also properly safeguarded. In the fulfilment of that pledge, I am proposing to omit the last portion of subsection (2). It will then end in this way: "and any such regulations" (that is for carrying out the agreement in the taking over) "may include"—and then follow the precise provisions set out in the four portions of the Amendment which I am now moving. I think they explain themselves. I am glad the noble Earl thinks it sufficiently definite to cover all the contingencies, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am advised by competent lawyers that these are quite satisfactory.
LORD ROCHDALE: It might be convenient to your Lordships if on this Amendment I discuss the next Amendment which stands in my name, because it really relates to the Amendment now being moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The point of my Amendment is that, whereas the Amendment now before your Lordships clearly amplifies and tabulates lines 13 to 18, which have been left out on page 12, there still seems to be some doubt as to whether the users of transport may not possibly be prejudiced. If your Lordships will look at paragraph (c), it seems that power is given to modify any contract or other instrument, or again in paragraph (b), to modify or repeal any statutory provision. It does seem possible that those statutory provisions or contracts may, in the first case, be specifically created to protect users, and that is why later on I shall be moving the further paragraph (e), which
686
provides that any such regulation shall not adversely affect the users of transport.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am advised that the words of the noble Lord are too wide and vague, but I am also advised that the case is fully covered—and I think it is fully covered—by the somewhat elaborate and detailed Amendment which I have moved. I am quite sure that the point: is really covered.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHDALE: In view of the assurance that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has given as regards the safeguarding of the rights of the users, I will not move my Amendment.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Vesting of undertakings]:
12.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the whole of the undertakings of the bodies of persons specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, being the bodies who fall within the class described in the next succeeding section, shall, on the first clay of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight (hereafter in this Part of this Act, and in the other provisions of this Act so far as they refer to the acquisition by the Commission of the said undertakings, referred to as "the date of transfer"), vest by virtue of this Act in the Commission.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" where that word occurs a second time, to insert "other than the Lee Conservancy Board." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to remove the River Lee from the operation of this Bill. The River Lee is a comparatively small river, but is a very important one. The Metropolitan Water Board draws the supplies for its great reservoirs for the Lee Valley from the River Lee, and it forms the majority of the water which now flows in the historic New River. This water supply is of extreme importance to the East End of London, and the importance of that supply was brought home very forcibly to us this Spring when, owing to the flooding of the Lee Valley, the Lee Bridge Works of the Metropolitan Water Board were put out of action, and the East End of London was short of water for over ten days. In fact, over 1,000 waggons had to be got together in order to supply domestic users of water in the East End of London. I think that nobody for one moment

687
can possibly question the vital importance of this river to London's welfare. West and Central London very largely draw their supply from the River Thames. Now the River Thames is quite properly excluded from the operation of this Bill, and I maintain that the River Lee is an exactly parallel case and that it should be excluded.
The River Lee is controlled by the Lee Conservancy Board, and the present Board is operating under the original. Act of 1855. It is a public authority; the members are elected by local authorities, and I think the barge owners also have a member. It is a non-profit earning body, and I maintain that it carries out its functions very ably and efficiently. Its functions consist mainly of maintaining the purity of the water. It has a number of officers whose duty it is constantly to patrol the river and to take samples of the effluents coming into the river from all sources. The recent proposal for the establishment of a new town at Stevenage created great anxiety to the Conservators of the Lee, because as it was originally proposed the flow from the sewers would contaminate London's water. As a result of the strongest protest by the Lee Conservators this danger will I hope by now have been averted and other arrangements made. These are matters which the Lee Conservators have to have constantly under their watch to preserve the purity of London's water.
In addition to the maintenance of the purity of water for the Metropolitan Water Board, they have to regulate the flow into the river, and as your Lordships know, unless this is done there is the danger from melting snow, and so forth. There is also navigation on the lower reaches of the Lee, amounting in the record year of 1938 to 2,000,000 tons, but now much less is carried and much of it is carried toll free; in fact the total income from the tonnage hauled on the Lee is only some £26,000. Your Lordships will therefore see that although the tonnage appears high, yet it is not a very important factor. The total income of the Lee Conservancy Board is something like £60,000 of which £26,000, as I have said, comes from dues on river craft, £20,000 is given by the Metropolitan Water Board for the protection of water, and the remainder is raised by rates from the districts through which the river passes.
In addition to the River Lee Conservancy Board there is the River Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. This body was set up in 1930 to carry out duties under the Catchment Board Act. The Catchment Board and the Conservancy Board have the same officials, the same chief engineer and engineering staff, the same clerks and manager and the same offices, and the bodies are very largely based on the same members. The Catchment Board has a few more members because it covers a slightly wider area. These two bodies meet on the same day consecutively at the same offices and the whole management of this undertaking runs very smoothly. There is no overlapping whatever and it is very efficiently conducted.
If this Bill is passed as it stands, under Clause 116 the Government are going to split the Lee Conservancy undertaking. They are going to close down the Lee Conservancy Board and transfer the duties so far as navigation is concerned from the Lee Conservancy Board to the Transport Board. As regards the protection of water they are going to transfer the duties to the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. You will then have two bodies looking after this small river. It will make for great confusion and add very considerably to expenditure. There are some weirs which deal only with navigation, and these presumably will be controlled by the Transport Board. On the other hand, in regard to some other weirs, which not only deal with navigation but also are responsible for the regulation of the flow, those are supposed to be divided between the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board and the Transport Board.
Again, there are other weirs which deal only with the flow of the water and have nothing whatever to do with navigation, and those would be controlled by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board only. I think you will see what great confusion will be created if you are to set up those two bodies to look after this small river. In addition, the present Conservancy Board have a number of dredgers which are essential both for maintaining the flow of water and also the navigation. Presumably, if you have the Transport Board operating there, they will have their own set of dredgers and the Lee Conservancy Board will have their set of

689
dredgers. You will have two offices, you will have two sets of engineers, and you will have all the immense difficulty of cross-correspondence and negotiation between the two bodies. The Government have already appreciated the difficulty which will arise in connexion with the river demand. They look after navigation and they have to supply Londoners' water, and I do ask the Government if they will consider this matter and treat the Lee Conservancy in the same way as they are treating the Thames Conservancy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, after ("Act") insert("other than the Lee Conservancy Board").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
8.48 p.m.
LORD WALKDEN: I am sure we are grateful to the noble Viscount for the very clear description he has given the House of the functioning of the Lee Conservancy Board and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. They are two quite distinct bodies. They are both functioning quite effectively. His Amendment asks us, however, to take out the Lee Conservancy Board from our list of inland waterways, and I am sorry to say we cannot do that. This is the third most important inland waterway we have. It works well. It carries a big tonnage. It actively serves a very important area from the Port of London down to Enfield. it is capable of going on further into Hertford, and also capable of being developed to Bishop's Stortford; from there von might develop it to Cambridge, and from Cambridge there are waterways right to the sea, and to the Wash. So it is not an isolated waterway all by itself in the London region. There are, in fact, 45 miles of it at present in service, and the tonnage, as the noble Viscount mentioned, is quite substantial. I have the figures for three years.
The average figure for 1938, 1945 and for 1946 is about one and a half million tons a year. The whole of the railway canals of the country have carried only six hundred thousand tons a year. You will observe that this tonnage is three times greater than all the others put together. Further, it is very much more than the tonnage carried under the purview of the Thames Conservancy Board. Theirs is a waterway that is navigable, and it carries only one hundred and fifty-six thousand ions a year. The railway
690
carrying is six hundred thousand tons a year. On the Let Conservancy, the carrying is one and a half million tons. So it is quite important. It is not a little isolated and short river. It is not likely to lose its sense of service. We are helping it to develop appreciably. The noble Viscount seemed concerned—rightly—about straightening out and properly arranging other functions in connexion with this length of water. They are important. There are the problems of the water supply for the Metropolitan Water Board, drainage and fisheries and pollution, which need to be dealt with, and I can assure the Committee tat that is adequately covered under Clause 116, which we shall come to, I hope, early next week. If, in the meantime, the noble Viscount will be good enough to study that clause carefully, we can discuss it when we come to I think he will be satisfied that the right thing to do is to leave the navigational work to the Transport Commissioners and leave the other matters to be looked after by the Catchment Board. That is what is done in the case of the Trent and also in the case of the Severn. There is nothing exceptional about this, As for working arrangements, costing, secretarial work, the employment of officers and things of that sort, if they arise, the apportionment of costings may easily be ascertained by chartered accountants or by an engineer. I can assure the Committee that the work will be carried on just as economically as it is carried on now. The business of water transport may be handed to the Transport Commissioners, I am sure, with full confidence that they will do everything to make it into an even better service than it is at the present time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure that the noble Lord's intentions are strictly honourable, and I applaud his aspiration that we shall reach Clause 116 early next week. Hope is the only commodity which is not yet taxed under this Government—and "Even the weariest river winds somewhere safe to sea." I wish to be clear upon this matter. It may be that it will be a good thing to discuss this under Clause 116, but I would like an assurance from the Government that if we amend Clause 116 then whatever consequential Amendments are necessary in this will be made. I am not

691
sure that comparisons of tons and tons are necessarily completely convincing. There is a difference, of course, between a ton and a ton mile. To carry one ton 1oo miles it might be argued might be a larger enterprise than to carry 1oo tons one mile. That might be the sort of comparison that might be put up by some who wish to defend the railways in respect of the carrying of one ton a hundred miles. I think it is clear that the Lee is a very important canal, and if you are to vest the canals in a new undertaking I quite see that the Lee has got to vest.
We shall, however, want to see what is provided for. What we shall particularly want to see is that the Lee Conservancy, which everybody agrees is an admirable and economically run institution, is not upset among a series of Government Departments. I think that it will be able to deal with the Commission. As I understand it, the intention is that the Commission will only take over the canal as a traffic bearing entity, and that everything else will be left to the management of the Lee Conservancy as at the present time. A good deal of everything that is left with it will, of course, operate as its own undertaking, and in so far as something does get transferred which is not pure canal, the Commission, I take it, will employ the Conservancy to do the job, in the way they are doing now, as their agents. If that is made into a water-tight arrangement and the Conservancy will only be dealing with the Commission and no other Department, I think the proper anxieties of my noble friend are met. If that is what Clause 116 provides, all we have to do when we come to it is to see that it is drafted to carry that out.
LORD WALKDEN: Certainly we want to simplify and improve arrangements that already exist. They will be tuned up properly when the conservancy boards and river authorities are absorbed by the Commission, and there will be other work for the Lee Catchment Board already constituted in 1931. All that can be looked at upon Clause 116. If noble Lords interested wish to suggest any Amendments to Clause 116, we are willing to give them earnest and favourable consideration and also to make consequential Amendments, even if it has to be done before Clause 116. We want to make a good job of it and to leave the Bill better than we find it.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord reassure me on one point. What exactly will the Commission be taking over and what will be passed to the Catchment Board? I think there is a little confusion.
LORD SALTOUN: What the noble Lord said does not make any clearer the waterways question. Your Lordships will remember that not long ago we discussed the question of pollution of rivers, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, foreshadowed the policy of the Government, with which I am in entire agreement and in which not only single rivers but whole river systems would be put under one authority for their conservation. I do hope that nothing in this Bill will affect the integrity and complete authority of the river system authorities that the Government propose to establish.
LORD WALKDEN: What the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, were referring to were the arrangements for river boards that have been under consideration by the Minister of Agriculture for some years, primarily for fishing interests. This has nothing to do with that matter, which will be dealt with quite independently. All we are doing here is to take over the transport business and the potentialities of waterways for transport. I think that is simple and clear. The other points on drainage, water and pollution will be adequately provided for in Clause 116.
LORD HAWKE: I am very surprised about the great waterway development that the noble Lord foreshadows. As one who is somewhat interested in railways, I rather deplore that apparently the Lee Navigation is to take the place of the Great Eastern Railway. We shall be strap-hanging down the Limehouse Cut, so far as I can see. Actually I do not think it is clear that we are taking over navigation. In taking over navigation we are taking over the provision of a channel for navigation, and that means we have the complete responsibility for everything in that river that affects the navigation. That also means that we are duplicating the responsibilities of other boards which the Milne Report expressly recommended should not be the case. It said:
"All river interests are concerned, to a greater or lesser extent, with a quantity of water available for use, as measured by level depth or rate of flow, and with its quality. Rivers used as sources of supply for domestic,

693
agricultural and industrial purposes and for fisheries must be protected from pollution as far as is practicable; and the water must be so conserved and its flow so regulated, that the quantity and quality do not fall below full requirements at any time. As part of the same problem, it may be necessary to protect land from flooding, to provide sufficient water in dry periods for the irrigation of agricultural land, to secure that there is sufficient water for abstraction for water supplies, and that the quantity so abstracted, or the rate at which the river is drained to the sea, will permit of a sufficient flow for fisheries and navigation, and for dilution of sewage and industrial effluents. It is clear that, with the exception of the Thames and Lee Conservancy Boards, the existing administrative bodies have neither sufficient power nor the necessary authority …"
And so on. That body, which has sufficient power, is going to be replaced, and its functions divided among two bodies. That seems to me to be a bad administrative principle. I do hope that the noble Lord will look into it very fully.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am naturally very disappointed to hear that the noble Lord is not prepared to accept this Amendment, but I was delighted to notice the glowing terms in which he spoke of the future of the Lee. I cannot possibly imagine that the Lee is going to extend in the way he has suggested. One has to remember that all this traffic is derived right at the bottom of the Lee where it joins the Thames, chiefly in the Lime-house Cut. In the higher reaches of the Lee there is no traffic at all. Between Hertford and Bishops Stortford there is only one horse barge on it, and I cannot conceive any likelihood of there being any more. We are discussing 2,000,000 tons which brings in only £28,000 a year. This approximate amount of 2,000,000 tons a year may delight the Minister of Transport when he draws up his statistics and says what a wonderful canal system we have, and it appears to me that it is only for this reason that it is put forward. The actual finance is very small. It is hardly worth considering, but it will very seriously affect the finance of the undertaking so far as the ratepayers in the area of the undertaking are concerned.
We shall find the rates will undoubtedly go up if we have to have two general managers, two engineers, two boards, two offices, and so on. The rates will inevitably have to go up to make up the deficit. The noble Lord seemed to think it was a very simple and clear arrangement, but I assure him that those who
694
are connected with the undertaking consider it will only add very great confusion, create many difficulties which do not arise now and inevitably lead to very considerable expense. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot agree to this, but I hope that when we come to Clause 116, we may have a further opportunity of discussing it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved in subsection (1), after "Act" where that word occurs a first time, to insert "other than the Weaver Navigation Trustees." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend and myself. This Amendment presents a completely different case from that of the previous Amendment, and I think that both the bodies rather regret that the name of the same proposer and seconder happen to be associated with both. Naturally, each of these bodies thinks it has a very fine case, and dislikes any association or conjunction with the other body. The Weaver case is an error of classification. It has been included as an inland waterway, whereas it would be more appropriate to consider it as a harbour. The Weaver Navigation consists of about twenty miles of the river Weaver, from Winsford in Cheshire, to the Mersey near Runcorn. It is the deepest canalized river in the country, and is regularly used by vessels up to 140 feet in length with cargo capacity of up to 400 tons. This may shortly be increased. Of the 500,00o tons of traffic per year, only 7 per cent. is by interchange with the inland canal systems at the land end, the remainder being to and from the open sea and from the ports of the Mersey, a great quantity of the goods carried being salt and chemicals for export.
The Weaver Navigation is an inland waterway navigated by sea-going ships, and this should come under the definition clause of this Bill as a harbour. I am informed that this world create no precedent. There is no other inland waterway in the Third Schedule which is navigable by seagoing ships throughout its canalized lengths. A further point to remember is that the three systems with which the Weaver connects at its northern end are all excluded—the Manchester Ship Canal, the Bridgwater Navigation and the Upper

695
Mersey Navigation. The Weaver alone has been picked for this dubious honour of a place in the Third Schedule, though it complies with the definition of a harbour in this Bill, and is in fact an inner harbour to the Mersey harbour group. I hope the Government will realize that they have made a mistake in putting it in the Third Schedule, and will agree that it is a case to be excluded.
Amendment moved—
Page 13 line 25, after ("Act") insert ("other than the Weaver Navigation Trustees").—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD WALKDEN: This is another interesting case dealing with a waterway which we regard as one that should be taken over by the new Transport Commissioners and utilized. It is a rather wonderful waterway. It is described in the great volume I referred to a few days ago—the Report of the Royal Commission on Canals—as "an extremely important waterway capable of great development." It is certainly far more than a harbour, and you cannot merely regard it as a port. It carries a lot of important traffic, something like 709,000 tons a year, and barges up to 400 tons can sail on it. There is a wonderful sort of junction exchange place —what they call the Anderton Lift—which is, I suppose, a sort of tank as big as this chamber where you can put the barges in a lift, pick them up, and put them into another canal to go somewhere else. That offers great possibilities on this water service. We are all out for progress—no stagnation when we get going! Your Lordships will be surprised!
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: We shall!
LORD WALKDEN: It is absolutely the case that by means of these locks, and so forth, you can navigate right down to Wolverhampton and Birmingham, into the heart of the Midlands, where they have been crying out for this service for forty years or more. By means of this waterway, as I tried to describe the other day, water traffic can come down from the Mersey to the Midlands, and if it wants to, it can go on to Bristol or London; or if it wants to be sent up to Hull, it can be sent up there. That will be of very great service to the country.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: "On and on and on; and up and up and up!"
LORD WALKDEN: I am sure your Lordships will appreciate—and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will appreciate on reflection, that this ought to come into the scheme. It is no more a matter of a harbour than the Severn Navigation or the Trent Navigation. The Trent Navigation, again, comes to Nottingham right from the Humber. This is in a sense comparable; although they are different, in principle they are just the same. It is the working waterway, and we do want it in the waterway scheme which we are to make supplementary to the railway traffic scheme and the roadway traffic scheme. It has also been found useful in war periods. We always use the canals when we have a war on, and we always want them ready. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: We have heard that under our progressive Government the Great Eastern Railway is shortly to be replaced by the River Lee. Apparently, the line from Crewe, or thereabouts, to London is to be replaced by the great development of the inland waterway system. I think the noble Lord is being a little unfair on me, because whenever I choose a little lamb to try and save it from the slaughter, he promptly comes along and says, "That lamb is one day going to be an enormous lamb, and we cannot possibly let it go." I wish I could step forward into the future and see whether these lambs are really going to wax so large and fat as the noble Lord expects. I am going to withdraw my Amendment—I think—but I should like to point out to the noble Lord the definition clause on page 123:
"'harbour' means any harbour, whether natural or artificial, and any port, haven, estuary, tidal or other river or inland waterway navigated by seagoing ships."
This is an inland waterway, navigated by sea-going ships. Why on earth it is not a harbour I do not know. I think the Government have probably misdrafted their definition clause, but as it is drafted now I feel certain they ought to accept my Amendment. Failing that, they will have to amend the definition clause when they come to it. Perhaps the noble Lord will reply to that before I withdraw my Amendment.
LORD WALKDEN: We want to make it understandable.
LORD HAWKE: In view of the noble Lord's assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
"Protection of Travel Agencies.
The Commission shall secure that persons desiring to make use of the services and facilities provided by the Commission through a travel agency shall be entitled so to do, and that all such travel agencies shall be treated alike whether such agencies are vested in the Commission by virtue of this Act or whether the Commission hold an interest in them or not, and that no preferential or differential treatment shall be accorded to any one agency over another or others."
The noble Viscount said: This new clause is perhaps a less exciting subject than that of the last two Amendments, but I am sure the Government will agree that it is very meritorious. The object of it is to have all travel agencies treated alike. The Government are to acquire, by reason of their ownership in the railways, Thomas Cook & Son, who are, of course, one of the largest travel agencies in the country. The clause I am proposing is founded exactly upon a precedent which has been created in civil aviation and which is still carried out, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, knows, by his Ministry. It originated in this way. Under the original plan a number of travel agencies were to come into the British European Corporation. As a matter of fact, I suppose that Thomas Cook & Son are now in. That naturally led to considerable anxiety on the part of other travel agencies who would not become part proprietors of the air line, that they should not be treated any worse than the travel agencies which were in the partnership, and that there would be no preference given as between one travel agency and another.
On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I gave an assurance to the travel agencies practically in the terms of this proposed new clause. These words have been copied from the assurance, which, I understand, has been most loyally carried out by the Ministry of Civil Aviation; all travel agencies are treated alike, on the simple principle that no undue preference is given to a travel agency. It
698
is obviously equitable. It would be quite wrong to give Thomas Cook & Son preference over other agencies, such as the Workers' Travel Association, or the Polytechnic, or any other of the great efficient travel agencies. I am asking that they should be treated alike, and in order to achieve that I think this clause should be put into the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert 7he said now clause.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD GIFFORD: Before speaking in support of this Amendment, I think it right to say that I am Chairman and Managing Director of Ashton and Mitchell, a firm with various activities, among them a travel agency. I think it is important that this clause should go into the Bill, in the first place because nearly all the travel agencies outside Thomas Cook & Son are comparatively small businesses. I should like to point out that when the Transport Commission take over they will hold every single commodity that the travel agency requires. They will have under their control all the sleepers, and something which travel agencies always need—seats on the Golden Arrow. Not only that, through the holding of Thomas Cook & Son they will also control all the wagon-lits on sale in Britain for Continental trains. In effect, therefore, travel agents will have to go to the Commission for everything they require.
I am sure the noble Viscount opposite is entirely desirous of seeing that the independent travel agent has a fair deal. It is only human nature that the Commission's servants when they have them all in their hands, not readily let highly prized sleeping berths go outside their organization. It not just a question of good will on the part of the Commission—I am sure we have that. In order to ensure that all agents have a fair deal the Commission will have to appoint an Agency Department, the officials of which will have to work hard to see that the independent firms are properly served. I am sure we have no complaints about our treatment by British railways, but it is fair to say that the public relations officers of the British railways have to be on their toes all the time to see that the independent travel agency has a fair deal. I think, therefore, that the words in this clause, "the Commission shall secure" are necessary,

699
because they mean not only that there will be passive good will towards the independent agent, but that there will be someone in the Department whose job it will be to see that each agent has a square deal.
LORD WALKDEN: We are quite willing to take up this matter where the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, left it when he dealt with the Bill to take over certain undertakings, and when the hand-over to the railways took place two or three years ago. It was then agreed that there would be no discrimination. We are prepared to go a little further than that. We accept the principle of no discrimination, but we are not quite happy about the words that he has put in his Amendment, and if he will meet us between now and the Report stage perhaps we can agree a form of words.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am extremely obliged. There has been a good deal of talk as to whether or not this new Commission should retain Thomas Cook & Son. Obviously it would be most unfair if they had a travel agency of their own. I certainly am quite happy to accept whatever words the draftsman can best devise in order to ensure that there will be absolutely equal treatment to all travel agencies.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment I would like to raise one point, and that is in regard to foreign travel agencies. There are the American travel agencies functioning in this country, and for all I know travel agencies of other countries. It seems to me important that the travel agencies of foreign countries, particularly American travel agencies, should feel that they are receiving absolute justice and are assured of an absolutely square deal, as my noble friend Lord Gifford has said, and will not be prejudiced by this Bill. I would like to ask the noble Lord who is replying for the Government whether we can take it that the assurance he has given covers foreign travel agencies, as well as British travel agencies. It seems to me that if we differentiate between foreign and British travel agencies we shall discourage foreigners from coming to this country, and we all want to encourage them to do so, especially when they come from dollar countries. Secondly, it would surely not be in the
700
interests of international understanding and good feeling if there were any unfair discrimination in this respect. I hope the Government will be able to give an assurance that all travel agencies whether British or foreign will be treated in the same way.
LORD WALKDEN: That is an exceedingly important point, and we are quite prepared to confer with the noble Earl when we come to the drafting of words, and we will take that into consideration at that time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14:
General effect of vesting of undertakings.
14.—(1) The provisions of this section shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, have effect where, under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, the whole of the undertaking of any body is to vest in the Commission.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, every agreement to which the body were a party, whether in writing or not and whether or not of such nature that rights and liabilities thereunder could be assigned by the body, shall, unless its terms or subject matter make it impossible that it should have effect as modified in the manner provided by this subsection, have effect as from the date of transfer as if—
(4) The provisions of the last preceding subsection (except paragraphs (a) and (f) thereof) shall apply in relation to any statutory provision, any provision of any agreement to which the body were not a party, and any provision of any other document not being an agreement, as they apply in relation to an agreement to which the body were a party, and, in relation to any such statutory or other provision as aforesaid, the references in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of that subsection to the body, to any profits or receipts of the undertaking of the body, to any directors, officers or servants of the body, and to the undertaking of the body include references made by means of a general reference to a class of persons of which the body are one, without the body themselves being specifically referred to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (3), after "body," where that word first occurs, to insert:
"and any other body of persons having the control of any undertaking or part of an undertaking which is to vest in the Commission or in whom any such undertaking or part of an undertaking was vested."
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the Amendment in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself.

701
Clause 14 provides for the transfer of various properties in the undertakings that are being taken over and subsection (3) provides for the transfer of the rights and liabilities of the various bodies that are being taken over. Subsection 3 (a) provides that those rights and liabilities will change as if the Commission had been a party to the agreement from which they arose. But, if I have read the clause correctly, it relates only to contracts entered into by the bodies named in the Third Schedule to the Bill. This Amendment is designed to cover those contracts which have been entered into by bodies other than those mentioned in the Third Schedule. I have in mind particularly a contract entered into by Thomas Cook & Son, the firm we have been discussing this evening. It is only a small point, but it will make for tidy administration, even if it does unfortunately result in less work for the lawyers. I therefore hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 4, after ("body") insert the said new words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD NATHAN: I had a little difficulty when reading this Amendment, and so did my advisers, in determining exactly what was the point to which the noble Lord was directing his mind. I think, if he will forgive my saying so, that he has based himself on a misapprehension, because subsection (3) to which he has referred shows that the bodies are the bodies owning the undertakings. Thomas Cook & Son, whom he has mentioned, are part of the undertaking owned by the body. My understanding of the Amendment is that it is unnecessary in this context.
LORD MANCROFT: I bow to the noble Lord's superior reading of the Amendment. I hope that he is correct, and on the assumption that he is I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.28 p.m.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (4), at the end to insert:
"The statutory or other provisions to which this subsection applies include statutory or other provisions passed or made after the passing of this Act but before the date of transfer."
The noble Lord said: This is a Government Amendment. It is to catch for the
702
purpose of the new undertaking, several Private Bills for the railways now before Parliament, and of which the benefit would not come to the new organization unless this Amendment were inserted. It is to fill a gap.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 24, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Nathan.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I ask a question, purely to obtain information? I think each of the railway companies at present have to have, almost annually, a Bill which gives them certain extended powers for the purchase of land, the extension of sidings, and so on. These are, generally, arranged matters and are not controversial. Will it be necessary for the Commission to bring in Bills annually for that purpose, or will it automatically follow from any provision of the Bill?
LORD NATHAN: I think it is likely that the Commission will need to follow the same procedure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Disclaimer of agreements.
15.—(1) Where, under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act the whole of the undertaking of a body is to vest in the Commission, the body shill, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and in any case not later than seven days after the date of transfer or such later date as the Commission may, either generally or in any particular case, allow, supply to the Commission particulars of all agreements of the body made or varied on or after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, under which, by virtue if the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, the Commission have or will or may have liabilities, except such agreements as the Commission may exclude, either generally or in any particular case, from the operation of this subsection.
(2) Where the making, or, as the case may be, the variation, of any agreement of the body which was made or varied as aforesaid was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of those of the activities of the body to which it relates, or was an act of unreasonable imprudence on the part of the body, the Commission may, by notice in writing to the parties to the agreement given—

(a) in the case of an agreement of which particulars are given under subsection (1) of this section, before the expiration of three months from the date when the particulars are so given;

(b) in the case of an agreement of which particulars ought to have been but have not been so given, before the expiration of three

703
months from the date when the existence and full particulars of the agreement first become known to the Commission; and

(c) in the case of any other agreement, given before the expiration of three months from the date of transfer,

disclaim the agreement.
(3) Where notice of disclaimer is so given by the Commission with respect to any agreement—

(a) subsection (3) of the last preceding section shall be deemed never to have applied to the agreement, and subsection (2) thereof shall be deemed never to have applied to any rights or liabilities thereunder or arising by reason of the frustration thereof;

(b) the agreement shall be deemed to have been frustrated on the date of transfer and the parties thereto to have been for that reason discharged from the further performance thereof; and

(c) the like consequences shall follow as between the Commission and any party to the agreement who, before the giving of the notice of disclaimer, has, in pursuance of the agreement, supplied goods or rendered services to the Commission which the Commission have accepted, or to whom, before the giving of the notice of disclaimer, the Commission have, in pursuance of the agreement, supplied goods or rendered services which he has accepted, as would have followed if those goods or services had been supplied or rendered at the request of the Commission or of that party, as the case may be, apart from the agreement, and on terms that a reasonable payment would be made in respect thereof and any payments by or to the Commission before the giving of the notice of disclaimer shall be adjusted accordingly.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, a person who permits another to use or enjoy any property shall be deemed to render a service to him.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to any agreement for, or contained in, a lease or other tenancy or any agreement made or varied, whether before or after the passing of this Act, with the previous consent or subsequent approval of the Minister, given in writing either generally or specially.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May we have some sort of explanation of what is the kind of transaction to stop or to guard against which this is thought necessary? These provisions seem extremely complicated. I gather that subsection (2) relates to acts of unreasonable imprudence on the part of a body whose property has been taken over or to agreements made that were not reasonably necessary. Can the spokesman for the Government give a concrete case of the kind of thing that they want to guard against?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that one of the noble Lords who are dealing with
704
this Bill was engaged in the conduct of the Coal Industry Nationalization Act, and your Lordships will remember that this matter came up on that Act. We had considerable discussion then about disclaimer of agreements. The Lord Chancellor took a great deal of trouble over this matter, and we inserted a clause into the Coal Industry Nationalization Act. I think it received universal assent as being fair and reasonable. I should like to have an assurance, if not now, then at another stage of the Bill, that this carries out what was a concordat of the Coal Industry Nationization Act, and carries it out as nearly as possible in the same terms.
LORD NATHAN: I have not myself compared the clause with the Coal Industry Nationalization Act, but I can assure the noble Viscount that 1 will have a comparison made, and will look up the discussions that took place, so that we can see whether it is necessary to bring it up at a later time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. There was a great deal of discussion on the Coal Industry Nationalization Act, as the Leader of the House will remember. Originally the Bill, as drafted, practically said that the Coal Board would be able to disclaim any contract if they thought it was an unbusinesslike contract. I am not going to argue the case again. Obviously people may make some good contracts and some bad contracts; you cannot tell until you see what happens in the course of time. Some may make a considerable profit and some may make a loss. Even nationalized industry will not make a profit on every contract it makes. It was agreed it would be grossly unfair that a contract, perfectly honestly entered into by a management, could be disclaimed.
LORD NATHAN: I remember the discussion well, and if the noble Viscount will be content to let the clause go I will give an undertaking that it will be looked into with a view to meeting the points referred to in discussion.
The EARL OF SELBORNE: It is a serious matter. Thousands of contracts will come under review in the first subsection of this clause. If it is legally possible—I am not saying what the Commission would do, I am talking now about

705
the powers that would be conferred on them by this Bill—for the Commission to adhere to all the contracts which are profitable and disclaim any contract which is unprofitable, it seems to me you have done something to thrust at the very root of that confidence without which commercial transactions cannot go on, and trade cannot flourish; one can conceive infinite permutations and variations of the situation. As I understand it, it would be legally possible for the Commission to say: "We regard this contract as a bad one, as an imprudent one, and we do not propose to carry it on. Of course, if you will modify it and make a new contract with us, we will be quite prepared to meet you so far." But that means that the Commission would be legally empowered to alter any contract entered into by the railways or any company that is taken over. These contracts must run into thousands and ten of thousands, and I hope the noble Lord will have the point very carefully examined.
He says my noble friend has pointed out that this question arose on the Coal Industry Nationalization Act. Surely the number of contracts involved here would be even greater than those involved under that Act, and I should have thought that unless there is a very clear understanding it might lead to a great deal of uncertainty in commerce, and especially in the case of the small man; and any lack of confidence on the part of small firms and of firms not so strong financially as they might be, will add enormously to the difficulties and may cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering. I hope this matter will be most carefully considered, because it seems to me to be a very strong measure indeed.
LORD NATHAN: I would direct the attention of the noble Earl and other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this matter to the limitation contained in lines 10 and 11, on page 18, of this Clause 15, that the right is limited to agreements made or varied on or after November 19, 1945—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Why was that date taken?
LORD NATHAN:—which is a relatively recent period. Whilst I have not had an opportunity of looking at the similar provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act since this discussion
706
arose, I am told that if the provisions in that Act were followed in this Bill they would be a great dear more severe than in fact they are.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry, but I cannot for one moment accept that. I do not understand the merit of this particular date, but it does not seem to me to matter whether a contract is entered into before or after 1945. In ordinary commercial practice, when one buys a business, as the Government are now doing, one takes over the benefits and liabilities of all contracts which that business owns. If it is thought there are some pretty bad contracts which will involve a loss, then that is taken into account when assessing the value of the business. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act there were two considerations determining the value to be paid for the undertaking. They could not affect that here, because the Government have taken a purely arbitrary value for everything they are to take over.
What I am interested in is that the Government may disclaim a contract if the Commission, or the Minister, thinks that a contract was either not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the business or was an act "of unreasonable imprudence"—whatever that may mean. I am speaking from memory, but I think it was over the word "imprudent" that we had a great deal of argument on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. I believe we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to decide ex poste facto whether or not something done a long time before was imprudent. What we devoted particular attention to then was the male fide contract, where some company that was to be taken over might make a contract with some member of the family to pay £10,000 a year as managing director for the next twenty years, and one would have either to pay him that or pay him some compensation. In the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act we limited the actions which could be evaded to what I may call. "shady" transactions. It was a question of decent moral conduct, there was no question whether or not a company was prudent or imprudent.
Let your Lordships observe what will happen if a contract is disclaimed. Let me take a concrete example. The Commission may say an imprudent contract

707
was entered into between the Great Western Railway and Mr. "X," and, therefore, they will disclaim that contract and treat it as null and void. The Great Western Railway Company go into liquidation on the appointed day, and the contract cannot subsist as between Mr. "X" and the Great Western Railway Company. Mr. "X" cannot have any remedy against the Great Western Railway Company—though I do not know whether he has a personal action against the noble Viscount, Lord Portal. The noble Viscount had better take legal advice, and all the railway directors had better take advice, to find out where they stand on these things. But I cannot see that Mr. "X" has any right of action against the railway company because it has gone into liquidation, and yet there he is.
The Commission, which come in and take the place of the railway company, say "We will not carry on this contract," but if it was an imprudent contract for the Great Western Railway Company, it may have been an extremely prudent contract for Mr. "X" to have made. After all, it is not the business of people to make contracts which they know will involve them in a loss. If you come to me and ask me to undertake a piece of business for you, and say: "If you will do that I will pay you £20,000", and I accept that offer, that is a perfectly free offer made to me; and if I have accepted it that is a binding contract. Why on earth should not the new body which is coming into being be responsible for the contracts, vis-à-vis innocent third parties, be they prudent or imprudent contracts? Was this one of the clauses that under the guillotine was never discussed in another place? I do not know. I am sure that now as this develops—or if the Government are uninformed on the subject at a later stage of the proceedings—this clause will require very close attention.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure that when the noble Viscount looks into it between now and the next stage he will be assured that it is quite reasonable. There was, of course, no Amendment on the Paper to call attention to all these matters.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have said that I was very much in default in not putting down an Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: In the circumstances, I hope the noble Viscount will let us examine it in the interval, and I am sure he will be thoroughly satisfied.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the matter is disposed of, I would like to say that I hope this House will not agree to any clause which leaves matters of this importance in doubt. Nobody doubts the good will or the reasonableness of the Commission; and when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House says that the Commission will be entirely reasonable, we all hope that it will be so. But in a matter of this importance it seems to me that it is necessary that the rights of the subject should be stated in an Act of Parliament; because if there is uncertainty, there will be a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of perhaps hundreds of small business firms throughout the country, who really do not know whether a contract, which may have been profitable to them, is to be honoured or not. It is not merely those firms that are concerned, but all the people who have contracts with those firms, because the repudiation of a contract which had been profitable to a small firm and unprofitable to a railway company, or any of the other undertakings the Commission are taking over, would have wide repercussions on all the commitments of the small firms concerned.
There might be small firms driven into bankruptcy by the repudiation of contracts of this sort. They might have made all their arrangements on the assumption that the contract would run its appointed length of time. They might have put all their eggs into that one basket, and if that basket is taken away from them, then the firm might easily become insolvent, and all the other people who have contracts with that small firm might find themselves injured. This is a matter that might have the widest repercussions, and I do enter a plea that when this Bill is finally passed people should know where they stand. To that end, it is surely necessary that this clause should be made more precise than it is.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I would like to support what has been said on this clause. After all, this is a very important matter. We have another Bill coming—the Electricity Bill—and the same point will arise on that. If we do not settle this in a fair way in this Bill,

709
we may find the same point arising in the Electricity Bill, also in an unfair and an unjust way. I want to emphasize what has been stated by my noble friend and the noble Lord who has just sat down, that I regard this as important, not only from the point of view of this Bill, but from the point of view of other Bills which are coming before us.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think there is one point which ought to be remembered. Perhaps I have misread it, but I see no time limit: that is to say, there is nothing I can see which puts a limit on the time within which any contractor or person will become aware as to whether or not his contract holds good. One can realize that the main object of this is to prevent fraudulent evasion, or attempts of evasion of the Act, and I think one must recognize that it is necessary in that respect. But at the same time I think we ought to see that the ordinary trading arrangements are not in danger. In any case, I think it would be necessary to put some time limit, so that a contractor will know by six months or twelve months after the vesting date that the matter is settled and he can go ahead with certainty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Might I add one word here? It seems to me that this question does require very careful consideration by the Government, because after all what is the position if the railway company enter into a contract with another firm before November 19, 1945, and then, after the passing of the Act, the Minister comes to the conclusion that it was on act of unreasonable imprudence on the part of the railway company and he therefore repudiates? That is left, so far as I can understand it, entirely to the judgment of the Minister. If it was not an act of unreasonable imprudence, then the contract ought to stand. It is a matter, I should have thought, for the courts; and yet there is no provision at all for an appeal to the courts, and this unfortunate firm have no redress against the unilateral decision of the Minister. I think, therefore, that the Government will agree—I am sure they want justice to be done on both sides—that this is a case where some provision for an appeal to the courts ought to be included.
LORD NATHAN: Perhaps I can elucidate the position. The noble
710
Viscount, Lord Ridley, stated that there was no time limit. If he would refer to subsection (2) he will see there is a time limit of three months mentioned on no less than three occasions, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Of course, the time limit in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act of last year was twelve months, so that there is a precedent there.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne: Why the date November 15, 1945? The reason is that that was the date upon which the Lord President of the Council, on behalf of the Government, made a statement that the railways would be nationalized; and the object of Clause 15 is to ensure that, after the date of the announcement as to the nationalization, contracts should be capable of being disclaimed if they were not reasonably necessary, or if any unreasonable imprudence had been shown. Those words are also used in the Coal Industry Nationalization Act.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In which section Of the Act?
LORD NATHAN: Section 7 (2). But if your Lordships will refer to Clause 15 (5) of the present Bill, you will see that there is a saving for all contracts entered into with the approval of the Minister, either before or after the passing of the Act, and whether given generally or specially. I merely mention that without prejudice to what I have previously said. Naturally, we shall be glad to look into this to see whether any modification is required.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say one word more? The noble Lord, very properly, and if I may say so, handsomely, has told us that this will be looked into; but I would just like to put this question. As I understand it, it all depends upon whether or not the activities of the body were necessary for the Commission's purposes, or whether they were acts of unreasonable imprudence. I understand that the Commission are a body that can sue and be sued, so that surely the question is whether Mr. "X" has or has not power lo go to the court and sue the Commission for having acted in a manner that was rot justified by the words in the Bill. I Imagine that that would be so, but I am no lawyer and if should be glad to have some authoritative opinion on this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would it be possible to have an answer from the noble Lord, to Lord Rankeillour's question? It is rather an important matter.
LORD NATHAN: The noble Marquess will appreciate that there was no Amendment on the Paper. Our attention was drawn to the matter, and I had to deal with it as it arose on the floor of the House. I am referred to Clause 108 (1) of the Bill. There is a tribunal which has jurisdiction. This seems to answer the question.
A NOBLE LORD: Does that hold good even if the Commission are acting under the direction of the, Minister?
LORD NATHAN: I think I had better refer the noble Lord to the clause as contained in the Bill.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Compensation
(2) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the compensation so payable in the case of any of the said bodies shall be an amount equal to the aggregate value (computed in accordance with the provisions of the next succeeding section) of all the securities, if any, of that body existing immediately before the date of transfer, being securities set out in the said Fourth Schedule:
Provided that where no person other than one or more of the bodies mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act has any interest in the securities of a particular description set out in the said Fourth Schedule, those securities shall be left out of account.
(3) The compensation so payable shall be satisfied, in the manner provided by Part VI of this Act, by the issue in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act of British transport stock to the holders of the securities of the body in question:
Provided that where, immediately before the date of transfer, the holder was a body mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act, the rights and liabilities of the body as such holder as aforesaid arising under this subsection or under the said Fifth Schedule shall pass to the Commission, and this subsection and the said Fifth Schedule shall, with the necessary modifications, have effect accordingly.
LORD BEVERIDGE LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in subsection (2) after "to," where that word occurs a second time, to insert "one hundred and twenty per cent. of." The noble Lord said: I need hardly say that I am sorry to find myself apparently working permanently on the night shift of the Transport Bill, and that I am
712
beginning only ten minutes earlier than on the last occasion. I look forward, as we all do, to the time which the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, has intimated to us, when we shall reach the Delectable Mountain of Clause 116; and then, if possible, I hope to find myself moving an Amendment before tea.
The Amendment which I am moving on this clause is quite a simple one. It is to insert in the statement of the compensation payable on the taking over of the railway undertakings, the figures "120 per cent." The, effect of that is to make the compensation payable one-fifth greater than it would be if the Bill stands as it is at present. It is a simple but very important matter for a large number of the people in the country. In a sense it is beyond dispute. A statement was made in the other place recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining the compensation proposals of this Bill; a statement that, on the assumption—which he took as reasonable—of British railway stock being issued at 2½ per cent., the amount that will go to the stockholders in the four main line railway companies would be £22,750.000 pounds a year. That compares with £40,000,000 which they have been receiving recently. That would give, according to the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, a surplus of £17,250,000, which would be available for spending by the Commission. That £22,750,000 is not actually much less than they had been receiving, but it is less than any minimum received in any of the inter-war years with the single exception of 1926.
I need not develop this point. I think it is really quite obvious that this will mean widespread hardship. I do not think that is really open to question. People will have their incomes reduced by these very large amounts and many of them will in fact be unable to effect any reinvestment within their power to make up that income. Hardship is inevitable. You cannot have absolute security against hardship, either in this country or anywhere else. But is this hardship necessary, and is what is proposed really fair? I take it from what was said in another place that the policy of the Government is to do only what is just and proper, but in deciding what is just and proper they are somewhat in the state of mind of the nations of the world, all of whom wish to do what is

713
just and proper, but do not want any impartial judgment on what they do.
That was the issue that was debated in the other place when the Government resisted Amendments that were then moved for an independent tribunal to decide what was fair and just to pay to the railway stockholders. That discussion took place when the guillotine was approaching, and I think that may possibly account for the badness of the argument that was used by the Government in the defence of their attitude. Broadly, it was that you could not proceed on the lines of maintainable revenue, because no tribunal could determine it. Of course there are very difficult questions to be answered in determining it, but an independent tribunal at any rate would have been more just than to leave it to the Government to lay down its own views. They have stuck to what is, I think, although not quite a unique proposal, a principle of compensation which has not been adopted by them or by any other Government in recent cases—that of basing the compensation upon the stock exchange values at certain dates. I think that taking the Stock Exchange values which may be appropriate in individual cases as representing what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller on a few isolated transactions, is really not just, and it would be difficult to prove to any independent tribunal that these values were a fair basis for a compulsory and wholesale expropriation of the undertaking. It is something utterly different.
There are many things which are quite innocent if done to one person but completely destructive if done in a wholesale manner. I will not give examples of that, but many of them may occur to you, If any one of those railway stockholders freely sold his holding I assume that he would get the Stock Exchange value for selling freely. He would probably find that he had lost income; he would exchange income for greater security. But it is quite a different thing to go to railway stockholders and say "every one of you must now surrender your present income for what we think is greater security." I do suggest to you that when you are in the field of compulsory purchase you cannot apply the criterion of what the willing buyer and willing seller in an individual case would do. In other words, if you insist upon compulsion, you ought to pay
714
more. Furthermore, I would say that if you are insisting on compulsion you ought to pay cash, and not necessarily stock which it may not be possible to convert. That is the subject of a later Amendment which I have also on this clause. I am not going to say more about it now; I shall come to it at some time or other.
I think this is an interesting illustration of the bearing of Stock Exchange values and their relation to what might be fair as compensation. Quite recently, a very large transaction in the selling of railways has taken place in the Argentine, and there the price, which was settled by agreement after hard bargaining, was £50,000,000, whereas the Stock Exchange values of the securities amounted to £125,000,000. In other words, the price reached by agreement, after bargaining, was 20 per cent. more than would have been paid if the Argentine Government had done what the British Government are doing today. I am not going to say that the British Government were themselves responsible for [he arrangements with the Argentine, though. I do think that some remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on this subject, did amount to his taking considerable credit for the result achieved there. I think that he deserves considerable credit. I only wish that he would now proceed to apply the same methods to himself in this country. I think he might have similar success with the railway stockholders.
We on these Benches, and, I think, most of your Lordships, would have been much happier to have an assessment of this compensation by an independent tribunal, as in other cases, whatever the result. I realize that that might mean delay. It might mean holding up the whole scheme. It would be running counter to what the Government have apparently set their minds on, and that is, using Stock Exchange prices as a basis of compensation. By this Amendment, I am suggesting acceptance of their method, though I do not think it is the best method. Is it not right that they should add to the figure they reach by their method something extra for- purchase by wholesale compulsion? If they will accept this Amendment they will undoubtedly not avoid hardship—it is impossible to avoid a great deal of hardship in this change—but they can very materially

715
reduce it. If they accept this Amendment to increase the amount by 20 per cent. they will still have a very substantial surplus.
I gather from the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke that he had no doubt of being able to maintain the maintainable revenue. It is quite obvious that being able to maintain revenue depends very largely on the powers of the Government. At any rate they are taking powers to do that by this Bill. For us in this House, the question is what appears to us to be just. Does it appear to be just to take by the throat people who would not wish to sell willingly and say: "You are not going to sell willingly, we agree, but you shall not get a penny more. You shall be forced to exchange income for what we think is greater security." I suggest that that is difficult to defend as just and proper and it is for that reason that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 44, after ("to") insert ("one hundred and twenty per cent. of").—(Lord Beveridge.)
LORD NATHAN: I listened with great attention to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. I am bound to say that I was quite unable to learn from what he said why he picked upon the figure of 120 rather than 110 or 130 or whatever figure you might care to insert. The nearest I could get to forming an opinion was that the Argentine railways had been sold for £150,000,000 as against a stock exchange quotation of something in the nature of £125,000,000. That was the only argument I could gather from the speech of the noble Lord as to why 120 was chosen rather than any other figure. I really am not concerned to compare this formidable transaction of the Government with the arrangement made in regard to the Argentine railways. I would only say that the option is given to take the higher of two Stock Exchange prices, one of which is pre-Election and assumed to be as if such prices were based on the expectation of earning power on the part of the British railways.
With regard to the Argentine the situation was of course entirely different, and the question was a guess as to what the Argentine was likely to be persuaded to pay, and the Stock Exchange guessed wrong. The guess was less than the
716
amount that was ultimately forthcoming and was not the Stock Exchange price arrived at in relation to the circumstances which ordinarily prevail and certainly have prevailed in regard to British railways. Apart from any other consideration, the transaction suggested by the noble Lord would involve an increase in the burden falling on the Exchequer of something of the order of £200,000,000. It is not an amount to be regarded lightly, and I know that the noble Lord, as an economist of eminence, would look with considerable disfavour upon any unnecessary increase in price.
Justice demands that the price must be related to the facts of the case. To take the Stock Exchange prices gives a just reflection of what the value is. Noble Lords will bear in mind that the higher of two prices is to be taken, one Pre-Election, and the other immediately prior to the introduction of this Bill. The choice between the two prices has resulted in a very considerable addition to the values as compared with what they would have been had the pre-Election value alone been taken. It is a common practice, familiar to those who deal with transactions involving the assessment of values, that where the value has to be assessed as between a willing buyer and a willing seller the Stock Exchange value is taken as being a fair reflection of that value.
I have often heard it suggested that the Stock Exchange value was too high, but I have never heard it suggested that the Stock Exchange value was too low. If any of your Lordships have had occasion to be concerned in the payment of Estate duties upon quoted stocks and shares valued according to Stock Exchange prices (which is a normal regular practice), you may have wished to persuade the authorities that the valuation should be reduced for the purpose of Death Duties. I have never heard it suggested that the stock exchange prices were too low. That applies equally in this particular case. Speaking on the Second Reading, I said that taking a situation where some criterion had to be adopted, the Stock Exchange value was a fair value to take. I certainly cannot accept the suggestion that it should be increased. It is a fair value to take, and, in the view of the Government, the compensation offered is fair.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I may say so with great respect, I do not think

717
that the noble Lord has at all answered the gravamen of the speech of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. The fallacy of the argument just used by the noble Lord is surely this. He says that if one wishes to know the value of a share as between a willing buyer and a willing seller it is reasonable to look at the Stock Exchange price. But the point about these railway securities is that one is not dealing with willing sellers. A very large proportion of these securities are held by charities and pension funds, and by people of the widow and orphan class—that is, people who are seeking a safe income and who do not vary their investments. They were put into the investment by the family solicitor or somebody like that, and they look upon it as their source of income for the rest of their lives. Therefore, to go to people like that and to say, "You are in the position of a willing seller and I am going to give you the price that if you had been a willing seller you might had expected me to pay, and I am going to do that compulsorily," is in the first place, unjust. It is still more unjust when the effect of the transaction is to reduce the income of those individuals by something like a third, or whatever it is. Under this Bill we. are now' causing the direst distress in some of the humblest homes of this country, and we are also inflicting terrible injury on pension funds and charities.
I venture to say that the whole basis of the Government's defence is a misleading and a wrong one. It is not a question of willing sellers and willing buyers; it is not a question of people who are trying to hold the Government up to ransom; it is not a question of people who are guilty of any sort of mala fides. It is a question of people who made an investment under all the security that Acts of Parliaments afforded them, who believed and expected, and who had reason to believe and expect, that that investment would bring them in a certain income. The effect of what the Government are doing is to reduce that income by very severe proportions indeed. It seems to me to be all the more unjust in this respect—that as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, pointed out, under the powers that they will acquire under this Bill the Government will certainly be able to maintain the revenue at present being earned by the railways. I think the noble Lord said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had boasted that he would be able to do
718
so. I do not know if that is correct. But it is clear from the terms of the Bill that the Government will be in a position to make the railways pay pretty well anything they like. They can so throttle and starve road competition under this Bill that the railways may be made much snare profitable than they have been lately. Under this Bill the Government will be in a position to maintain the railway revenue; they will be maintaining the railway revenue for the State, and they will have paid as compensation to the humble people who form such a large proportion of the railway shareholders a sum which will reduce their income considerably, I do not think that can he defended on any moral basis at all, because the basis the noble Lord has advanced is a false one.
I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the versatility of the noble Lord who has spoken on behalf of the Government. When he was discussing the case of the Argentinian Railways he described the Stock Exchange values as a guess; but when he was discussing the British railways he described the Stock Exchange values as a fair sum. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. If the Stock Exchange valuation was a guess in the case of the railways in the Argentine, it was equally a guess in the case of railways in Britain. What was the difference between the case of the Argentine and of Great Britain? In the case of the Argentine there was a bargain, and a bargain where it might have been thought that all the cards were in the hands of the local Government. They were in a very strong position indeed. But, as I understand the position—I had no interest in the matter—the politicians, or the authorities in the Argentine were wise enough to see that if they inflicted on foreign shareholders terms which the whole world would regard as unjust. the credit of the Argentine would be seriously injured. Therefore, they were willing to make a bargain that both parties were able to regard as a fair deal.
Does the noble Lord pretend that the railway shareholders in Great Britain as a whole regard this transaction as a fair deal? He knows perfectly well that they do not; he knows perfectly well that it is a deal imposed by the power of the Government on a whole bode of people, many of them far from welt off, who are not willing sellers, who ask only to be left alone, and who in fact are being despoiled

719
of their property. I think it is a humiliating reflection that the British Government have a lower standard of public morality in dealing with nationalization of public services than the Government of the Argentine—because that is what it amounts to. The Argentine Government could have imposed the terms that His Majesty's Government are imposing, but in dealing with foreigners they recognized that the good name of the Argentine was at stake. I do suggest that the good name of the State is at stake in this matter. If these terms of compensation go through, many people will legitimately feel that a grave injustice has been committed against them.
Surely, the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, the mover of this Amendment, is a generally accepted one. He said that if you take property compulsorily by Act of Parliament, the principle of compensation for disturbance is generally recognized. That is so, and he puts the figure at 20 per cent. It is no answer for the noble Lord answering on behalf of the Government to say, "why not 10 per cent.; why not 3o per cent.?"—which is what he said. The added value for disturbance is generally something in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent. What I am contending for now is recognition of the principle that there should be compensation for disturbance. In cases where the State is treating someone who is not a willing seller as if he were a willing seller, there are ample precedents for added compensation. Therefore, I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. I think that if this Bill is carried in its present form in that particular respect, the Government will have inflicted a cruel injury on many humble households. They will not have saved the country any money at all. It is simply a question as to whose pocket the money should be in; whether it should be in the pocket of the general taxpayer or of certain individuals. They will not have saved any money for the community, but they will have inflicted an injustice on many humble households which I believe they will live to regret.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It appears to me that the speech to which we have just listened puts this matter in so conclusive and effective a manner that it is doubtful whether any additional argument will
720
carry any additional weight; but I would add this single reflection, by way of confirmation of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and by the noble Earl who has just spoken. There can be no doubt at all, I suppose, in the minds of any fair-minded citizen that, if it could be reasonably secured, the proper way to proceed in this matter would be to have an impartial tribunal to decide the amount of compensation. It has been done in previous cases. A distinguished man, the present Master of the Rolls, presided over such a tribunal, with reference to coal, not so long ago, and if the circumstances permit here I suppose there is nobody who would deny that that is the proper way to ascertain a fair sum. Nobody wants more than that, and nobody ought to want to pay less than that.
It is a perfectly well-established method which has been applied again and again. Take an early illustration in my own experience. When I was a Law Officer the Government decided that they would acquire the whole undertaking of the National Telephone Company, which was an immense organization and which claimed compensation of £20,000,000. How did they proceed? They did not take the quotation of the Stock Exchange, to be derived from certain transactions on a limited amount of stock which, as it happened, somebody had on that day put into the hands of a stockbroker to sell, and which somebody or other purchased. One could hardly conceive a method more chancy than that. The Stock Exchange is not professing to find out for you what is the scientific value of a whole block of shares. That is not what it is trying to do. It is merely engaged in adjusting, through the haggling of the market, what may be the figure arrived at in the case of the limited number of shares which on that day happen to be dealt with.
How did we deal with the case of the National Telephone Company? They claimed, as I have said, £20,000,000. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will remember well what happened, because he was Postmaster-General at the time—
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Just afterwards.
VISCOUNT SIMON: At any rate, I recollect it very well, and he was not discontented with the result. After an arbitration, held before a distinguished Judge with two colleagues (one of whom was a

721
very well-known man of business), after the matter had been thoroughly investigated in open court, with evidence, an award was given which was regarded as very satisfactory to the Government of the day. I remember that holders of deferred shares of that particular enterprise were on tenterhooks, because if the amount awarded was more than a certain figure the lowest denomination of shares would be worth something, whereas if the award was of a rather smaller figure they would be forth nothing at all For a time it was as exciting as the Derby. But a figure was arrived at and in due course it was paid. The method was the method constantly and properly employed when a Government are acquiring individual shares. I say, without any fear of contradiction—and I do not think anyone who is acquainted with these things will deny it—that if it is reasonably feasible, the proper way to arrive at a figure is by the method of arbitration.
It is said that that will involve delay and that on that ground the Government cannot adopt that process on the present occasion. Whether or not that is a good argument, I will not discuss. But at any rate if the Government decide to do something else, they ought to produce some solid argument to show that the substitute method is something like fair. It is quite ridiculous to suppose that prices on the Stock Exchange on particular days, which were arrived at by reference to limited numbers of transactions chalked up in the proper way in the Stock Exchange, representing a change of ownership in a limited number of shares between citizens who want to sell and ether citizens who want to buy, have the smallest resemblance to the nature of the transaction which is now to take place under this Bill.
This is not a sale by such people as want to sell; it is in many cases a forced deprivation of Interest in this great concern which the present owner does not in the least want to suffer. Adopting, as it is entitled to do, a general view about public interests, Parliament says: "Whether you like it or not, you must give up your interests and we will buy them." For my own part, I am taking no objection to that, because I quite agree that whether or not railways should be nationalized is a very moot point. It has been decided by a majority in the other place that it shall be so, and I do not see that we here are in a position—I cer-
722
tainly am not personally in a position—to challenge that as a matter of principle. What I do say is that once you decide that that is the proper policy for the Government to adopt, you arc bound to see to it that you deal with the people whose interests are to be forfeited and handed to the State on some principle which can be justified in its nature as being as fair as the proper method of arbitration.
I cannot see that that is so here. I find it difficult to think that any noble Lord, any gentleman who has any real knowledge of this class of subject—namely, the subject of the Government compulsorily acquiring great undertakings—will say that you can arrive at a correct result by taking the Stock Exchange quotations on certain selected dates. I really doubt very much whether there is anybody on the other side who will get up and pledge his reputation as a man who understands something about this business by telling me that that is a possible and proper substitute. Therefore, though I quite agree that adding 120 per cent. is only a round figure, I think it is at least an attempt to correct a perfectly manifest maltreatment of the people who are owners of these great blocks of shares.
It is not a question of inflicting injury on a few rich people. There must be many of us familiar with this class of holding, who know that there are many small trusts who hold these shares, and still want to continue to hold them. I have no doubt the noble Earl is right—though we do not want to make it just a matter of sentiment—that there are vast numbers of small people who, under the terms of this Bill, have to face being severely mulcted, and having their incomes seriously reduced as a result of this transaction. Is that right? Do the Socialist Party, who claim particularly to look after the interests of the small man, really think it right to say: "We are going to adopt this method and everybody must put up with it"? It is my humble submission, so far as my experience goes (I do not claim that it is greater than many others Whom I see opposite me, but it is considerable)—that it is a method which has not been employed in the past in similar cases, and it is quite obvious that it does not produce a fair result. It was the Unjust Steward that said: "Sit down quickly and write

723
fifty," and I would hope that the Government in this matter are not going to imitate his example.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (3), after "issue" to insert "to the holders of the securities of the body in question." The noble Earl said: I think this Amendment has as much meat on it as the one which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Beveridge, and although it opens up the same wide field of reference as his does, at this late hour I want to move it as simply and as shortly as I can. I have tried to achieve the same object as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, but I am not asking quite so much. My object, also, is to mitigate some of the great loss of income imposed on the present proprietors of the railways, the railway stockholders by the terms of compensation provided for in this Bill. By those terms they will be subject—as other noble Lords have pointed out in the discussion of the last Amendment—to a loss of income which amounts over all to no less than 42 per cent. of their income. I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will give me his attention because my Amendment is so reasonable and so equitable that I am confident it will be accepted by the Government. In fact, I hope to persuade them of the wisdom of accepting it. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, they cannot afford to be mean on this subject. If I were sitting on those Benches over there, I would impress on the Leader of the House the political wisdom of accepting the Amendment which, as I am advised, will not cost the Government or the Commission more than £2,750,000 a year—not a very large sum out of the £17,000,000 which the Government will save on the annual cost of the railways, which will all come out of the pockets of the shareholders. It represents this 42 per cent. loss of income, of which I have spoken.
There is already a precedent in the Bill for improving the compensation paid to various interested persons. For instance, Amendments have already been passed improving the compensation to waggon owners, private waggon owners, and local authorities. So there is a precedent for improving the compensation paid to the
724
class of person who is hardest hit—the railway stockholders. As a director of a railway, I directly represent these stockholders, and I make no apology even at this late hour for standing up for their interests and trying to mitigate this great hardship. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and others have said, they represent a large proportion of our population, and they represent all classes of the community. Most of them will vote at the next election. A great many of them are widows, old people, pensioners and cripples, people with tiny fixed incomes who are incapacitated by age or infirmity from increasing their incomes in any way. And all of them are suffering severe financial loss. A great many of these people invested in prior transport stock because they regarded it as a public-spirited, non-speculative and safe investment; or their trustees did it for them for the same reason.
I cannot help feeling that noble Lords opposite are suffering considerable twinges of conscience over the injustice which they are imposing upon these people. In fact, certain speeches made on the Second Reading—notably the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw—revealed the inner feelings of some noble Lords on those Benches in regard to this matter. The £17,000,000 which the Government are saving on the cost of the railways is reached by the difference in aggregate yield of interest on present stock and future yields on British Transport stock, assuming that the rate of interest on that stock will be 2½ per cent. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place said: "You do not know what rates of interest are going to be agreed by the Treasury when the time comes; it may be five per cent." Of course, that is absolute nonsense. But the stocks are being taken over, as has been explained, on certain dates, on the Stock Exchange valuation ruling at certain pre-Election dates and post-Election dates.
I am not going into all that, because it has been gone into thoroughly in a most excellent way by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, but every business man knows that Stock Exchange valuations do not represent the true value of any business. All sorts of speculative circumstances enter into Stock Exchange values and they bear little relation to the

725
carefully calculated valuation of an individual business. They produce all sorts of anomalies between different classes of holder of stock. There is an example of that on page 133 of the Bill, the Fourth Schedule, where the value of the 2½ per cent. Debenture G.W.R. stock has been taken out at £95 10s. The 5 per cent. Debenture stock, which is quoted a little lower dawn, ranks pari passu with the 2½ per cent. stock for the same class of stock, and you would imagine that the value would be double and—if my mathematics are correct—would come to £191. The value is actually £142 7s. 6d. which shows the kind of anomaly that goes on when you take Stock Exchange valuations.
We would have preferred the method of arbitration, as the noble and learned Viscount has just pointed out, but the Government have not taken this way. They have adopted this method of stock exchange valuation. All I am asking for, under this Amendment, is that the present proprietors who are now to be compensated should be allowed to choose the pre-Election Stock Exchange value which they can choose under the Bill. They are not choosing them at the present moment, because they are the lower valuation of the two; and in compensation they should be given stocks which bear interest ruling on comparable Government securities at the same date. I ask what can be fairer and more logical than that? That will reduce the over-all loss of income to stockholders from 42 per cent. to 35 per cent. There will still be a tremendous loss, but it is a little bit of sugar for them. It places the form of compensation on a still more equitable basis and it will cost the Government only £2,750,000 out of the £17,000,000 which they are filching from the pockets of the shareholders; and at least they will ameliorate the injustice being done to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 44, after ("to") insert ("one hundred and twenty per Cent. of")—(The Earl of Dudley).
10.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am going to intervene for only a very few moments to ask the Government, even if they cannot accept this Amendment, to give us a little information as to what the real future of these unfortunate people is going to be. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, made great play in saying:
726
"Well, how can you justify 120? Why should it not be no?" I ask the noble Lord not to justify—because I do not think he can justify it—but to tell us what it is he is proposing to pay, and to give us some real indication of what the people are going to get. I think that something on the lines of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge (I like the noble Lord's second Amendment better than I like his first), or something on the lines of the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, is the right way of meeting it. There is great uncertainty about what these people are going to get.
Before we part with this Bill we ought to know what the formula in Clause 89 means. Nobody can pretend that the income which the Government are going to give the shareholders in this case is fair because, by common consent, the Government is going to reduce the income of almost every railway shareholder, if not of every railway shareholder. I do not believe anybody could pretend that a case could be established in equity for the kind of debenture which my noble friend has cited. The people who hold irredeemable, absolutely secured, debentures want to go on holding those debentures; they do not hold them with a view to realizing capital; they hold them because they know that they form one of the really safe ways of obtaining an income. I am, fortunately, a very small railway shareholder (if I am one at all) but as chairman of a diocesan board of finance I am the trustee of very large holdings in these companies. We have a perpetual life, and we did not buy these securities in order to realize them on the Stock Exchange. We bought them because we knew they were safe, irredeemable securities. That is the one thing a trust of that kind wants, and upon that the whole financial programme of a diocese is based, including the giving of a living wage to a priest in charge.
I am not going to say any more about that, but nobody can pretend that giving 2½ per cent, is a fair equivalent. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never claimed that that was a fair equivalent. What he said, as I understand it, is "Broad and large, I do not think this is an unfair thing to do to you because though I am going greatly to reduce your income, yet I am going to give you such a security of capital in

727
my wonderful gilt-edged stock that you will really be better off." Very few people will think that. Not only are they being deprived of income, but they are putting their heads into a noose as regards capital.
When this Bill was drafted it was all done on the assumption that 2½ per cent. money at par was the worst possible outlook from the point of view of the Exchequer and that very likely the money rate would improve and possibly become 2¼ per cent. Anybody who looks at the figure at which the Treasury 2½ per cent. stock stands to-day will say that this is a proposition which no Chancellor of the Exchequer can advance with any decency to people to whom this offer has been made—perhaps I should not say "to whom this offer has been made," but "upon whom this deal is being forced." I beg the noble Lord not to ride off with some specious argument as to whether the percentage proposed by my noble friend is right or fair as between different stocks, or by lumping them together. I ask the noble Lord to tell us what is the meaning of this formula on which they are to be assessed, and what security there will be for the future once they are so assessed and paid out as though they were being paid so much in pounds in a concern which is not solvent.
LORD NATHAN: The Amendment which we dealt with last was one which was based on the footing that the Government's assessment of the value was too low. The Amendment now proposed by the noble Earl is designed to take a lower assessment, namely the pre-Election assessment of value. But the noble Earl reaches the same conclusion. It all works out at very much the same figure, because the noble Earl, whilst wishing to have the 1945 value, wishes to attribute to that value the rate of interest then prevailing, which would in fact have the result of making the issue of compensation stock equal to 120 per cent. of the value in the pre-Election period, and would involve about 12 per cent. more than will be issued under the Bill as drafted. So the sweet reasonableness, as it appeared to be, of the noble Earl—whose sincerity and warmth of feeling on the matter I wish to acknowledge—brings us to almost the same position, although by a different road, as that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge.
728
I think it would be quite unprecedented, when a value had been achieved, to apply to that value a rate of interest applicable not to the current period but to a period long anterior. I know of no instance where a value is based upon an assessment in the past and the rate of interest attributable thereto is applied three years later on the basis of the rate of interest prevailing at the time when that assessment was made. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked what in fact the debenture-holders and shareholders are to get. Naturally, there would be many advantages if for every pound in the valuation, a pound in cash were paid. But a cash transaction is not practicable in dealing with the very large amounts here. So the valuation is related to the terms of British Transport stock. The rate of interest to be borne by that stock is one which will be settled when the date comes and the state of Government credit is known. The assumption that has been made in the various calculations has been on the footing of 2½ per cent., as mentioned by the noble Earl opposite.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: 2½ per cent. at par?
LORD NATHAN: 2½ per cent. at par. While that rate is, of course, an assumption, it is always open to the holder to translate that Government security, if so minded, into cash and to buy, if they be available on the market or otherwise, securities of one kind or another which will achieve a higher rate of return. That is open to the holder, as it is to all of us who hold this security or that security, and who think we may be able, by change of investment, to achieve a higher rate of interest—
EARL GREY: As Trustees?
LORD NATHAN: —if we be minded to seek a higher rate of interest at the expense of some measure of security.
THE EARL OF STAIR: Would trustees be allowed to do that?
LORD NATHAN: It is a factor to be borne in mind that the security is a Government security and there is, therefore, a factor of safety which has not hitherto applied and which I think noble Lords have perhaps overlooked.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would the capital value be altered?
LORD NATHAN: That question will arise in another Amendment later on.
THE EARL OF STAIR: Would the noble Lord say whether trustees would be allowed to do that?
LORD NATHAN: I will come to trustees in a moment. This talk of the Trustee Act implies some guarantee as to security, but it does no more than exonerate the trustees from liability if a loss should be incurred. The argument with respect to the Trustee Act, is, with great respect, not very relevant to the consideration of this matter. A Government security is given in exchange for a security which has by no means the same clement of safety. Perhaps it has been overlooked that as regards some of the junior railway stocks, for the first time for many years interest will be received by shareholders who for a long period of years have received no interest at all.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not know what the situation is about the eleven o'clock rule in this House, but, following on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I do not think this subject has been as yet fully threshed out. I do not want to detain your Lordships beyond eleven o'clock, and it is now eleven o'clock. In those circumstances, I think it would be wiser to move to resume.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There are plenty of other opportunities on other Amendments.
NOBLE LORDS: No, No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Allow me to finish my sentence. I know the next Amendment of the noble Earl raises it and, therefore, I hope the House will be willing to dispense with this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My next Amendment is consequential and if this Amendment falls that falls too.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I might suggest it, I think it would be perhaps wise if we stopped now. My reason is merely that this is a subject upon which very deep convictions are felt. Whether it is possible for this House to do anything in the matter is a very different question, but noble Lords can express their views. Nearly all of us know of extremely hard cases. I do not, for a moment, pretend that everybody who
730
holds railway stocks is a widow or an orphan, but we all know of very bitter disappointments and hardships which are now being caused. I do not want to detain the House now, but I have much I can say on this question, and I know that many other noble Lords are in the same position. I think that if the general public were to see that the House of Lords, in order to rise, curtailed a debate on a subject of such intense importance to a number of very poor people, it would have a very bad effect. I suggest it would be better to adjourn now and allow the matter to continue at the next opportunity.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure that my statement is correct. According to the somewhat loose methods of order of this House, there are abundant opportunities of discussing these issues on the other Amendments on the paper. If we can have this understanding. as we often do in these matters, that there should be a general discussion on the whole issue, so that we should not have separate discussions on individual Amendments as we go along, it would be very advantageous.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I move that the House do resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: On the Motion that the House do resume, perhaps the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will give me an answer to my question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think there is a good deal to be said for having a general discussion. It seems to me, in view of the strong feeling among very large numbers of noble Lords, that it would be wise to leave the matter where it is to-night, let the noble Earl's Amendment stand, and then perhaps when the House resumes for farther debate, it will be quite possible for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to put forward his proposal. We could then proceed to a general debate. I hope that noble Lords will agree to that. There may be some noble Lords who wish to speak on points they wish to make on their own Amendments, and I am sure the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, does not wish to prevent that. After that we might

731
proceed to a general discussion. I suggest that that would be the best way out of our difficulties.
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

WELLINGTON MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
NAZEING WOOD OR PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.