TRANSPORT BILL.

HL Deb 19 June 1947 vol 148 cc1053-155

4.5 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 48:

Date and mode of payment of compensation.

(3) The amounts payable in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section by the Commission shall be satisfied, in the manner provided for by Part VI of this Act, by the issue of British transport stock:

Provided that where the amount payable to a person on any date is less than two thousand pounds, the person to whom it is to be paid may, by notice in writing to the Commission given within the prescribed time, require that the Commission shall pay the said sum in cash and it shall be paid in cash accordingly.

THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN) moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to leave out "is less than two" and insert "does not exceed twenty." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, with the following Amendment, is designed to ameliorate the terms as regards the payment of compensation. It permits the sum of £2,000 to be paid in cash when the amount of compensa- tion does not exceed £20,000. The subsection as it stood was limited to those cases where compensation was not more than £2,000 in all. It was represented to the Government that hardship would be effected were this £2,000 limit maintained, so that limit has been increased to £20,000 in order to meet the representations made by the Road Haulage Association. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 32, leave out ("is less than two") and insert ("does not exceed twenty").—(Lord Nathan.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think that is reasonable.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NATHAN moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to leave out "pay the said sum in cash and it shall be paid in cash accordingly," and insert: satisfy the said amount or, if the said amount exceeds two thousand pounds, two thousand pounds thereof by a payment in cash, and the said amount shall, either wholly or to that extent, be satisfied. The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6i, line 35, leave out from the first ("shall") to ("accordingly") in line 36 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Nathan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50:

Duty of transferor as to carrying on undertaking until transfer.

50.—(1) Where notice of acquisition has been given with respect to an undertaking, the transferor shall, until the date of transfer or the date on which the notice is withdrawn or otherwise ceases to have effect, carry on the undertaking in the ordinary course of business and maintain it in as efficient condition as it was in before the giving of the notice, and shall not without the previous consent in writing of the Commission given either generally or specially (which he shall apply for if it is necessary for the purposes aforesaid)—

1. (a) sell, dispose of or let or hire out for more than six months any land or vehicles held for the purposes of the undertaking; or
2. (b) enter into a contract for the purposes of the undertaking extending for more than twelve months; or
3. (c) undertake any new works estimated to cost more than five hundred pounds in all:

Provided that where the activities of the undertaking in question consist partly of the operation of vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences and partly of other activities this subsection shall not apply to transactions solely concerning such other activities.

LORD NATHAN

This Amendment is designed for the purpose of clarification. It is to meet the case where a part of the business is to be taken over and part not. Under the clause as drawn there will be an obligation on the transferor to maintain the whole of the undertaking until the transfer. It is proposed to change that and it will stand in the Bill as stated as regards what is to be taken over but with regard to the other activities that obligation will not exist. It is designed to help the transferor. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 6, leave out from ("vehicles") to ("and") in line 7 and insert ("which are to vest in the Commission by virtue of the notice of acquisition").—(Lord Nathan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill:

LORD BEVERIDGE

May I just raise a point op Clause 50? I do not think the Committee ought to part with this clause completely without appreciating one or two points about it, and I think that the question arises on an Amendment to an earlier clause. Clause 50, as your Lordships will see, has the effect that when a notice of acquisition has been served the owner of the undertaking is in a strait jacket. I only call the attention of your Lordships to this fact. That is the effect of the notice of acquisition. He has to carry on on behalf of the Commission. He is not allowed to sell, dispose of, let or hire for more than six months. He is not allowed to enter into contracts for the purposes of the undertaking, and he is not allowed to undertake any new work. I do not think it necessary to stress the fact, but that is hardly going to conduce either to business enterprise or economic recovery, which is important. I suggest that it is very important that the period for which this strait jacketing shall continue should be definitely limited. There is nothing in the Bill to limit it. The notice has to be served within a prescribed time. I think that is under Clause 44. Also the date of transfer must not be before a certain date. But the date of transfer can be as long after that date as the Commission specify.

If you look at Clause 44 every notice of acquisition specifies a date for the transfer not earlier than the prescribed time. I suggest that something should be put in saying also that it should not be later than the prescribed time, because this may be a very long business. It is going to be a long business, anyway, getting the returns upon which you make the notice of acquisition, and decide whether you make a notice of acquisition; and then there may be a very long time during which the notice of acquisition is being disputed by the owner of the undertaking. But even if it is not disputed, as the Bill stands it would be possible for the Commission to send a large number of notices of acquisition six months or a year hence, or something of that sort. I suggest for consideration on the Report stage the question whether you should have a provision requiring them to act promptly. I am not opposing the clause, although I am sorry to see it in the Bill, but I suggest that it should be considered from that point of view.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I have not had time to trace this through with certainty, but if the transferor in the clause to which the noble Lord has just referred means the person upon whom a notice has been served, he may, of course, turn out in the end not to be a person whose business is within the clause. That is a point which we discussed previously in a different connexion. It would be particularly unfortunate if the case were one where a notice had been served on such a man who, in fact, it turned out, was not within the scheme of the Bill, and he should be held up for an unnecessary time. This does not need elaborating; it is plain enough. It is not a very uncommon thing in large villages and country towns for a business which is exempted, to be carried on by someone who also does other work. For example, a funeral business may well be carried on by someone who also does the work of a joiner—the same man who carries out the funeral makes the coffin and so on. The question may arise in some cases whether such a man is within the exception or not. It would be unfortunate if a man who were not within the scheme of the Bill was tied under these restrictions for an unnecessary time. I am not sure about this, though. I see that the transferor is referred to some half a dozen clauses before this.

LORD NATHAN

I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge and to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The matters to which they have directed attention shall certainly receive consideration.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

4.12 p.m.

Clause 51:

Information, etc.

51.—(1) The licensing authority for goods vehicles for any area shall, on demand by the Commission, supply to the Commission any such information, obtained by the authority or any predecessor of his in his office either as such or as a Regional Transport Commissioner acting on behalf of the Minister, with respect to the nature of the business carried on by a person carrying on any undertaking as the Commission may reasonably require for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the undertaking is one with respect to which the Commission arc bound under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act to serve a notice of acquisition.

LORD NATHAN

The Amendment in subsection (1) is a drafting Amendment, which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 35, leave out ("for goods vehicles").—(Lord Nathan.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Is it not a little more than drafting? If the Committee will look at Clause 51, at page 64, line 35, they will see that it says: The licensing authority for goods vehicles for any area shall, on demand by the Commission, supply to the Commission any such information.… If we leave out the words "for goods vehicles," as I understand it, "licensing authority" will mean both the licensing authority for goods vehicles and the licensing authority for passenger vehicles. Is that not so?

LORD NATHAN

I do not think so, because this Part of the Bill—Part III, which begins at Clause 30—refers to the transport of goods by road. That applies to the whole of this set of clauses in this Part.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If we mean licensing authority for goods vehicles, why not say so? As a matter of fact, the licensing authorities which were called Commissioners, are now rechristened, under the definition clause, into two sets of licensing authorities. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will look into this. I should have thought that "licensing authority," by itself whether it appears in this or another Part of the Bill, could stand for either of the authorities. The definition clause states: 'licensing authority for goods vehicles' means a licensing authority within Part 1 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. On the next page we find: 'licensing authority for public service vehicles' means one of the bodies established under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and heretofore known as 'Traffic Commissioners.' "Licensing authority" by itself is not defined, and I would have thought that this is a general direction wherever it comes in the Bill that a licensing authority shall, on demand by the Commission, supply to the Commission such information as may be required. I should have thought that it was a matter of common sense that by this Amendment we are striking out words in a way which will have the effect of making the term "licensing authority" mean either of the authorities. I am not saying that this is wrong. If, as I think is quite reasonable, we are met on the next Amendment, which says that if you ask for information you ought to let the person concerned know, I feel that that will satisfy us.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

I have asked the draftsman about this and he has referred me to page 126. The first paragraph on that page which contains part of Clause 123, reads: Except in so far as the context otherwise requires expressions used in Part III of this Act have the same meaning as in the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933.… That being so, he thought the words which we are here proposing to leave out were unnecessary. I will look at this and see if it is so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: Provided that the Commission shall, at the same time as they demand information under this section in respect to the business of any person, give notice to such person that such a demand is being made, and. The noble Lord said: As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swinton, speaking on a previous Amendment, as this clause is drawn the Commission may apply to the licensing authority for information concerning a business carried on by a road haulage undertaking. If this is done, when—and not until—the information has been supplied the operator is duly informed. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that a person carrying on an undertaking should be informed immediately the request is made by the Commission for information; otherwise, during the period that the information is being collected rumours are bound to arise as to whether a certain undertaking is to be taken over by the Commission or not. This, I believe, would be bound to cause a state of uncertainty among the employees of the business, and perhaps rather lead to disorganization of the business. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 45, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD NATHAN

It is, of course, already provided that information furnished by the licensing authorities to the Commission is to be transmitted to the person affected. I can scarcely see good reason for this Amendment. After all, it may be said, from one point of view that the owner of an undertaking will be in the best position to know whether or not his undertaking comes within the provisions of the Bill. It is quite right and proper, as it seems to me, that when any information about his concern is given by the licensing authority to the Commission, the undertaker should be informed so that he should know what has been put into the possession of the Commission. But the Commission may write all sorts of letters making inquiries about this and that, and it would be very onerous on the Commission if they were required to communicate copies of all these communications to the undertaker. I feel that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary and is not required for the purpose of ensuring fair play and justice.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

This is not very important, but on the other hand, it does seem to be exactly the kind of case where some give and take is called for to make things easier. The noble Lord has, I think, exaggerated. It is not suggested that the undertaker should be entitled to ask for copies of the communications sent out by the Commission. The noble Lord said it would be a very onerous duty if the Commission were required to give to some third party copies of all communications they made to these licensing authorities. That is not what is asked for. What is asked for is that when they start inquiries from the licensing authority, the object of which obviously must be to ascertain whether a man is within or without the taking-over clause, they should let the man know they are making that inquiry. The noble Lord says the man is the best person to know, but he is not the best person to know whether a claim is to be made against him. I should have thought it would make easier the working of this rather complicated procedure if, when they were making an inquiry, he was informed. I do not know if Government Departments use the telephone now, but it is an easy way of communication and often the information might be obtained by some agent representing a Department. Rumour is such a tiresome thing. Somebody says, "What have you been inquiring about me for?" and rumours get about. Would it not be best to say at the outset they were going to ask information about him?

LORD NATHAN

I have listened to what the noble Viscount says, and he will forgive me if I say I do not find it very convincing. Inquiries may be made by the Commission orally. No information will come to the Commission from licensing authorities without the person affected being informed. It seems to me that should be an adequate safeguard for persons owning an undertaking. I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am not dividing the Committee about this, but the noble Lord makes things a little difficult. He says, "Of course the man will be informed about any communications," but he said in the breath before that, a lot of communications will be purely verbal. Is the man to be informed of the verbal communications?

LORD NATHAN

I said he would be informed of the outcome of the communications, not of the making of communications.

LORD TEYNHAM

I do not wish to press this. If the Government could accept the Amendment, it would make the Bill run a little more smoothly. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider something to meet the case on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

4.24 p.m.

Clause 52:

Additional restrictions on carriage of goods for hire and reward.

52.—(i) On and after the appointed day, it shall be a condition of every A licence and every B licence that, except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Commission, goods shall not be carried for hire or reward in any authorised vehicle if the vehicle, at any time while the goods are being so carried, is more than twenty-five miles from its operating centre, and the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall have effect as if the said condition were included among the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section eight of that Act:

Provided that the said condition shall not apply where—

1. (a) the goods carried are liquids carried in bulk in a tank permanently fixed to the vehicle, or in a tank not so fixed of which the capacity is not less than five hundred gallons, or the carriage is an ordinary furniture removal, or the goods carried are meat or livestock; or
2. (b) the vehicle is a vehicle specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads; Or
3. (c) a notice of acquisition has been served with respect to the undertaking for the purposes of which the vehicle is being used and has not been withdrawn or declared to be of no effect, and, if that notice has effect, the vehicle will, by virtue of the notice, be transferred to the Commission.

(2) The Commission shall have full power in their discretion either to grant or to refuse any such permit as aforesaid, and any such permit may be granted by them for such period and subject to such conditions as they think fit, and they may at any time, by notice in writing to the holder of the permit, revoke, suspend or vary the permit.

(3) The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to every A or B licence whether granted before or after the passing of this Act, and whether or not the condition provided for by this section is expressed in the licence.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "fifty" for "twenty-five." The noble lord said: This Amendment is really consequential on the Amendment agreed to on Clause 39, which increases the limit of the distance within which road haulage operators will be allowed to conduct their business, and allows A and B licence holders to carry goods for hire or reward without a permit up to a distance of fifty miles instead of the twenty-five miles as set out in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 8, to leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Teynham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not going to ask the Committee to divide on this matter, and I wish to make it plain why. May I say, with great respect, that the noble Lord is wrong in saying that this Amendment is consequential on the one which was agreed to on Clause 39? It is no such thing; it is a wholly different matter. On Clause 39 we considered the question as to the businesses which will be taken over, and we discussed at some length the criteria to be applied to determine which businesses will be taken over. Your Lordships carried an Amendment against the Government substituting the figure "fifty" for "twenty-five." But during the discussion on that clause, as I had occasion to point out several times, the arguments which were adduced were more appropriate to Clause 52 than to Clause 39, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that we should not have the discussion twice. I intend to fall in with that view, although it is not quite logical and this Amendment is not consequential. I should like your Lordships to understand what I am doing. It is not that I am sulking about Clause 39. I have a clue regard to the saving of time and I can estimate pretty accurately what the result of a Division would be, but I do not want anybody to say hereafter that because we have not divided we are in any way assenting to this Amendment. We are in exactly the same position as if we had come to a Division and been defeated on it.

There is also this element which I should point out. When discussing Clause 39, I told your Lordships that we estimated that 2o,000 out of 8o,000 odd A vehicles would be taken over. As the result of the Amendments we have made to Clause 39, and as the Bill stands at the present time, it is obvious that the number of vehicles to be taken over will be many fewer than the eo,000 I then anticipated. We passed an Amendment about the onus of proof. This is a case where the facts arc facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the owners of an undertaking, and as the Commission now have to prove affirmatively a case, the facts of which are primarily within the knowledge of the undertakers, there will obviously be a large number of cases that will escape the net. I anticipate roughly that the number of vehicles now being taken over will be nearer 2,000 than 20,000. I put it in that vague way but I do not think anybody can make a better guess. That being so, it is obvious, to my mind, that the Commission are going to have only a comparatively few vehicles.

That in itself is a reason why we should allow vehicles not to be taken over a greater latitude than they otherwise would have. For that reason, too, I shall not divide the Committee on this Amendment. What I have said will apply to all these other Amendments when we come to them. I am anxious not to waste time, but I am most anxious that none of your Lordships should think that because we are not dividing the Government are in any way assenting, or that they will not, in the future, do their best to get it altered again.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not dissent from the bulk of what the Lord Chancellor has said. Strictly speaking, of course, this is not consequential. On the other hand, I think you will agree it is equally true to say that if we left "forty" and "twenty-five" in here and passed "eighty" and "fifty" in Clause 39, we should be making nonsense of the whole Bill. We did agree to discuss the two things together. Obviously if we are to allow people to operate on a fifty-mile radius on an eighty-mile journey it would be absurd to take over the businesses of people who were operating, and then allow new people to come in in their places. It was, therefore, essential that we should discuss the two clauses together. I quite accept that the Government oppose this; that is perfectly clearly understood. I have never really been greatly concerned with numbers, and I only say this because of what the Lord Chancellor has said about 20,000 and 2,000. It did not seem to me that this case should be decided by whether there were many or few, and I argued that last time. What we had to decide it upon was what was right and reasonable to bring in, and what was reasonable to leave out- side. It does not seem to me that the argument is weighted particularly one way or the other by whether the numbers on one side or the other are more or less. The question is: What is right and what is reasonable?

I fully accept what the Lord Chancellor said. Equally on our side there were a number of proposals about special types of traffic which we proposed and argued strenuously and which were negatived. We do not propose to move any of these again; we accept the decision which the Committee took about this traffic on Clause 39, and we shall not attempt to move them in Clause 52. There were one or two cases held over for further consideration, such as ancillary vehicles, the special case of the crofting counties, and perishable goods, and I would suggest to the Committee that the convenient thing, as these subjects have to come up again for reconsideration, would be that we should not debate them at all now. But that is equally without prejudice to the consideration of these on Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I shall regard my undertaking to consult with the Minister as equally applicable to the same points in Clause 52.

LORD BEVERIDGE

May I express the appreciation of noble Lords who sit on these Benches of the decision of the Government not to take up the time of the Committee in needless Divisions? And I would add that Clause 52 as a whole is just as unpopular with my noble friends who sit on these Benches as anything in the Amendment can be to the Government, but we also propose to save time by not dividing on that clause.

I would like to put two sentences about Clause 39 and Clause 52. As the noble and learned Viscount who has spoken for the Government knows, I have always stressed the difference between Clause 39 and Clause 52. Clause 39 is a clause which deals with the taking over of undertakings, and Clause 52 is a clause which states what shall be done by those undertakings that are not taken over. I want to stress this because I hope it will facilitate further discussion. That makes the Amendments to Clause 52 not merely consequential but gives them a much stronger case than the Amendments to Clause 39. The question of whether an undertaking is taken over or not is settled once and for all. It is taken over and it becomes a State undertaking; or it is left as a private undertaking. I do not regard it as an absolute disaster for anything to be taken over by the State. We on these Benches have never taken the line that anything the State does must necessarily he back On the other hand, Clause 52 does de something which, to us, is thoroughly wrong and most unfortunate. I can illustrate that by referring to the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount. The strongest case he put against this Amendment on Clause 39 was that the Government were being extremely moderate in that they were proposing to take over only 20,000 vehicles. May I suggest it is really 3o,000 vehicles, because there are also the I0,000 vehicles of the railway companies?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is 20,000 out of 80,000, or 30,000 out of 90,000.

LOUD BEVERIDGE

There were 140,000 A and B licences on January 1, 1946. Of these, under the Government's original proposal something like 30,000 would have been taken over, and they would have been free to do anything. Under Clause 52, the 110,000 which are left will not be able to do what they want; they will be restricted in all sorts of ways. Remember that when an undertaking has been taken over the man cannot go and begin another undertaking. Clause 39 is a temporary thing, but Clause 52 is a permanent thing in that a vehicle is not allowed to do more than 100 miles. The noble and learned Viscount asked me if I had driven a car. I have driven a car enough to know that there is no real difference between 100 miles and 50 miles. A vehicle can be driven for either distance.

The point I want to make is that the case for all these Amendments to Clause 52 is much stronger than the case for the corresponding Amendments to Clause 39. In fact, you could have taken over the undertakings on a quite different principle—you might have said that all undertakings of a certain size should be taken over—but as you have gone on this principle of doing sums (a principle we think to be bad) it is, on the whole, desirable that the sums to be done under Clause 39 and Clause 52 should be of the same character. But in so far as they are not of the same character, I hope that the Government, when they come to consider what line they are going to take on our Amendments, will say something on that, because Clause 52 is a continuing restriction by Act of Parliament on the most efficient use of the rare vehicles in this country.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I make one point in regard to this general question which has not been discussed? That is that to-day we are trying, in our replanning, to decongest our urban areas. That means to say that to facilitate an increase in the amount of movement which can take place in urban areas, this limitation of 25 miles, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has indicated, will tend to readjust our areas into smaller areas. That is an important point. We have seen the redevelopment of our towns, which are now planned very largely on the distance a motor car can run in a day. The distance in the Bill would, to a large extent, limit the suitable places in which factories and other buildings can be built. This is a most important point, and one which will affect the whole of our planning in this country, and it should be borne very carefully in mind.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.40 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "where," to insert: (a) the goods carried are such supplies as are necessary to the practice of the registered pharmacist and to the maintenance of the National Health Service; or. The noble Lord said: The spirit behind this Amendment is simply that we want to see every facility given in all circumstances for the delivery of the products of any pharmaceutical firm at as great a speed as possible. I am aware that the bulk of the pharmiceutical firms run under C licences, but a great number of them do not. It does appear that those firms who do not run under C licences will be detrimentally interfered with in their business. I will put this point before your Lordships. Suppose a firm is rung up by a medical office: of health 150 miles away, and he wants at once a particular drug that that firm prduces. When this matter was raised in another place, the Minister's answer was; "Yes, a permit would be given in a case of that sort." But we all know what a time it takes to get a permit. I want to see greater speed and flexibility in the transport of drugs of any sort from one part of the country to the other. I hope the Government will reconsider the decision arrived at in another place, and give the facilities for which I ask, because I regard them as very material to the health of our people. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Teviot.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

On Clause 39 we had a considerable discussion on dangerous drugs, and I resisted the Amendment then moved. I believe I am right in saying that it was not pressed to a Division.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It was negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It was negatived. It is obvious that the argument with regard to these drugs would, a fortiori, apply to any supplies to a chemist's shop. I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.

LORD TEVIOT

With regard to the answer of the noble and learned Viscount, I would say that this Amendment does not necessarily apply to dangerous drugs. It applies to the ordinary drugs that might be required if an epidemic breaks out at a distance beyond which the firm are able to deliver by their contract. There might be delay in a very important delivery.

LORD BEVERIDGE

May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that that point will, in fact, be covered by the next Amendment which stands in my name. The point has already been carried on Clause 39, and I understand that the Government, while reserving a complete right to object later, will not resist in this case. The noble Lord might feel that his main point will be met in a wider form if that Amendment is carried.

LORD TEVIOT

Perhaps the best thing I can do, in the circumstances, is to withdraw my Amendment, and support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BEVERIDGE

had given notice of an Amendment to the proviso in subsection (1)—namely, to insert: (a) the vehicle operates under an A licence subject to a contract limiting its use to the goods of a single undertaking; or.

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move this Amendment, with a change of wording, borrowing the much better wording provided by the Amendment of the noble Viscounts, Lord Simon, Lord Bridgeman, and Lord Long, at page 66, line 19; that is to say I would move the Amendment in this form. My Amendment begins: "the vehicle operates under," and then I would say: "a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933." I should like to move the Amendment in that form, as I think that is the correct form. I do not think I need say anything more; we all know what it is about. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 13, at end insert ("(a) the vehicle operates under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933").—(Lord Beveridge.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not going to resist this, as I indicated. I would, however, suggest to the noble Lord—I do not mind, in the least, if he does this or not—that in this case the place of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is better than that of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, because of these three provisos (a), (b), and (c). Paragraph (a) relates to goods, and (b) relates to vehicles, and this really comes in the vehicles class. I should have thought it was better there. If the noble Lord does not mind a further suggestion, I should have thought that to emphasize that it is a vehicle, and not goods, with which we are dealing, might have been put as an Amendment to Lord Simon's Amendment. Instead of the words, "or are carried in a vehicle authorised for use," in subsection (a), I would suggest the words, "or the vehicle is a vehicle authorised to be used." As I say, I do not mind at all what the noble Lord does. I have talked this over with the draftsman, and it seems to me that that is the better way of doing it.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I would cordially agree that that is better. I thought my Amendment ought to come earlier, because it was not mixed up with goods. I thought on Clause 39 mine was the right place. In this case, if I may say so, I am absolutely convinced by what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and I hope the rest of the Committee will accept his suggestion. I do not know whether it is clear what the suggestion is.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Would not the best thing be for the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, move his Amendment, either in this form or in he form which he proposes?

LORD BEVERIDGE

I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ROCHDALE moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (1), after "gallons," to insert "or are goods which may only be carried in vehicles specially constructed in accordance with the requirements of any enactment relating to the carriage of goods therein specified." The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that legislation already exists which, in the case of certain substances, compels the use of specially constructed vehicles. The main substances are explosives and certain inflammable liquids—not only petroleum products, but also cellulose products of one kind and another. I believe regulations are being prepared which will increase the requirements to cover a large number of other products, such as acetates, alcohols, and corrosive acids. These specially constructed vehicles often have to go beyond the twenty-five mile limit. I suggest that it would be a waste of vehicles if you have to have duplicates because the existing vehicles are not allowed to go unrestricted outside the twenty-five mile limit. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 17, after ("gallons") insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

To show the spirit of sweet reasonableness which is at present prevailing, I will accept this Amendment, if the noble Lord will not mind my considering the verbal part of it between now and Report stage. I may want to make some alteration in the language. However, I will accept the Amendment now.

LORD ROCHDALE

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

There is a consequential Amendment dealing with milk which we did discuss. I, therefore, beg to move this Amendment, and, in doing so, may I on behalf of all noble Lords, whether milk drinkers or not, wish the noble Viscount the Leader of the House many happy returns of the day?

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 19, after ("livestock") insert ("milk").—(Viscount Swinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.50 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

had given notice that he would move, in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1), after "livestock," to insert "or are carried in a vehicle authorized for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933." The noble Viscount said: I think this is the Amendment about which a conversation has already taken place between my noble friend Lord Beveridge and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I understand that I shall be following the course suggested—of which I approve—if I move this alternative form—namely, to insert: or the vehicle is a vehicle authorized for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. In agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I move it in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 19, after ("livestock") insert ("or the vehicle is a vehicle authorized for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.)—(Viscount Simon.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment commends itself to the noble Viscount opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and I shall therefore not oppose it, under the usual conditions.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is an Amendment about which the noble and learned Viscount did not give us much information when it was moved at an earlier stage. It is just possible that some more information is now available; if it is not, perhaps we could wait until the Report stage; but if the noble and learned Viscount has further information I should be very glad to hear it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 19, after ("livestock") insert ("or the goods are sand, ballast, concrete, tarmac and other road-making aggregates and materials, rubbish, hard-core coal, coke and cinders carried in bulk in a vehicle fitted with tipping gear").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I promised to consult the Minister about this, because I did not know very much about it myself, and I intend to carry out that promise. I think offhand that there may be a distinction between various classes of goods which the noble Earl mentions. I am by no means certain that I should be able to apply the same test to hard-core coal as I should, for instance, to sand and ballast. But the matter is under discussion, and I am not in a position to say more at the present time.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), at the end to insert: (d) In such areas of the seven crofting counties as the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State may designate, and in such areas it shall be a condition of every "A" and "B" Licence that except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Commission, goods shall not be carried for hire and reward in any authorized vehicle a greater distance than one hundred miles. The noble Earl said: I do not think I need say very much upon this Amendment, because some of the points were undoubtedly discussed at an earlier date. I should point out, however, that this Amendment was moved when the limit was 25 miles. As the noble and learned Viscount has declined to make any alteration in that, I propose to make one or two remarks on the basis of twentyfive miles. I think I am entitled to do that, and I think he is personally barred from taking any other attitude.

The first point I wish to make, which I think is important, is that a circle in the crofting areas is no use at all. It is for that reason that this Amendment is designed in a different direction, because a circle, whenever there is only one road over a considerable area, is clearly not the way to define anything. It is for that reason that I have suggested this Amendment and that it should be "goods carried for 100 miles" instead of having a circle of 25 miles. It is clear that in many remote parts you can do very much less on a single road, or perhaps two roads, every 100 miles, than you could do in a congested area within a circle of 25 miles. I want to emphasize, further, that the 25 miles is a perfectly ludicrous limit. For instance, in the case of Shetland, one cannot get from Lerwick to the end of the island, and in the case of Stornoway, one cannot reach the southern point of Harris. It is quite absurd to have a 25-mile radius, and I do not believe that the Government really wish that that should be the case. I will not make any further points, although I could make a good many more, because I think the noble and learned Viscount entirely understands the situation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 27, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The only thing I would comment upon to the noble Earl is that this refers to a figure of 25 miles, and there is no figure of 25 miles in the Bill—it is now 5o miles. He is thinking of past history. But of course I agree with him that it is difficult to apply exactly the same criterion in the crofting counties as you do to industrial England. I have an Amendment down—the next one on the Order Paper— which was designed to meet this case. If I may read it to your Lordships, it is to add the words: Provided that the Commission shall in exercising their discretion,"— that is, whether or not they will vary the licences for a longer period—. take into consideration the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting, the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which the permit would relate. It is quite true that I leave it to the Commission, but what I had in mind was pointedly to draw the attention of the Commission to the fact that if the operating centre is in some such area as, for instance, the crofting counties, you should apply a different criterion from that which you would apply if the operating centre is in some busy industrial part of England. I rather hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied with that, and will see that the provision is directed to this very point. I think it is better to have it in that way than to refer to any particular area. There must be all sorts of cases betwixt and between the extreme case he mentioned. There will be, for instance, Westmorland and Cumberland, where you do not want such latitude as you do in the Shetlands, but where it is fair to have rather a greater latitude than the area allowed elsewhere. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a matter of discretion, and I think we had better leave it to the Commission. I suggest that all we can do here is to point out to the Commission that this is the factor to which they should have regard in making up their minds. I have tried to meet the noble Earl by doing that, arid I hope he will be satisfied with what I have said. What I propose to do is not accept his Amendment, but to move my Amendment which is designed to cover the point he has in mind.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his remarks, but it is indeed, if I may say so, an eleventh hour repentance. This Bill has already been through another place and we are now in about the second week of Committee. Now at last we find that some special provision is to be made for something which is of great importance to this particular part of the country arid to other parts. I emphasize again that I think it is a very heavy responsibility for the Commission to accept for areas which are so far away. For instance, in the course of the discussion on this Bill—and it has now lasted for six months—this Amendment has only just come up. If I may say so, it shows how long it takes for the requirements of far distant places to be felt in Westminster. That is an important point to remember. The normal sanctions of letters to Parliament, and things of that sort, come much more slowly, and are much more difficult to develop from a very long distance. In the circumstances, I will withdraw my Amendment, remembering that in regard to the other Amendment the noble and learned Viscount is making special representations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: Provided that the Commission shall, in exercising their discretion, take into consideration the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting, the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which the permit would relate. The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Amendment which I have been discussing. I told your Lordships what its object was, and I need not say more, except formally to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT EUBANK

All I wish to say is that I hope this is an indication of better things to come as far as these out-of-the-way places are concerned.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

While thanking the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment, may I just ask him to explain how this will work in connexion with Clause 39? I am not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but this leaves it to the Corn-mission to decide whether a man shall be allowed to go outside his radius or not, and you have to have consideration to the locality. It may be the kind of locality where there is a loch a few miles across, but in order to get round it by road you have to go sixty miles. That is all very well, but who are the persons who are to be considered when undertakings are to be taken over? I do not see how that benefit is to be conferred on a man who would automatically be taken over because he is outside the fifty and eighty-mile limits. He will have been taken over, unless, so to speak, he is disclaimed in advance. It will be toe late when the Commission say: "He ought to be able to go across or round the loch" because under Clause 39 he will already have been taken over, and he will not have anything with which to go round the loch.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Viscount is making the same mistake as I did. When the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, moved Amendment to Clause 39, I answered by this sort of point, which was appropriate to Clause 52, and pointed out that that did not help him. I consider that this does not deal with the "3" difficulty. You must have another Amendment, and the Minister is looking into that.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I think it is clear that this would not apply only to Scotland. Would it apply in the case of a large part of the north of England where the farms, villages and towns are scattered, and the local service of goods carriage has to cover a long distance to be effective?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have not seen it in any discussion with the Minister or his officials. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot answer the noble Viscount's point. I do not myself see why it should be confined to Scotland, but, as I say, I have not seen the proposed Amendment, or discussed it.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I was merely referring to the present Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This does not apply only to Scotland. It is general.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.3 P.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (3) The Commission shall have power to grant and shall not refuse to grant a permit entitling the holder of an A or B licence for a vehicle used for the carriage of goods under the foregoing provisions (a), (b) or (c) of this section to carry goods for which the vehicle is suitable on a return journey to its operating centre, after having delivered the original load carried in the vehicle on its outward journey.

The noble Viscount said: I hope I shall persuade the Government that this is a fair and reasonable Amendment. What it seeks to do is this. As your Lordships will appreciate, we have exempted certain kinds of traffic, and I take as an example a class of traffic originally exempted in the Bill, even under the Government dispensation—namely, that of the furniture remover. The Government have recognized that he, for example, should not be taken over but should be allowed to ply his trade and take the furniture, whatever the distance may be. All this Amendment of mine seeks to do is to say that where, under the Bill, there is an exempted vehicle, if he goes on a journey entirely authorized for his exempted purpose the furniture remover—carrying furniture, we will say, from London to Birmingham—may bring back a return load. I say that that is reasonable for two reasons. First, it is absurd for him to have to come back empty, and it is quite unlikely that he would be able to get a return load of furniture, because it does not always happen that when one person removes house to another place someone else in that place is moving back on the following day to where the first person came from. House movements do not take place like that. If, therefore, the furniture remover cannot bring back a return load of anything except furniture, he has to come back empty; that is a waste of money, manpower and everything. Therefore it seems to me common sense that he should be allowed to have a return load.

But there is another strong argument in favour of this, and that is fairness. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said quite reasonably, "I do want you to give the Commission a fair chance." We all want to give the Commission a fair chance—but we do not want to give them an undue preference. The Commission will be in this furniture removing business; they can enter it anyhow because the Commission are not confined to the activities they take over from other people. They can enter on any activity they please, passenger or goods, subject to whatever are the licensing regulations. They will certainly go into the furniture removing business, and on a large scale, because one of the businesses they take over, which vest in them automatically is Messrs. Carter Paterson, probably the largest furniture removers in the country. Observe what will happen if my Amendment is not accepted; the Commission will be able to remove furniture from London to Birmingham, say, and will be able to bring back in the van anything they please. Obviously, if you can have a full return load, you can quote a very different rate for removing furniture from that which would be possible if you have to take the furniture by itself and come back empty. I am sure that that was not really the intention of the Government. The Government desire that the Commission should have a fair chance; we desire that the Commission should compete on equal terms, and that will not he possible unless an Amendment in this form is put into the Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 33, at end insert the said new suhsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)

VISCOUNT LONG

Before the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, replies, I should like to support my noble friend who moved this Amendment. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I drew your attention to the unfairness that existed under this Bill to furniture removers. They would be refused the right to bring back anything except furniture. In plain language this would be loading the dice against them. Any of your Lordships who have ever played poker dice will know that when you go abroad you take care to see that the dice are not loaded. In this country we do not expect them to be, but under the present Bill that is the situation. Therefore I hope the Government will favourably consider this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid I have never played poker dice, but notwithstanding that, I have a strong view on this Amendment, and that is that we cannot accept it. The conception behind this Bill is not simply that we are setting up a Commission which are to be equal among equals competing for traffic. We are setting up a Commission which, for better or worse, are, broadly speaking, to have a monopoly of long distance traffic. That is the scheme of the Bill; it may be right or it may be wrong. To that, however, we have made exceptions in favour of certain special traffic, but to say now that wherever you carry one of those special traffics you can automatically have the right to carry a return load, whatever the nature of the traffic may be and whatever the nature of the load may be, would be something completely novel, and something which we are not prepared to do. That is traffic which normally would be carried by or offered to the Commission for their carriage. And it would have another effect which I would he very sorry to see.

It is possible—I do not say it will happen, but it has happened before—that people may try to find ways and means of getting through this Act of Parliament. That is quite possible, and it is a matter which should be considered. All you have to do for instance, is to carry a milk churn on your lorry anywhere you like and deliver it at its destination, and then you are entitled to bring back any sort of a load. That, obviously, is driving a coach and four through the whole thing. It is better to say "I simply disagree with the idea of this monoply "; then, quite logically, you will destroy the monopoly. But the effect of this Amendment is to try to destroy it in a roundabout way which, to my mind, is quite impracticable and unworkable. We have considered a series of Amendments to exempt special sorts of traffic, by reason of the nature of the traffic, and it is quite impossible for me to say that we can allow any sort of traffic to come back on the return journeys. That would be quite inconsistent with the underlying basis of this Bill.

VISCOUNT LONG

Will the Commission be allowed to do it?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly; that is the whole point of the Bill.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Now we really can see exactly what this Bill is. I was told I was unduly harsh a day or two ago when I said that what the Government were seeking was not a fair chance but an exclusive monopoly. There. is not the least doubt that that is what the Bill does. By the way, the firm I should have quoted was Pickford's, I understand, and not Carter Paterson's. The noble and learned Viscount's Commission are going to get both. So far as I can see it will strike out all these special traffics. If a man does not get a return load he cannot possibly quote the same rate that the Commission can quote; that is obvious. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount would deny that for a moment. He knows that the Commission, because they are going to get a return load, can under-quote the permitted exempted carrier every time; and yet the noble and learned Viscount pretends that he is giving equal and fair treatment to the exempted carrier. Why should the noble and learned Viscount do that? I cannot understand his putting up this defence. I have regarded him as a most fair-minded man, and as a most fair controversialist, but I have never heard a more unfair case put.

I would rather the Government came down and said what is the truth: "We mean to put everybody we can out of business. We are putting some of these exemptions in the Bill, but we know that they will not work. We know that we can give our Commission an undue preference and a special rate every time, and these people will gradually be put out of business. But it makes it easier to get the Bill through, and easier to represent to the country that we are not doing what, in fact, we are doing if we pretend to make these exemptions." I do not see why the Lord Chancellor should say, because a perfectly reasonable Amendment like this is proposed—the fairness of which he has not, for a moment challenged—that this would open the door to all sorts of corrupt practices. There are enough Government officials round about to snoop and prosecute offenders if there are indecent practices. I am perfectly content that if a man misuses it, if he is not carrying a return load but bringing something else, you should make it one of the many new offences. But do not accuse these decent people, in the furniture trade or in the milk trade—the Milk Board are employing to-day all these exempted carriers—perfectly respectable and decent people, who have never been prosecuted, who have not done these indecent things. Why should they be pilloried by the Front Bench as people who, if they are given the chance of doing an honest fair haul, will take advantage of it to commit a criminal offence? I really do think that is most unreasonable.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I have only to add that this Amendment has shown what is the object of this Bill, which is to get a Government monopoly based on unfair competition. I would develop that by pointing out that the Commission are not only going to have a monopoly of everything that is long distance transport as defined by Clause 52, but are going to have vehicles with which they can compete with the ordinary haulier on short distance journeys. This is really a case of a two-handed man fighting a man with one hand tied behind his back. That is the only basis upon which the Government think that a State organization can compete successfully with any other haulier. Remember, it is this fact that they can compete in the restricted area that is a great advantage to them, because very few people deal only within an area; they have some short distance and some long distance hauls. If you go to the Traffic Commissioner you can get your long distance and your short distance traffic dealt with together. If you go to the man with whom you have been dealing for years, who happens to have escaped the net of Clause 39, you will find that he cannot deal with both. This is playing with the dice loaded against private enterprise, and the Government say, in effect, that unless the dice are loaded they cannot play this game with success. That is really what they have said.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I will not ask the House to divide on this now. There has been a full debate. I really hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will consider this matter. I know the limitations under which they act, but I think there ought to be a chance for reconsideration, because it seems so demonstrably fair: I will withdraw the Amendment now, but I will reserve the right to return to this subject at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 53:

Protection for certain existing undertakings with A or B licences.

53.—(1) The provisions of this and the next succeeding section shall have effect for the protection of persons (in this section referred to as "persons to whom this section applies") who, on the twenty-eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-six, were carrying on undertakings the activities whereof consisted of or included the carrying of goods in goods vehicles for hire or reward and were in connection with those undertakings the holders of A licences or B licences.

5.19 p.m.

LORD NATHAN moved in subsection (1) to leave out "next succeeding section" and insert "two next succeeding sections."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment to Clause 53 is linked with two other Government Amendments—the Amendment to Clause 54, at page 70, lines 23 and 24, and the new clause at page 71, line II, which appears at the bottom of page 4 of the Marshalled List. With your Lordships' permission I will deal with those three Amendments together.

These Amendments relate to the position of a haulier who is not compulsorily taken over but who, under Clause 39, is allowed to continue to carry on business on his own, subject to the restriction of 25 miles or 50 miles as the case may be, and subject to permit. If the withholding of a permit from the haulier or the imposition of certain conditions in the permit imposes substantial hardship on the haulier, he has, under Clause 54, the right to require the Commission to take over the whole of his haulage business. If the Commission do take over the whole of his haulage business, then he is entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of Clause 47. He also has the right, instead of calling upon the Corn-mission to take over the whole of his haulage business, to limit the acquisition to A or B vehicles and other property or contracts relating to the operation of the A or B vehicles.

As matters stand at present, under the provisions of the clause as appearing in the Bill, when the acquisition is so limited no compensation is payable in respect of cessation of business. It has been represented to the Government that this would involve hardship. Negotiations have taken place between the Government and the Road Haulage Association, with the result that the new clause, Clause 55, which appears in the name of my noble friend, the Leader of the House, has emerged. This new clause provides—putting it shortly—for compensation for cessation of business and severance combined at the rate of £70 for each complete ton of the carrying capacity of the transferred vehicles. or trailers which were needed for long distance work. That is compensation for cessation of business and severance, and is, of course, in addition to the compensation which will be received under Clause 47 for the actual vehicles themselves. Now this new clause, Clause 55, is a rather formidable clause as it appears on the Order Paper, but I have given your Lordships briefly the purport of it, and I have informed your Lordships at the same time that this is the outcome of negotiations with the Road Haulage Association.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Has it been agreed with them?

LORD NATHAN

Yes, it has been agreed with them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 7, leave out ("next succeeding section") and insert ("two next succeeding section").—(Lord Nathan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54:

Right to require notice of acquisition to be given.

(2) A person who serves a notice on the Commission under the preceding subsection may, if he thinks fit, by his notice require that the Commission's notice of acquisition shall be limited in terms to such goods vehicles, being vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences, as may be specified in his notice, to such hire purchase agreements, being agreements relating to goods vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences, as may be so specified, and to such other property and contracts, being property and contracts directly relating to the operation of vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences, as may be so specified; and where a notice of acquisition is so limited in pursuance of this subsection—

1. (a) the notice of requisition shall not affect any other property or any other contracts; and
2. (b) no compensation shall be payable in respect of cessation of business.

LORD NATHAN

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 37, after the first ("the") insert ("applicant for or").—(Lord Nathan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NATHAN

This next Amend-men is one to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 70, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert— (b) the compensation payable in respect of cessation of business and severance shall, instead of being calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the next succeeding section").—(Lord Nathan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

LORD NATHAN moved, after Clause 54, to insert the following new clause:

Measure of compensation for cessation of business and severance in certain cases.

55.—(1) Where a notice of acquisition served neuter subsection (1) of the last preceding section is limited in pursuance of subsection (2) of that section to specified goods vehicles, hire purchase agreements, property and contracts, the amount, if any, payable by way of compensation in respect of cessation of business and severance shall be ascertained in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section.

(2) No compensation shall be payable in respect of cessation of business or severance unless the transferor satisfies the Commission, or, in case of dispute, the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act, that one or more of the vehicles to which, or to hire purchase agreements relating to which, the notice of acquisition is limited were, during the twelve months immediately preceding the service of the notice of acquisition—

1. (a) used wholly or partly for the carriage of goods in such circumstances that a permit was necessary [or the carriage, or that a permit would have been necessary if the appointed day for the Purposes of section fifty-two of this Act had fallen before the beginning of the said twelve months (such carriage being hereafter in this section referred to as "long distance work "); and
2. (b) customarily selected for use on occasions during the said twelve months when vehicles were required for or in connection with long distance work.

A vehicle as to which the Commission or, as the case may be, the arbitration tribunal, are satisfied as aforesaid is hereafter in this section referred to as an "approved vehicle."

(3) The subsequent provisions of this section shall have effect in respect of each severally of such of the following classes of goods vehicles as include one or more approved vehicles (hereafter in this section severally referred to as "the relevant class") that is to say—

1. (a) trailers, other than superimposed trailers; and
2. (b) other goods vehicles,

being in each case all goods vehicles of the relevant class, whether vehicles to which, or to hire purchase agreements relating to which, the notice of acquisition is limited or not, authorised to be used under A licences or B licences and operated by the transferor during the said twelve months,

(4) There shall be estimated to the satisfaction of the Commission or, in case of dispute, the arbitration tribunal,—

1. (a) how much of the total work done by all vehicles of the relevant class during the said twelve months was, on a just apportionment, referable to long distance work; and
2. (b) the minimum total carrying capacity in tons which would have been employed on the work so found referable, if one or more vehicles of the relevant class had been used exclusively for such work during the said twelve months.

(5) The Commission shall pay to the transferor by way of combined compensation in respect of the cessation of business caused to him by the operation of the notice of acquisition and in respect of severance a sum calculated at the rate of seventy pounds for each complete ton of either—

1. (a) the carrying capacity in tons or, as the case may be, the combined carrying capacity in tons of the approved vehicle or approved vehicles of the relevant class; or
2. (b) the minimum total carrying capacity in tons estimated in relation to the relevant class under paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection,

whichever is the less.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, carrying capacity', in relation to an approved vehicle, means—

1. (a) in the case of a trailer (other than a superimposed trailer), the gross permitted weight of the vehicle less the weight of the vehicle unladen; or
2. (b) in the case of any other vehicle, the gross permitted weight of the vehicle less the sum of the following weights, that is to say—

1. (i) the unladen weight of the vehicle, as defined in section twenty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and
2. (ii) the weight of any container which is normally carried on the vehicle but is not permanently fixed thereto, and
3. (iii) a weight of five hundred pounds.

Provided that a superimposed trailer and the vehicle that draws it shall, for the purpose of calculating the carrying capacity of approved vehicles, be deemed to be one vehicle.

(7) In the last preceding subsection, 'gross permitted weight means, in relation to any vehicle, the gross laden weight of the vehicle stated by the manufacturer as at the date when the vehicle was first sold by him.

Provided that

1. (i) where the gross laden weight stated by the manufacturer is variable according to the size of the tyres with which the vehicle may be equipped, the gross permitted weight shall be determined by reference to the size of the tyres with which the vehicle is equipped at the date of transfer, so, however, as not in any case to exceed the maximum gross laden weight of that vehicle stated by the manufacturer;
2. (ii) where, subsequent to sale by the manufacturer, alterations have been made to a vehicle, and the transferor claims that by reason of the alterations the carrying capacity of the vehicle has been increased, the gross permitted weight shall be taken as such weight as the Commission and the transferor may agree, or, in default of agreement, such weight as may be determined by a certifying officer appointed under section sixty-nine of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or such other person as may be designated by the Minister in that behalf, after consultation with the manufacturer of the vehicle or, where for any reason the manufacturer is not available, after consultation with a person appointed for the purpose by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders;
3. (iii) where for any reason no statement by the manufacturer as to the gross laden weight of the vehicle has been or can be obtained, the gross permitted weight shall be taken as such weight as the Commission and the transferor may agree, or, in default of agreement, such weight as may be deter-mined by a certifying officer appointed under section sixty-nine of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or such other person as may be designated by the Minister in that behalf, after consultation with a person appointed for the purpose by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders."

The noble Lord said: This is the new clause to which I have already referred. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 54, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Nathan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55:

Appeals from decisions of licensing authorities.

55.—(1) Any person who, being the holder of a permit granted by the Commission, is aggrieved by the revocation or suspension thereof by the licensing authority may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the Transport Tribunal.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "by the licensing authority". The noble Lord said: If the Committee will turn to Clause 52 (2), they will find that it is there stated that: The Commission shall have full power in their discretion either to grant or to refuse any such permit as aforesaid.…"— that is, a permit for long distance haulage. The Commission are also given power to revoke, suspend or vary the permit. I suggest.hat it is very unfair to operators of road haulage that there should be no right of appeal in the event of a permit being revoked by the Commission. The Commission will, of course, be in direct competition with the permit holder, and when they wish to come to a decision as to whether or not a permit should be withdrawn they may be—I do not say they will be—influenced more by the desire to attract traffic to the vehicles of the Commission and not a competitor than by considerations of the efficiency of the service to the public.

This Amendment is designed to protect the public interest and ensure that a permit holder may, in fact, appeal to the Transport Tribunal, who will be able to decide whether the haulier operating under the permit, or the Commission, will be able to give the best service, judged purely on the merits of the case. I may tell the Committee that in another place an Amendment was moved to leave the decision as to revocation of a permit in the hands of the licensing authority, but it was resisted by the Government on the ground that it was essential for the Commission to have a monopoly of long distance haulage. This new Amendment, which I am now moving, concedes the Government's point of monopoly, but safeguards the hauliers operating under permit and also the general public interest against arbitrary or unreasonable decisions by the Commission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 71, line 14, leave out ("by the Licensing Authority").—(Lord Teynham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid that this cuts right across the purpose of the Bill, and I could not possibly accept it. The Committee will see that Clause 53 (4) states that: An original permit may he revoked or suspended by the licensing authority for the area in which the operating centre in question is situate if, on an application made to him by the Commission, he is satisfied that the holder of the permit has been guilty of a serious breach of any condition attached to the permit. … Having enacted that, it seemed to us only right to give some sort of appeal, because, after all, that is founded on the allegation of a serious breach of a condition; and there is to that, as the Committee will remember, an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal which is set up under Section 15 of the Transport Act. What we are doing is taking that appeal over to the Transport Tribunal and that is the point of Clause 55 (1).

To say that we are to leave out the words "by the licensing authority" of course opens the door very wide indeed, because the effect of the Amendment would be to provide for an appeal against any withdrawal of any permit granted by the Commission. I cannot imagine anything less wise than that. The result of it would be that if the Commission realized that they had no power to withdraw a permit they would he very unlikely ever to give one. It would he, I suggest, very unwise in the interest of road hauliers themselves to do this. The whole theory is that these permits to go outside permitted limits are to be entirely in the discretion of the Commission, and they must have the right to withdraw those permits if they think it desirable to do so. It is entirely a matter for their discretion and it would be quite wrong to try to use Clause 55 () of this which is put in for the reasons I gave to your Lordships, to take a step which really fundamentally alters the whole purpose of the Bill and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD TEYNHAM

I do not propose to press this Amendment, in view of what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount. Later in Clause 58 we have another amendment down dealing with licences and no doubt we shall be able to argue the case further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 agreed to.

Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.

5.31 p.m.

Clause 58:

Application of Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to Commssion.

58. Section one of the Road and Rail Traffic. Act, 1933 (which prohibits the use of goods vehicles in certain cases without a licence) shall not apply to the Commission but, as respects the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of Section eight and in subsection (1) of Section sixteen of that Act (which relate to the condition of vehicles, their speeds and loads, intervals for rest and the keeping of records), the Commission shall have the same duties and be subject to the same liabilities, including liabilities to penalties, as they would be if the said Section one applied and they were the holders of A licences or B licences with respect to all goods vehicles owned by them or in their possession, and the provisions of Part 1 of that Act shall have effect accordingly:

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out "not," where that word first occurs. The noble Viscount said: What the Lord Chancellor has said in rejecting the last Amendment makes this series of Amendments all the more important. I must ask the indulgence of the Committee, because this Amendment is only intelligible if it is read with the Amendments to Clause 64 and with the new clause after Clause 80 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the Marquess of Salisbury. In order to explain this may I state shortly what the present position is? Under the Passenger Traffic Act, 1930, a Traffic Commission was set up as a licensing authority and Regional Traffic Commissioners were set up to deal with the number of services to be permitted, frequency and fares. Then under the Act of 1933 similar regional licensing authorities were set up for goods traffic. Traffic Commissioners for both passengers and goods were the same. In that way co-ordination was obtained and the public interest was served. The experience of these Commissioners proved that local knowledge is essential.

Let us see how these are altered by the Government plan under this Bill. The Commission will take over all long-distance haulage of goods and such road transport as they may decide to take over. That is the structure of the Bill and that, whatever we may think about it, we accept. The Commission are also charged with the duty of proposing to the Transport Tribunal, who are the successors of the Railway Rates Tribunal, a rates structure that will cover all rates and fares on the railways and, as I read the Bill, on the roads. That again is not challenged. The position under this Bill is that the local licensing authorities are re-christened; the Traffic Commissioners are re-christened; the licensing authority for public service vehicles and the regional authorities under the Act of 1933 are re-christened licensing authorities. I have no objection to these baptismal regenerations. What matters is not the name but the powers.

The powers of these two licensing authorities are either eliminated or restricted when they are dealing with the Commission but their power over other undertakings remains in full force. Observe once again the distinction which is drawn between the position of the permitted undertaking which is still allowed to go on under the Bill and the favoured position of the Government-created Corn-mission. In this, we have to consider what is the public interest and what is fair between the Commission and the other undertakers who are permitted to continue. When you establish a monopoly, as we are doing here, it is essential to protect both. The greater the monopoly, the greater the need to protect the public and preserve the powers of these licensing authorities. The Lord Chancellor appeals for a fair chance for the Commission. We concede that at once, but we say, let there be an equally fair chance for the competitors as well. To give that, both Commission and the other permitted operators should be subject similar conditions where regulations are imposed and should have the same freedom where freedom is still allowed.

It is true, as the Leader of the House has himself affirmed, that if this extremely complex transport. scheme is going to work at all, decisions have to be taken rapidly and there has to be a great deal of delegation. That is vital in the interests of the public and equally important whether dealing with goods or passengers. To whom can we better delegate those powers and duties than to the established regional authorities who have exercised them with considerable satisfaction, both to the general public and to operators, ever since they were established and with increasing satisfaction as they have accumulated experience over the last fifteen years? The effect of my Amendment to these three clauses would be to retain these licensing authorities with jurisdiction over licensing passenger and goods traffic in their regions. They would operate as they do to-day under the existing Acts of 1930 and 1933, and under this Bill in so far as this Bill applies.

As I have said, the Transport Tribunal will have jurisdiction over road rates and road fares as well as over railway rates, and these licensing bodies, in so far as they have powers—and it is clear that it is only when they are dealing with passenger traffic that they have the power and duty to fix fares—will have to fit in with the Transport Tribunal which give general direction. Obviously, they must work in with that, and we accept that. That is why the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and I have put down an Amendment to add a new clause after Clause 8o to see that, in exercising their licensing jurisdiction in so far as it is a fare-fixing jurisdiction, they shall operate subject to any decision which flows from a rates scheme approved by the Tribunal. Similarly, I think they must act in conformity with a scheme which is approved. As noble Lords are aware, there is a power upon the Commission to propose these schemes for passenger road trarfic in the different regions. These go through long inquiries and ultimately emerge as approved schemes. Where a scheme has been approved, then obviously the licensing bodies must have regard to that scheme and work in accordance with it. So far from this power to make a scheme being in conflict with the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities, or making their work unnecessary, I am perfectly certain it will become all the snore necessary for the licensing authorities to operate.

It is inconceivable, I would suppose, even to the most extreme bureaucrat, that a scheme could be devised for the whole of the passenger road transport of this country which laid down how many buses are to run on the different routes. Nobody in his senses would contend that any large company operating a number of road transport businesses in different areas would dream of so curtailing the discretion of its local managers. A great deal has to be left to local discretion. But observe, if you are going to deal with it by way of a scheme you cannot put more buses on the road unless the scheme is varied and subject always to the fact that the Commission will not be bound, or will be bound only to a very limited extent, by these licensin authorities. They will be free to put on any number of extra buses, while the other permitted operators will not have the chance of putting on more to meet the needs of the locality in an area where they are permitted to operate under the scheme. If that were the position, that would be the height of injustice. Even after what happened on a clause a little while ago, where fair treatment was refused to the exempted traffic, I cannot believe it is the intention of the Government that where there arc permitted operators as well as the Commission, and more transport is required (either for the carriage of passengers or of goods), the whole of the increase is to go to the Commission and nothing is to go to the other permitted undertakers. It is inconceivable that this monopoly is intended to go to that length. But if that is not the intention, then surely all a scheme can do is to give broad direction:, as a great army commander gives broad general directions, which have to be carried out upon the spot. There has to be some authority, as well as the body appointed to operate the scheme. To attempt to put these details into the scheme would be exactly as if an army commander tried to issue operation orders to every single platoon.

That is the purpose of these Amendments, I hope I have not been too long, but I thought I ought to make it quite plain what was the intention. I submit they give fair and equal treatment to all operators who are permitted to operate under this Bill. They give an effective delegation to authoritative, experienced, and independent regional authorities, and, subject to the overriding power of the Transport Tribunal and subject to whatever he the general directives laid down in any scheme, they will give you equal and informed decision on the spot to meet local needs. That is the only way in which the public can be satisfied and given what they require. Nobody can say that this is a wrecking Amendment, or that it goes in any way contrary to the principles of the Bill. It accepts all the principles of the Bill; it accepts that all long-distance haulage goes over to tie Commission; it accepts the whole power of the Commission and the Minister to make these schemes for passenger transport. It accepts the whole power. as laid down, of the Transport Tribunal to have this jurisdiction over rates and fares. What it does is to maintain equality between the permitted operators, be they the Commis- sion or be they the independents, under the jurisdiction which these bodies have exercised over the last fifteen or sixteen years. It gives a proper delegation, and it gives a fair chance to both types of operators. Above all, and this is most important, it gives a chance to the public to get quick decisions and to get that addition to transport which is required. I submit that this proposal is entirely in accordance with the principles of the Bill, and is essential in the national interest. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 27, leave out ("not").—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD TEYNHAM

I should like to add my support to this Amendment, and I propose to confine my remarks to its effects on short-distance road haulage. At the same time, I entirely support the Amendments which will be moved by my noble friend Viscount Swinton to Clause 64 and after Clause 8o which tie up with the Amendment to Clause 58 which we arc now discussing. As this clause is at present drawn, it is not necessary for the Commission to hold licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. I should like to point out again—it has already been stated by my noble friend—that we do not object to this arrangement in the case of the long-distance haulier, but we say the Commission should come under the licensing authority in the same manner as the private short-distance haulier does. I am sure your Lordships will realize that the Commission could embark on short-distance haulage to such an extent, and with as many vehicles as they chose, without reference to the licensing authority, and could drive the private short-distance haulier out of business. In addition, the Commission might also oppose the licence application of the private haulier, whereas the private haulier would have no reciprocal right against the Commission.

The Government have declared their intention to take over the long-distance services, and not to enter into short-distance work except so far as may be necessary for rail collection and delivery. We consider, therefore, that the Commission should have to apply to the licensing authority in the same manner as the private haulier in the free zone. In so doing they should produce the general proof of need for their service-that is, both the short-distance haulier and the Commission. If the right of objection to the Licensing authority is not conceded to the private short-distance haulier, we maintain that the Commission should not have the right of objection against the private haulier when he applies for a licence to operate in the free zone.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I would like to support this Amendment, which I understand is really proposed to cover not only this clause, but also Clause 64, where there is in fact a similar Amendment proposed with reference to the 1930 Act. That is to say, it is proposed to discuss the licensing authority with reference not only to road haulage, but also to passenger traffic. The two fall together, authough there may be certain features which are different. My remarks will be devoted primarily to the question of passenger traffic. I am quite certain that there is no one here who really believes in monopoly, and when the noble Viscount admitted that this was in fact a monopoly, and that it was going to compete unfairly with the private operator, I think he did it with a sense of regret, as I am sure any one must do who faces up to this question. I believe noble Lords have come to the conclusion that the solution of the problem of co-ordination must be through monopoly only because an alternative method has not been considered sufficiently.

I believe there is a method by which you can gain at once co-ordination of public service and a freedom to exercise managerial efficiency, which does not necessarily involve concentration of power and financial control in one place. There are many examples of this. The most notable is the civil aeronautics authority in America. There you have an entirely controlled industry, with very limited competition, but with full liberty for managerial efficiency in each organization. There the authority in charge is responsible for licensing firms to run services. Firms arrive and ask to run services from A to B. They give full details of the manner in which they carry it out, and the aircraft and the machines with which they do so. They give also the fares and all details for passenger traffic. They are then licensed to run the service, and at the end of the year they have to supply the fullest possible report of their accounts and their operations. If it is necessary. a mild form of competition is allowed so that no one gains an exclusive monopoly. That system is working, and has shown itself to work very well, and there is no reason why a similar system should not work in this country.

If I may put it another way, the danger that confronts us appears to be entirely opposite to the cut-throat competition which many of us feel can be dangerous. I have here a quotation which I think describes exactly the danger with which we may be faced. It is form the Committee of Church and Nation of the Church Assembly: Large-scale organizations easily mistake their own interests for the interests of the community which they exist to serve. The issue arises not from the intentions of those who support such schemes; it develops rather from the logic of events. It is not that those who are running these organizations intend that they should exist for their own purpose, but because in the logic of events one who is concerned in a monopoly must be more concerned with the monopoly than with the people whom it serves.

What is the advantage of this licensing authority? It is already true that the Commission have to go before the licensing authority. They have to go before it on certain specific matters—for the routes that are to be followed, and for the vehicles which have to be used. But for the essential things which affect the public interest they do not have to go before the licensing authority. That is to say, they do not have to go before the licensing authority to show whether the needs for the road are adequate, in the public interest, or to show that the fares charged are not unreasonable. Those are the things in which the public are most interested, and in regard to those matters the Commission do not have to go before the licensing authority.

I submit that the licensing authority provides the only decentralization which can effectively give results to local requirements. First, because it provides a redress against high fares—anyone is entitled to appear before the licensing authority at the present time—secondly, because the licensing authority meets locally, and anyone can make representation before it; and, thirdly, because bus fares vary throughout the country. In this respect they are entirely different from railway fares, and to bring them under the Tribunal is to bring them under something which will never operate. I feel that, certainly in the majority of cases of passenger traffic, the Tribunal will not and cannot decide the fares. Under Clause 71, the Tribunal will hand the right of charging fares to the Commission. I think that this is an opportunity of breaking away from absolutely centralized monopoly. I am certain that noble Lords do not wish the public to be in the hands of a monopoly, and this is one of the few opportunities left by which effective. control by a monopolistic structure can be checked.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment, not because I agree that everybody ought to have to apply for A and B licences, but if a private short-distance haulier has to apply for licences, then the Commission should have to apply also in respect of its short-distance hauling. Anything else means introducing into this country the principle of one law for the State and another for the citizen. For that reason, and also because I believe that if you give a powerful body like the Commission an interest in getting freedom from what we regard on these Benches as the entirely restrictive provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, you will get a force for freedom. I very much hope the Government will accept this Amendment, and see that justice is done as between the Commission and the private haulier in the same field.

LORD GIFFORD

As it has been decided that this matter of the licensing authority and the Traffic Commission should he developed at this point, I would like, in support of this Amendment, to add a few words to what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I think the first thing is that, as regards passenger road transport, you have in the Traffic Commissioners an existing organization which operates and give satisfaction both to the operators and to the people—and particularly to the local people. There is a known office where they an go and make their complaints about the local service, and they can make representations in the district to a man who understands their local problems, which I am sure they would much prefer to do rather than have to go to some central place in London. There have been many cases where a new route has been setup, the local people have not been satisfied with the frequency of the service or with the fares, they have gone to the Traffic Commissioners, and the matter has been remedied quickly on the spot.

If you take the question of fares, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, fares vary infinitely all over the country. They must be dealt with locally; they cannot be dealt with globally like railway fares. And there is also the question of what services are to be provided on a certain route. No bus company would think of trying to organize the local services from its head office. All that sort of thing is left to the local manager who works it out with the Traffic Commissioners. They have a very close liaison, and the interests of the local people are definitely upheld in this way. We shall have more dangers of monopoly with this new transport organization being set up, but at the moment we are completely safeguarded from any dangers of monopoly by these Traffic Commissioners.

There was a case the other day of a large operating company in the North of England. A new service was required and they put up a case. They were a little slow and they were not prepared to provide exactly what the local people wanted. A local man, with his few local buses, submitted a scheme for that particular service and he got the job. The bus companies are compelled to operate a great number of their services at a loss in order to give satisfaction to the local people, but they run other services on more profitable lines. A very large percentage, about 40 per cent., are run at a loss although, of course, others are run at a profit. The thing is working well under this Traffic Commissioners system, and there are very few complaints. I think everybody is happy, so why alter it?

THE EARL OF ROTHES

May I say one very brief word in support of the system of over-all guidance by the Commission through Traffic Commissioners who have local experience and local knowledge of which use should be made? It seems to me quite incredible that anyone who had to sit down and decide what bus services should he run in the country should presume to do so from a single centre. The whole essence of running satisfactory and efficient bus services is delegation and flexibility on the spot. I suggest most earnestly that the scheme suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, should be given most sympathetic consideration. The Commission might outline a general scheme, but they might very well be cutting their own throats if they did not make the fullest use of local knowledge, local experience and the remarkably good record of the Traffic Commissioners in the past.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Many of the speeches to which we have listened have been dealing with passenger transport—indeed, I think most of them. Passenger traffic falls under Part IV of this Act, and not under Part III with which we are dealing—and Part III is the part with which I am concerned. My noble friend the Leader of the House has been here and he has listened with very great interest to the powerful observations which have been made with regard to Part IV, and no doubt he will say that he hopes the same observations will not be made again when we do come to Part IV.

If I may respectfully say so, I am going to confine myself entirely to Part III, because Part III deals with goods traffic and with nothing else. So far as goods traffic is concerned, I venture to think that this Amendment and the related Amendments are quite impossible, and for this simple reason. If your Lordships will turn back to Clause 3 of this Bill—which, after all, is the fundamental clause—it says this: It shall be the general duty of the Commission so to exercise their powers under this Act as to provide, or secure or promote the provision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport. Now if Parliament is going to entrust that duty to the Commission, it is quite impossible that the Commission, in regard to road traffic, should have to go round to a licensing authority and say, "Please may we have permission to do this, that or the other?" It is to the Commission that Parliament looks. They have the duty of doing this thing, and if they are going to have the duty thrust upon them, they must have the right to do what they think necessary to carry out that duty. It is quite inconsistent to entrust a man with a duty and then impose upon him the obligations to get consent from somebody else to carry out the duty. You are then imposing the responsibility on that somebody else and not on the Commission. I say with the greatest respect to noble Lords that this Amendment is really quite inconsistent with the scheme of the Bi11. The duty is a duty on the Commission and on nobody else, and they must have the right to do what they think necessary to carry out that duty.

Let me add this. Their duty is to provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated service. Very well. If we find with regard to what I term "local goods traffic"—and your Lordships know what I mean by those words—that there is already in an area a perfectly efficient local service run by private people who are going to continue to run it, then surely there is no reason why the Commission should butt in and try to run those people off the roads. That is not any part of the duty, as I see it, of providing that economical and properly integrated system. It is definitely the reverse, and so long as the existing system is efficient there is no reason why the Commission should set out to destroy it. I do say this. It is their duty to see that there is an efficient system, and they must do what they think right to secure an efficient system. If this duty is to be thrust upon them they must be able to do that without anybody's "by your leave" or anything of the sort. Therefore I say—and I am dealing with Part III and the goods traffic, and not Part IV and the passenger traffic, where you have schemes and all that sort of thing—that so far as this part of the Bill is concerned it is quite inconsistent to impose the necessity for the Commission themselves to go and get licences either for long distance, short distance or any other goods traffic at all.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think the Committee will have heard with amazement the speech which has just been delivered by the noble and learned Viscount. What is the object of permitting any of these permitted operators to operate at all if they can be driven out of business at the sole will of the Commission? Did anybody ever suppose that when Clause 3 was introduced and passed it meant that the Commission was to have the whole of the business, and nobody else was to have any? If that is so, why did we bother about 25 miles, 5o miles or short haul and long haul? The Commission alone is to have everything. It is the duty of the railways, under their Acts, to run efficiently, and the Railway Rates Tribunal has to find that they run efficiently. Can anybody suppose that a duty to see that the transport is efficient means a power to create an exclusive monopoly to run everybody else off the road?

We shall divide on this perfectly simple issue which governs—is does a similar Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and myself—the passenger Vehicles. The issue is a perfectly simple one. This Bill in its whole structure says long-distance haulage is to be the exclusive property. of the Commission. We do not interfere. with that at all, unreasonable as we may think it to be. The Bill says that short haulage is to be left in the hands of the people who are now operating it, or may in the future get their A or B licences, but with this added competition: that the Commission can come in and operate short-haulage as well as long. Under the Bill as it stands, an A or B licence holder has to go to these licensing authorities to get his A or B licence; if he says the public need requires that he shall have more, he has to go to the licensing authorities and possibly to the Commissioners who, under this system, are there to, co-ordinate.

We say that if under the structure of the Bill you lay down that there shall be these two sets of people, both the Commission and the A and B licensees, they should operate on equal and fair terms: neither or both should have to go to the licensing authority. Without that Amendment the Commission would be free to increase the service by 500 per cent., if they desire, in the name of efficiency, in order to run other people off the route. The man whom you permit to operate under this Bill, goes to the licensing authority and says: "The traffic is increasing in my district, and it is reasonable to put a few more lorries on the road." He cannot do it because the licensing authority would have to say: "The Commission have already put another fifty lorries on without our permission. We would have held an inquiry and decided which of you should do it, but they have queered the pitch in advance." As the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, and I will adopt his words, that is administrative law for the State and the common, law for the operator. I say there should be the same law for both. If there is one fundamental principle—not merely a principle in the structure of this Bill, but a principle which applies to everybody in this country, a principle which the Lord Chancellor himself has emphasized in the Bill he introduced when he said that with the increase in bureaucracy everyone should have an equal right before the law and as against the State—then I say it is the sound principle that there shall be the same law

CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Calverley, L.	Morrison, L.
	Chorley, L. [Teller.]	Nathan, L.
Drogheda, E.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)	Quibell, L.
Russell, E.	Henderson, L.	Shepherd, L.
Addison, V.	Kershaw, L.	Trefgarne, L.
St. Davids, V.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Walkden, L. [Teller.]

NOT CONTENTS.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Harcourt, V.	Greville, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Lambert, V.	Hacking, L.
Salisbury, M.	Long, V.	Hatherton, L. [Teller.]
	Maugham, V.	Hawke, L.
Abingdon, E.	Ridley, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Airlie, E.	Simon, V.	Jessel, L.
Craven, E.	Swinton, V.	Kenilworth, L.
De La Warr, E.		Llewellin, L.
Dundonald, E.	Addington, L.	Lloyd, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Luke, L.
Howe, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Iddesleigh, E.	Beveridge, L.	Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Lucan, E.	Broughshane, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)	Palmer, L.
Munster, E.		Ravensworth, L.
Onslow, E.	Carrington, L.	Remnant, L.
Radnor, E.	Cawley, L.	Rochdale, L.
Rothes, E.	Craigmyle, L.	Rossmore, L.
Selkirk, E.	Croft, L.	Rotherwick, L.
	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Saltoun, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Ebbisham, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Chaplin, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Teyhnam, L.
Elibank, V.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Tweedsmuir, L.
Falmouth, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Wardington, L.
Hailsham, V.	Gifford, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The next Amendment is purely consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 27, leave out ("but") and insert ("and").—(Viscount Swinton.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The next Amendment also is Virtually Consequential. It really follows from What already has passed.

Amendment moved—

Page 74, line 4, at end, insert: ("(c) This section shall not apply to any vehicle used for the carriage of any goods for distances not exceeding eighty miles or for the carriage for any distance of

for the State and for the citizen. We must obviously stick to this Amendment and divide upon it.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 7o.

any of the goods specified in provisos (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 52").—(Viscount Swinton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I really agree that this is consequential. However, it must not be taken that we are in any way assenting to it. We dissociate ourselves from it altogether, but we do not want to have another Division.

On Question, Whether Clause 58, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill:

VISCOUNT SIMON

I wonder if I might ask the noble and learned Viscount for a little information in order that I, at any rate, may better understand the way in which Clause 58 works. This is not intended to be a controversial question, but I have found a slight difficulty in following it. I see that Clause 58 provides that the Commission shall have the same duties and be subject to the same liabilities, including liabilities to penalties, as they would be if the said Section one applied and they were the holders of A licences or B licences. I am reading from line 32 on page 73. What is not very clear to me is this reference to "liabilities to penalties". I apprehend that if you take an ordinary holder of an A or a B licence and if, for example, his vehicle is not maintained in a fit or serviceable condition—which is Clause 8 (1) (a) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933—he will be prosecuted by the licensing authority. It is a condition of the licence that the authorized vehicle should be maintained in a fit and serviceable condition. Who will see that that is carried out?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should think it would be the police.

VISCOUNT SIMON

It would be the police, would it? Is what is contemplated that the police would prosecute the Commission?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

Might I ask the noble and learned Viscount a question in regard to a point that was raised in the discussion over the question of A contract licences? As I understand from the discussion, it is the desire of the Board to take over the A contract licences, and the noble and learned Viscount made it quite clear that they are going to do it. But he also made it clear that if the individual who had an A contract licensed vehicle was not satisfied with the way in which the Board operated that vehicle, then that individual could go and apply for a C licence. That is exactly what I understand the trader does not want to do. Many of the traders are perfectly satisfied with the operation of the A contract licence, and when this Bill comes into operation they would still like to go on under the A contract licence. They do not want to have to adopt a C licence. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether any words could be inserted to include in the general duties of the Commission that of giving services comparable to those given in the past under A contract licences. It seems to me reasonable, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will consider it and see whether something can be done on the Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will certainly consider what the noble Viscount says, but he will realize that it does not bear on this clause at all. This clause which we are now considering deals with the application to the Commission of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. I do not think that the point he mentions bears on that. We have had a good deal of discussion on this point. and the noble Viscount will recall that, as a result of Amendments which have been moved, contract A licences now do not count for purposes of ascertaining what is to be taken over. But we will look into what the noble Viscount says and consider it, though I do not think it arises here.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 59 to 62 agreed to.

EARL HOWE

I rise merely to point out that on the clauses of the Bill which will come before the Committee from new on there was not one word of discussion previously, owing to the procedure in another place. The clauses have not, in fact, been discussed at all.

6.32 p.m.

Clause 63:

Contents of area road transport schemes.

63. A scheme under the last preceding section may provide for all or any of the following matters, that is to say—

1. (a) for constituting or specifying the body or bodies who are to provide passenger road transport services operating within or partly within the area, and the body or bodies who are to administer or take part in administering the scheme;
2. (c) for regulating the relations of the persons providing passenger transport services (whether by road or by rail) within or partly within the area and in particular for the pooling of receipts or expenses;
3. (d) for specifying th passenger road transport services which are to be provided within or partly within the area and for prohibiting or restricting the provision within or partly within the area of other passenger road transport services;
4. (f) for incorporating, with or without modifications, in relation to any such body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this 1103 section, being a body who are to provide passenger road transport services operating wholly or partly within the area—

(iii) any of the provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of the next succeeding section;

1. (g) for incorporating, with or without modifications, in relation to any such transfer as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section, any of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer of undertakings or parts of undertakings to the Commission, including provisions relating to compensation;
2. (i) for making such other consequential or incidental provision as appears necessary or expedient for the purposes of the scheme, including provision for repealing or amending any statutory provision of local application affecting any part of the area.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph (a), at the end, to insert: and who shall include representatives appointed by the local authorities whose areas or any part of whose areas are within the area to which the scheme relates. The noble Lord said: The latter part of paragraph (a) of Clause 63 concerns the body or bodies who are to administer or take part in administering a scheme for providing passenger road transport within a certain area. I am asking that those bodies should consist largely of elected representatives appointed by the local authorities of the areas concerned. Many of these local authorities are already passenger road transport undertakers, and all of them have a most vital interest in the services provided for those areas. They have been accustomed to make representations on behalf of their inhabitants to the operators providing those services. So they are the most suitable bodies, the bodies who know best and who have the best means of finding out the needs of ordinary travellers—the men and women in the street.

There is thus a large body of experience of the passenger road transport needs of the districts which is available to be drawn upon in constituting operators and administrators of schemes in the future. It is quite obvious that there must be representatives of other interested bodies, and the local authorities do not claim any exclusive membership of such bodies. It is also clear that even to include one representative of each local authority in the area would make the body concerned unwieldy and unduly large. The Amendment asks only that they shall be represented generally, and they will then be able to play a full part in the provision and administration of passenger road transport in the future as they have done in the past. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 28, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Addington.).

LORD MORRISON

I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is most unlikely that any of the bodies that are set up in any part of an area would not include at least one representative of a local authority. But the Amendment of the noble Lord goes further than that. It says: "Shall include representatives appointed by the local authorities whose areas or any part of whose areas arc within the area to which the scheme relates." The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, which, incidentally, I am advised, is, in any case, in the wrong place, would be that every county and county borough council affected by a scheme would be obliged to appoint representatives. The noble Lord's Amendment does not say how many or whether they should be appointed individually as representing each authority or collectively as representing all the authorities, irrespective of the extent to which they are individually affected and whether or not they are themselves passenger transport operators. The body administering the scheme might very well, therefore, assume somewhat unwieldy proportions.

I think that I can say that the body set up to administer a scheme is likely—indeed it is almost certain—to include local authority representatives, particularly where road passenger services are provided by local authority undertakings. But to put in the Bill that they shall be appointed to represent every area or any part of every area affected might, in the opinion of the Government, make the body unwieldy and interfere with its flexibility. For these reasons I hope that the noble Lord will not persist with his Amendment.

EARL HOWE

Surely the principle involved in this Amendment is rather an important one. I quite see the point of the objection which has been raised by Lord Morrison, and I wonder if Lord Addington would be able to see his way to reduce or to modify his Amendment so as to provide for one representative of the local authority or something of that kind. If he does so, what would be the view of the Government upon that?

LORD ADDINGTON

I do not think that Lord Morrison, in his reply, has really interpreted my Amendment correctly. It does not say "every local authority," and I have been careful to point that out. It does not follow from the wording of my Amendment, and in the speech with which I moved it I said it was clearly recognized that only certain authorities would appoint representatives. However, I am prepared to reconsider the Amendment and, perhaps, to move it with some modification at a later stage. No doubt the Minister and the Commission would have means of consulting with local authorities and judging for themselves what representatives should be appointed and hew many there should be. I think that if the noble Lord will read the report of what I said in moving the Amendment he will see that I did not imply, and the Amendment does not say, "every local authority." If the noble Lord will agree to consider this, I will withdraw the Amendment, and perhaps we may have some consultation on the matter. It may then be possible on the Report stage to arrange for the insertion of a provision that some representatives of some local authorities are included in these bodies.

LORD HACKING

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment may I say that I and other noble Lords who have a good deal of sympathy with him in this matter would like to know for our own guidance in the future where we can put down a similar Amendment? Lord Morrison said that this was not the right place. May I ask where we could put down an Amendment in somewhat similar terms?

LORD MORRISON

If I may be allowed to reply again to Lord Addington, I would suggest that his advisers who are, presumably, people connected with important local authorities might again hold consultation with him. I will certainly consult with my advisers with a view to seeing whether some suitable words could be put in at another stage to cover the point which we both have in mind.

LORD ADDINGTON

I agree with that. But I think that this is the right place to put an Amendment of this kind into the Bill. I admit that when this Amendment was first on the Order Paper it was put in the wrong line, but I think it is in the right place now. In the circumstances I do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.40 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "or expenses." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a very simple one, to which the noble Lord opposite cannot possibly take exception. I do not think it is controversial and it is one which, if accepted, will make this paragraph of the Bill much more workable. I do not think it is very workable at present. The paragraph deals with the co-ordination of the different passenger transport services under a scheme made under Clause 62. I do not think there is any objection, indeed it is desirable, that the receipts should be pooled where two operators, either two independent operators or the Commission and an independent operator, operate in the same area, but I think the pooling of expenses is a very different thing and quite impracticable. That penalizes the efficient operator and subsidizes the inefficient operator.

I should like to give an instance which probably some of your Lordships will know. A ferry service has been operated for many years across Portsmouth Harbour. There are four ferries, two crossing and two alongside. Two have mauve funnels and belong to one company, and two with yellow funnels belong to another operator. Passengers take the same tickets from the ticket office. The receipts are pooled, but the cost of refitting and repainting the ferry boats and the wages and other expenses are paid by the separate companies concerned. One objection made in another place concerned the question of a garage used by both operators. Surely the way to get round that is that either the garage should be owned by one operator and the other should pay a certain rent for its use, or it should be jointly used and each operator pay a proportion of the expenses in accordance with the amount of use. To pool the whole of the expenses is going to be very complicated and probably unfair to each operator. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 38, leave out ("or expenses").—(Lord Gifford.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

In rising for the first time to-day, may I take the opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for his generous reference to myself, and for the way in which your Lordships received it. In regard to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I have made some inquiry as to the statement that the clauses we are now on and those coming before us were not discussed. The whole sittings of Committee D were devoted to passenger road transport and harbours under Part IV. I only make that observation as an intimation, but I think it right that the Committee should be acquainted with that, because of the noble Lord's statement.

With regard to the present proposal, I do not think it is practicable. If you have a scheme, whatever it is to deal with, where there is pooling of receipts, you must also take account of the expenses. I cannot imagine it otherwise. Under the provisions of the Bill these schemes are to be advertised, and if there are objections they can be made. Finally, any scheme has to be approved by Parliament.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

By both Houses?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Speaking without notice, yes. There is abundant opportunity of objecting to a scheme. Frankly, I cannot imagine a scheme where they do not take account of both receipts and expenses.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am sorry that in the first speech on his birthday, the noble Viscount should fall so much into error. It is a very common practice to have an arrangement under which you pool receipts and do not pool expenses.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The noble Viscount must remember that I am not speaking of individual arrangements. This is to be a scheme dealing with a certain group of matters, and I do not think he would suggest that in these circumstances we should not take account of expenses.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

No, certainly I would not. Let me be concrete. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will confirm, in the arrangement made about the Empire flying route for the whole of the Empire service, receipts were to be pooled in proportion to the number of services run and miles flown, but expenses were not pooled, except those expenses undertaken in common. A scheme might be arranged like this—indeed, that is the way in which the plan is to operate: an area is to be served by a large number of bus services, and there may be a large number of operators—unless we are to have an absolutely exclusive monopoly by the Commission, in which case we do not have any arrangement for the pooling of expenses—and some undertaker takes a lucrative route and another takes a less lucrative. There will be pooling of receipts, but why should there be a pooling of expenses? I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who conducts a good business to do with motor cars in keen competition with other agents, would he like it if all motor agents were taken in the area in which he operates so successfully, and he was told he had to pool—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I must really ask the noble Viscount to address himself to the proposition. There is nothing compulsory about it. It says only that a scheme may provide; it is entirely optional.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I know, but what the noble Viscount said was that he could not conceive of a scheme which arranged for pooling receipts and did not arrange for pooling of expenses.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It would take account of expenses; it does not say to pool all receipts or all expenses. It is what you do in regard to either or both. It takes account of what you do.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It takes account of what you do—that is a very omnibus clause. But I could not let pass the idea that if you have a pooling of receipts you must have a pooling of expenses. It is quite fantastic, if I may say so, that that should be necessary, and I sincerely hope there will not be anything of the kind. The moment there is a pooling of expenses the whole incentive to initiative goes; the worst operator knows that it does not matter if his expenses are twice as much as the expenses of the other man, because the other man has to make up the difference. That is what happens with the pooling of expenses, and I hope that when this Commission are established, of the many things they may do, the one thing they will not do is to encourage inefficiency by the pooling of expenses.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I hope we shall have a Commission which, when they make schemes, will make sensible schemes.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I hope so.

EARL HOWE

May I say, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has challenged me, that owing to misuse of Parliamentary procedure in another place by His Majesty's Government, not a word was spoken on Clauses 59, 61, 63, or 66. Clauses 71, 72, 73 and 74, were not discussed. I could give the figures with regard to all the other clauses in the Bill, but I do not want to weary your Lordships.

LORD GIFFORD

I am afraid I am not in the least convinced by the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. I fail to see how it is practicable to pool expenses. If expenses are pooled, when the Commission are running certain passenger road transport services in an area and one or more operators are running services in the same area, they will rise. I can see that it is right and proper that on one route there might be alternate services by one of the Commission's vehicles and a private operator, and it is quite right and proper that receipts should be pooled. But the maintenance of the vehicles an operator is using in an area may be done outside that area altogether, and thus there are tremendous practical difficulties in pooling expenses. It seems to me to be quite nonsensical. I must also reiterate the point that I made before, and it was made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—that it is a premium on inefficiency, and that if expenses are pooled neither side will try to give the efficient service it ought to give. That is the weak point: it is a premium on inefficiency and penalizes the efficient operator. But it is a minor matter, and not one that I think should be pressed to a Division at this stage.

THE EARL or SELKIRK

I cannot see how any sensible scheme could pool both the receipts and the expenses of two organizations. By pooling the receipts and expenses you make. in fact, one central finance organization. In that event you cease to have two persons. The noble Viscount, I know, wants the schemes to be sensible, but he is leading them up a nonsensical channel. I am sure the noble Viscount does not want to do that.

LORD GEFFORD

I do not wish to press the noble Viscount any further at the present time, but perhaps, between now and Report stage, he could look into this further, with a view to seeing whether he cannot meet us on this very small matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It is now five minutes to seven and I think it would be convenient if your Lordships now adjourned.

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

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Gifford. We were previously discussing Clause 63—"Contents of area road transport schemes"—and this paragraph (d) which it is proposed to omit. If I may, I would like shortly to explain the general outline of this part of the Bill. The Commission are charged with the duty of providing a n adequate, suitable and efficient passenger road transport service. Why it is not to be an integrated service I cannot tell, but in that respect Clause 63 differs from Clause 3. In Clause 63 are outlined the powers under which the Commission will carry out the duties specified in subsection (1) of Clause 62. These powers include, first of all, constituting and specifying bodies which are to carry out road transport; secondly, transferring to such bodies any undertakings which are carrying out road transport at the present time; and, thirdly—under paragraph (c)—the regulation of the relations of persons providing passenger services.

In paragraph (e) the clause goes on to deal with borrowing and, eventually, with compensation. Paragraph (d), with which I am dealing, has no relation at all to what goes in front of it or what comes after it. I submit to your Lordships that this paragraph is entirely unnecessary. We all agree—and I know the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, does—that the instructions to the Commission in regard to this matter should be sensible. Therefore we should submit paragraph (d) to the test of whether or not it is sensible. The clause is permissive and it is permissive in a scheme which will be laid before Parliament and which will lay down the general lines on which the transport services are to be conducted. It is quite clear from this that there may be a great variety of ways of doing it. It is clear that there is no plan at all.

It is for the Executive to lay down the way in which the services are to be carried out, and the Executive are entirely free to carry them out in any Way they like. It is quite clear, also, that the bodies operating will not necessarily be publicly owned; they may, or they may not, be publicly owned. It is entirely free for the Executive to choose the relationship which exists. I submit that this paragraph is entirely unnecessary. It says, first of "for specifying the passenger road transport services." What does that mean? Does that mean to say that the services are to be specified in detail; that they arc to say that a bus is to run from, say, Stockton to West Hartlepool at a certain time? If it does not mean that, what does it mean? It is not a question of the bodies to run it, or how it is to run—it is the services themselves that are to be specified. Presumably it is a permanent scheme, or at least not one that has to be constantly altered. It is subject to Parliamentary procedure, and will presumably continue for some time. I should have said it was quite unnecessary to specify services.

The paragraph goes on to say that it may also contain services "for prohibiting or restricting the provision within or partly within the area of other passenger road transport services." What is the object of that? Why is it necessary to prohibit or restrict passenger transport services? These are the broad general instructions which are issued by the Commission. They are not within the discretion of the Executive, because they are in fact laid down for the Executive to carry out. I therefore submit that these powers are entirely unnecessary. Is it desirable to give powers which are unnecessary? Powers which are unnecessary are inevitably a temptation for misuse—they cannot be anything else. Can noble Lords claim that they want powers which are unnecessary? If what I have said is accepted, I suggest that it is an abuse of this Statute to put in powers which cannot be used by the Commission in the execution of their duty. I am, therefore, asking that this paragraph be deleted, and in doing so I am not in any way incommoding the Commission in carrying out the duties which are necessary for the provision of transport services. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 39, leave out paragraph (d).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I must say I find it rather difficult to follow the reasoning of the noble Earl. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 62 he will see that The Commission may, at any time, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme as to the passenger road transport services … being a scheme devised for the purpose of promoting or facilitating … the passenger transport services serving the area. That is to say, it is a scheme for an area. The governing words of Clause 63—to which we called attention before we adjourned—are that "A scheme, under the last preceding section may provide all or any of the following matters. …" I myself cannot imagine a scheme for road transport services that does not specify the passenger road transport services which are to be provided. I cannot imagine it being a scheme if it does not do that. It is the purpose of the scheme to provide a transport service, and if it does not specify them it is no use at all. One of the main functions of the Commission in preparing a scheme is to provide for passenger road services adequate to the needs of the area. It is impossible to imagine a scheme of passenger services which did not specify the services.

EARL HOWE

Suppose that the noble Viscount does not agree, and that the Committee do not agree, to delete paragraph (d). Suppose that a service is prohibited or restricted, and suppose that somebody feels aggrieved about it and does not agree; what is the procedure that should he adopted? What does the individual or the company who does not like it do? What is the best procedure in order to make representations to authority and to have it decided? I have read Clause 62, of course.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I reply to the noble Earl upon what is really the next Amendment on the Paper, an Amendment omitting the last two lines or so after the word "area" in line 41? That really is the Amendment to which the noble Lord addressed his question. The point of that is that clearly, if you are to have a scheme which is not a disorderly affair, you must say what services are, and what services are not, to be run; otherwise it would not be an understandable scheme.

In response to the last point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that someone might feel himself prejudiced by any prohibitions in the scheme, I may point out, that in the first place the scheme has to be published and it will be the subject of an inquiry at which anybody who feels himself prejudiced or likely to be prejudiced can of course state his objections; and they will be heard. That is provided for in the Bill. Finally if, after the hearing, the scheme is modified, it wi11 then be embodied in an order; that order will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, so that there is still opportunity for anyone who feels himself likely to be prejudiced to be heard or to have his case stated. I did make further inquiries as to cases where a person really might be prejudiced, or shall we say "damaged", by the operation of the scheme, and I am not altogether clear that the provisions for dealing with it are quite as satisfactory as we should like them to be. I am having that point looked into as regards that particular set of cases. I will report to the House later the result of these investigations, but with regard to the words themselves, they clearly are necessary for any comprehensive scheme.

EARL HOWE

I thank the noble Viscount very much.

VISCOUNT SIMON

There are one or two other matters about which we should like some information at this point. I quite understand the noble Viscount saying that he will look into this. The noble Viscount said that the scheme is to come before both Houses of Parliament and must have their approval before it operates.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Clause 62 (3) says "the order shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure." That procedure is set out in the Eighth Schedule.

VISCOUNT SIMON

One of the questions I wanted to ask was this—perhaps it is not in line with the matter which the noble Viscount is to inquire into. You have a scheme put forward and there is an opportunity for persons interested to take objection or to suggest alterations. Is there, in the Government's plan as it stands, any provision for this? There may be some enterprises which did not object to the scheme as it was originally published and put before them; there may be other critics who did object, as the result of which the scheme is altered. I do not see any provision in the Bill as to how the party that may have consented to the original scheme has any opportunity of raising objection because of the alterations that are made. He is not a party who objected to the original scheme; he is a party who was content with it. Then some other party comes in and persuades the Minister to alter the scheme. Is there any provision in the Bill which secures that the party who was ready to support the scheme as originally advertised may challenge the alteration which is made by the Minister in order to meet the objection of somebody else? it seems to me, in reading the Bill, that the only people who had a hearing, as it were, were people who objected to the scheme as put forward. If the scheme is altered, of course, that may adversely affect the people who, in the first instance, were willing to support the original scheme. Perhaps the noble Viscount will be good enough to, look into that point as well.

As regards the broad question which is raised by my noble friend behind me, the language is necessarily general. When we consider the nature of this Bill as a whole, however, is it not perfectly clear that paragraph (d), whether necessary or not, is intended to cover the case where a scheme for passenger road transport services is promoted for an area, which scheme will create a monopoly and will be accompanied by a positive prohibition or restriction on the provision within the area of other transport services? That is the real meaning of This clause, I think; at least it covers it. It seems such a curious way of improving the road transport services in an area to say: "I must be sure that I promote a scheme which restricts or prohibits the provision of any other road transport services except those that I approve in my scheme." This is only one other example of what is the inherent nature of a monopoly, which is, really, that it can endure no rival near the throne. In the Commission something is set up which is called a monopoly. They set up at once not something to improve or expand but to restrict or prohibit the ambitions of any rival, because they cannot hope to perform their work as a monopoly unless they succeed in cutting the throats of other people.

There are in the early part of the Bill, elaborate provisions for compensation; but here you have a general provision which provides for a passenger road transport service in an area—for example, one which says, "This is the authorized scheme," and which protects itself by restricting and prohibiting the other road transport services within the area, to make it impossible for any private enterprise even to run a service through the area.

That is the significance of this provision; and, while I admit that the words have to be general, we ought not to shut our eyes to the fact that that is the real contemplated policy which may well be followed under this clause. I quite agree that when it is done it comes, in the last resort, under special Parliamentary procedure; and no doubt that lends itself to the observation that members of each House have a right of veto. But in substance it really is a provision that you should authorize the provision of a monopoly in respect of passenger road transport in the area, and that you should buttress that by prohibiting and restricting even services which go through the area—not only those which are confined to the area—in order that the monopoly may reign supreme. That seems to be one of the fundamental objections to the Bill. We heard it fully exposed just now by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, and I do not see how paragraph (d) can be read to have an independent meaning. My noble friend's challenge is unnecessary unless the paragraph is for that purpose.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

If I may, without boring the House, I would like to intervene for one moment here in order to enter a protest against the noble Viscount's highly coloured description of this monstrous monopoly which he thinks will be set up. I suggest that there will not be anything of the kind. If you will read Clause 62 you will see that it speaks of a scheme "devised for the purpose of promoting or facilitating the promotion of the co-ordination of the passenger trans- port services serving the area." I can well imagine that any sensible body of people setting to work on that scheme, will naturally seek to co-ordinate the services already there, to see that they do not foolishly conflict and that they harmonize with the needs of the community, and so on. There is no suggestion of extinguishing them and replacing them with a monstrous, hard-hearted, unthinking monopoly. That does not arise at all. Their purpose is clearly set out in that clause.

8.52 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would like, if I may, to say a word or two here. I was not entirely convinced by the arguments of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. As he stated it, the position is absolutely unexceptionable. The co-ordination and harmonizing of services is just what we want. But that is not what the subsection provides. It speaks of "prohibiting or restricting the provision within or partly within the area of other passenger road transport services." Even if that is not the intention of the present Minister of Transport, who I am sure is extremely sensible, it does give him the power to use this Bill for the purpose of driving any competition out of existence. I must confess, having listened to debates on this Bill—though I am afraid that I have not been able to be here for discussions on every clause—that I am more and more driven to the conclusion that there is a real spirit of perhaps natural apprehension on the part of the Government, that the centralization of power in the hands of the State will not be the success that they hope.

After all, if the arguments which they have been developing up and down this country for a number of years are correct, State service should always be more efficient—I think that was the Lord President of the Council's own phrase—than the schemes of private enterprise or the operations of private enterprise. Automatically, therefore, private companies ought to be driven out of business by this vastly more efficient system which in the new era is being brought into existence. But I have a suspicion that in their heart of hearts the noble Lords opposite, and supporters of the Government throughout the country, are not quite so certain as they would like to appear; I believe they have an uneasy feeling that possibly private enterprise might win. Therefore in almost every Bill they bring in they put in this provision for creating a monopoly which, in the event of private enterprise turning out to be more efficient, can be used to drive it out of existence. That may be regarded in some quarters as unduly suspicious. No doubt it will be so regarded by noble Lords opposite; but it is not so regarded by very large numbers of people in this country.

I have heard, year after year, arguments used by the Government against the dangers of private monopoly. They are now creating a far greater monopoly than anything of that kind that has ever been known before. Power breeds power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Noble Lords opposite shake their heads at the possibility of any danger. They are always shaking their heads but yet the danger is there. I have the highest respect for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—he was brought up in the strictest Liberal traditions and he has graduated into a moderate and mellow Socialist—but I believe he will find that the power which he is now supporting and of which he is the facade—because I do not think he is the heart and soul—will ultimately inflict a terrible injury on this country. This is not an Amendment on which we propose to divide. We ration ourselves, like everybody else, to issues which we regard as the most important. While this raises a considerable issue, it is not in itself, perhaps, a vital provision of the Bill. I do beg noble Lords opposite to consider the way in which the more extreme sections of their Party are leading them. I think there is a very real danger that these provisions in each of these Bills, meant by them to be used quite modestly, will become the means first of monopoly and then of dictatorship.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Feeling sufficiently admonished by the noble Viscount, I thank him for his exposition of Conservative doctrine. But while the present Government seek a monopoly they would rather have a public monopoly than a private one.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Do I understand the noble Viscount is in favour of monopoly, one way or another?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I did not say that at all. If we are to have a monopoly, we would rather have a public than a private monopoly. Bitter experience has convinced the people of this country that that is a wise decision. Perhaps I might inquire from noble Lords what is in their minds. What we have been discussing is the Amendment to leave out the lines at the end of paragraph (d). I hope that we can now consider discussion on that part concluded, and take all the Amendments together.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Marquess for what he has said. It seems to me that the Leader of the House has not begun to face the question I put to him. He says he cannot conceive a scheme being devised for specifying the passenger road transport unless it specified the services. If you specify the services you are laying down a Bradshaw, and I would like to ask whether he really intends to do that. I think that is a matter not for the Commission, a planning and policy-making body, but for the Executive. That is an instruction which is being given to the Executive, surely it does not include services.

The noble Viscount said there is ample provision in the previous clause for examination. This clause specifically talks of restriction, and there is no provision at all for representation. That means to say that it lies in the hands of the Commission, if we are passing this clause as it stands, to restrict any company to the degree to which it can be brought nearly to its knees, and then perhaps bought out. There is not much provision, as the Bill stands, for making representation. The special Parliamentary procedure does not take as far, because the scheme under this procedure does not have to be approved by either House. It simply lies on the Table for rather less than forty days, and it is only in the event of minor amendments being required than it is referred to Committee. If any major or general objections were raised, it would simply lie before the House, and if no Resolution were passed it would, in due course, become effective, without ever being considered, or without any representations of any kind being made.

I would refer the noble Viscount to the Eighth Schedule. I am aware there are pending Amendments to this Schedule, but if the noble Viscount would look at the Eighth Schedule, paragraph 4, he will see that the Minister may cause an inquiry to be carried out: by causing a person, appointed by the Minister for the purpose, to make such inquiries (including, so far as the said person considers necessary, the hearing of oral evidence) as the said person considers necessary … Does that mean a man sitting in an office and reading a couple of text books? The person carrying out the inquiry need not see anybody, and need not ask for any evidence. I submit, respectfully, that there is no adequate protection against the very wide and totally unnecessary powers which exist in this clause at the present time. I would ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he will consider this point before Report stage.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I assured the noble Earl as specifically as I could that the compensation point would be looked into.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Viscount the Leader of the House did not specifically mention the compensation clause. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

had given notice that he would move to leave out paragraph (g). The noble Viscount said: The Amendment on the Paper in my name is to omit paragraph (g) because I am not quite sure about the position. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has a number of very lengthy Amendments to the Eighth Schedule which purport to set out all the compensation arrangements. Some of my noble friends had parallel Amendments, and perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House appreciates the hard work to which they have been put. By a modification of his Amendments they have converted them into a much simpler set of Amendments. I would like to be advised whether the noble Viscount's Amendments which are down to the clause and to the schedule make it unnecessary for us to move this Amendment. If we have a full discussion on his Amendment to the clause and to the schedule, on everything that is purported to be dealt with by discretion in paragraph (g), I would be content not to move.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I can give the noble Viscount that assurance. I think the long Amendment to Part II of the Eighth Schedule covers all the points, and unless this is incorporated we should be without power.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Is it necessary to include paragraph (g); because the provisions of Part II are entirety different from those regarding the other forms of transport?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I interrupt, because I am sure the noble Earl does not want to be wrong. It is not Part II of the Eighth Schedule which I am going to move. It is a new provision altogether.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Let us, without prejudice, pass paragraph (g) as it stands. Then we will deal in Committee with all the Amendments proposed by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and by others. If we then find we have left out something from these Amendments that we should like to have discussed under paragraph (g) we can quite well go back and modify paragraph (g) on the Report stage. So, without prejudice in that way, we could get on. Would that be agreeable to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Certainly.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I just clear up this point? The point I was making was on Part II of the Bill, not Part II of the Eighth Schedule. The point about Part II of the Bill is that the transfer takes place on the appointed day. It has nothing to do with Part IV.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Perhaps the noble Earl will read my Amendment, to add Part II to the Eighth Schedule. It is printed on the Paper.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Then I do not move my Amendment.

THE EARL OF ROTHES

had given notice to move to leave out paragraph (g) and insert: (g) for incorporating the proviso to subsection (3) of section forty-eight and the provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act relating to compensation. The noble Earl said: I would like to say a few words on paragraph (g), which I agree, as has been suggested, should be left to the Report stage. The Minister's powers for incorporating, for the purposes of transfer, any of the provisions of this Bill are causing considerable anxiety. For instance, if I read it correctly, for the purposes of transfer he could incorporate, under Clause 18 and Clause 23, the suspension of dividends by railways; or, under Clause 15, a disclaimer of contract with the railways. It is difficult to understand why he should have these very wide powers. I should have thought that any powers necessary were already supplied under paragraph (i). As has already been suggested by tie noble Viscount, I will leave those points to the Report stage.

There is, however, one point I would like to mention. The noble Viscount has an Amendment clown which deals with compensation, and I agree that that should be left until Schedule VIII. But if he is to move that Amendment, may I ask the noble Viscount to bear in mind the provision in subsection (3) of Clause 48—which I think is in the wording of my Amendment, but not in the wording of the Amendment of the noble Viscount—namely, the point that hauliers receiving compensation are allowed to draw cash—I think it was up to £2,000, and it has been increased—instead of being paid in British Transport stock. This would make a great deal of difference to the smaller operator, and if the noble Viscount would consider incorporating some suitable words, I should be grateful. I do not move my Amendment.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 78, line 24, after ("including") insert ("(subject to the provisions of Part II of the Eighth Schedule to this Act)").—(Viscount Addison.)

THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (2) (a) If a scheme under the last preceding section provides for the transfer of part (in this subsection referred to as "the original part") of an undertaking, the Transferor may by notice in writing to any body to whom such transfer is to be made require them within a reasonable time to accept a transfer of either—

1. (i) the whole of the undertaking
2. (ii) such part of the undertaking as may be specified it the notice (in this subsection 1122 referred to as "the additional part") in addition to the original part

as the Transferor may select, and the said body shall comply with the notice. (b) In the event of any such notice being given, compensation shall be payable as if the scheme had provided for the transfer of the whole of the undertaking or of both the original part and the additional part as the cast may be. The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which deals with compensation, but I am advised that this is the proper place for it to be raised.

Quite briefly, it is the case of an operator who has part of his undertaking taken over under this scheme, and is left with part of the undertaking which, for some perfectly good reason, he may find it impracticable to continue working. For example, he may find it impossible owing to the geographical situation of his workshops or his garages. We suggest, in those circumstances, that it would be reasonable to have the procedure set out in this Amendment—that he should apply to the Commission requesting them to take over within a period either the whole of the remainder, or part of the remainder, that he cannot work, and that the Commission should be bound to take it over. I think your Lordships will appreciate that there are many cases of undertakings being transferred in which only part of the undertaking would be transferred. It is a point of considerable importance to those concerned, and one on which I think the industry feel very strongly. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 78, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Rothes.)

LORD GIFFORD

I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment. It is quite a straightforward Amendment, and I need not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. It seems a very reasonable thing, to which I feel there may be no objection. Suppose part of an undertaking in Lancashire were taken over, the operator could compel the Commission to take over either the remainder of his business in Lancashire or, if necessary, the whole of his undertaking if it appeared to him that he was unable economically to operate the part left to him. He may have had all the maintenance shops taken over, or all the garages, which may make it quite impracticable to operate the part of the undertaking which remains.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

If the noble Earl will look at the effect of the Amendment as it stands, he will see that it would be a contradiction in spirit to what we have already undertaken to do. A man might insist on the Commission buying out part of his business which was dealing with the sale of second hand cars, or something of that kind, which the Commission might not wish to buy. I think the provisions for dealing with those cases are quite adequate, and if the noble Earl will look at Clause 62 (2) on page 77 he will see that before submitting any scheme, …the Commission shall consult every local authority whose area or any part of whose area is within the area to which the scheme relates, and any person providing passenger transport services … That would be this person in the area. I have already said that the cases of hardship are fairly covered under the provisions of this clause.

THE EARL OF ROTHES

I must confess that I am a little disappointed.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

You cannot expect the Commission to buy something forcibly which they do not want.

THE EARL OF ROTHES

I quite appreciate that, but in Clause 54 somewhat similar facilities have been granted to road hauliers, and I was venturing to hope—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I have promised that I will look into it and see that this is dealt with on the same lines. I will do my best.

THE EARL OF ROTHES

I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, and in that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (2) Nothing in the foregoing subsection shall be deemed to prevent the making of arrangements with any person otherwise than under a scheme for the carriage of a party of passengers and their baggage (if any) upon a journey organized as a tour for the common enjoyment of these passenegers. The noble Viscount said: I am sure the Government will accept this Amendment, because they have already accepted it in another Bill. I can put it in two sentences. In the Civil Aviation Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will remember, there was a question of perfectly genuine charter—a man chartering an aeroplane to take a number of people upon a trip. That was universally agreed to, and we did not have to divide upon it. That is exactly the position of an independent operator wishing to run a genuine chartered bus. There cannot conceivably be anything to object to in it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 78, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am advised that this Amendment of the noble Lord is fully covered by the Bill as it stands; that contract carriages and that kind of thing will not be included in the scheme at all, and that they are not part of the passenger road service. They are exempted from inclusion in the scheme. For instance, I gather that if anybody—say a party of the Women's Institute, or a body of that sort—wants to charter a bus to take them all round England, that would be a contract carriage. If you look at the definitions given on page 124, you will see that it says: 'passenger road transport service' means a service of express carriages, stage carriages, tramcars.… and so on. This is not a "service," and therefore contract coaches and such things as specially arranged tours are not included at all. I am advised that the Amendment is not necessary, but if, after further consultation, I find it is, I am quite agreeable to put it in.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am delighted to find that we are at one, and that the Amendment is not necessary. I am bound to say that, having been told earlier that a fair chance for the Commission meant an exclusive monopoly for the Commission, I was really a little anxious as to whether this Amendment ought not to be inserted. But of course if the noble Viscount tells me that we can take the Mothers' Union on a tour and no one will send us to prison, I am quite happy. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.

9.16 p.m.

Clause 64:

Passenger road transport services of the commission.

(2) Sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which relate to road service licences) shall not apply to any passenger road transport service provided, whether under a scheme under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act or otherwise, by the Commission or by any person acting as agent for the Commission, but neither the Commission nor any such person as aforesaid shall use any public service vehicle for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward at separate fares except—

1. (a) on a route approved, as respect so much thereof as falls within any traffic area, by the licensing authority for public service vehicles for that area; and
2. (b) in accordance with such restrictions as may be imposed by that authority as to the class or description of vehicles which may be used on the route and as to the portions of the route on which, and the points at which, passengers may be taken up or set down:

Provided that the Commission may appeal to the Minister against the refusal of any such authority to give their approval or against any restrictions imposed by them as to the matters aforesaid, and the decision of the Minister shall be final.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree that it is unnecessary for me to make a speech on this Amendment, I dealt fully with passenger transport as well as road hauliers when I spoke on the Amendment to Clause 58, which the Committee passed, and deployed the whole sequence of arguments for the purpose. We have agreed that the licensing authorities shall retain their existing powers over road haulage operated both by the Commission and by independent Operators, subject, of course, to the overriding power of the Transport Tribunal. This Amendment is to make exactly the same provision with regard to passenger transport. It carries out exactly the same intention, and allows the licensing authority under the Act of 1930 to retain the powers they possess under that Act—subject again to the overriding powers of the Transport Tribunal, and subject also to the provisions of any scheme which may be duly approved and passed by Parliament. The Amendment is exactly on all fours with what we decided as regards road haulage, and I beg to move it really as a consequential Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 78, line 4o, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Swinton.)

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am glad that the noble Viscount agrees that we have had a long discussion on this main theme this afternoon and that it is not necessary to repeat it. But I would point out that there is a very important difference between this and the decision which we reached this afternoon on road haulage. This is a part of a scheme. The road haulage related to orders and actions by the Commission and its Executives; but this relates to what is to be done with regard to a comprehensive scheme. I would point out to the noble Viscount that he is pressing his case too far. There is a scheme which is to be subject to local inquiry and which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. and I think it is quite unreasonable to say that the operation of that scheme may be subject to the local licensing authority. I cannot see that this Amendment is parallel with the other case. I am afraid we must object to it. I do not want to prolong the debate, but it seems to me completely impossible to expect that a scheme approved by Parliament shall then be subject to the veto, if you like, of a local transport authority.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If we must differ we must; but do not let us differ on a misunderstanding as to what the position is. If the words are not quite appropriate, we can make them right afterwards; but let me make abundantly clear. what is the purpose of this, and what I am advised that the words are capable of meaning. Of course, I recognize that the scheme—and said that we accept: this completely—and whatever is laid down in the scheme, will be binding on the licensing authority. I do not want to go behind the scheme in the least, but I know that the scheme cannot lay down all these matters all the time. All I say is this: Let the scheme be made; let that scheme be absolutely binding in what it provides upon the Commission and on every other permitted operator under the scheme; and lot the scheme also be binding on the licensing authority. But when you have done that, there will be constant calls to put extra buses on the road, either for special purposes or generally, and I am perfectly certain that the scheme is more in the nature of a general directive than an operating order to—say—every bus in Yorkshire.

What we say is this. In so far as the licensing authority are to operate at all—and by this Bill they are made operative over the independent people—then, subject to the Bill, and subject to the scheme, and subject to any overriding decision of the Transport Tribunal, the licensing authority shall have authority over the Commission, and over the independent operators. This is the sole purpose of this Amendment, and I am advised on good legal authority that it is well drafted for the purpose. That is what is in our minds and what is our intention; no more and no less. If it does require amendment in words to make that effective—well, so be it; but do not let us have any difference of opinion. We are not seeking to let the licensing authority override Parliament or the scheme, or anything else; the Amendment is simply to give the licensing authority power of restriction over the other operators and over the Commission.

LORD GIFFORD

In subsection (2) it says that the Commission may operate under a scheme or otherwise. That is the only matter I want to point out.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I do not see the words to which the noble Lord is referring.

LORD GIFFORD

They are at the foot of page 78.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

That means the Passenger Transport Act. With regard to the point mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, there is clearly a misunderstanding. I am advised that the result of his Amendments, put together, would be what I described, and I am glad to hear from him explicit and definite assurances that that is not his wish. That being the case, perhaps it would not be difficult to arrive at an understanding. I am advised, with complete definiteness, however, that his Amendments go very much further than that. If the noble Viscount will look at the top of page 79, with regard to the modifications he has mentioned, he will see that the subsection goes on: But neither the Commission nor any such person —that will be the private person— as aforesaid, shall use any public service vehicle for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward at separate fares except

1. (a) on a route approved, as respects so much thereof as falls within any traffic area, by the licensing authority for public service vehicles for that area; and
2. (b) in accordance with such restrictions as may be imposed by that authority"—

that is the Licensing Authority— as to the class or description of vehicles which may be used, and so on. Those are the very powers which the noble Viscount said he wanted the licensing authority to exercise, and here they are, stated in the Bill—that they shall exercise them, notwithstanding a scheme. I am sure there is a misunderstanding.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I leave it like this? I am not quoting my own legal authority—I have taken good legal authority on this side of the House—but I am sure that the Bill, as drafted, gives one law to the Commission and quite a different law to the independent permitted operators under the scheme. That is what we believe to be utterly and absolutely wrong. We want to do, qua both the Commission and the operators in passenger road 'transport, exactly what the Committee have done about hauliers. We do not want to do any more and, with respect, we will not be content to do any less. We do not want to override any scheme; we want both to be subject to the scheme, so far as the scheme governs them. I am not asking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to assent to that proposition. He wants a specially privileged position for the Commission and an inferior position for—I see he dissents from that. At any rate, I do not ask him to assent to the proposition. I do not wish to talk further on an Amendment which we may have to put into a different form. So I am willing to withdraw this now, on the understanding that between now and the Report stage, if our expert draughtsmen can mutually agree on a provision in a form which gives effect to what I want, I shall be quite content to move it in that form. If, as seems to be the case, there is doubt as to whether I have it in the right form, I agree that it had better go in on the Report stage.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am quite willing that our advisers should collaborate, so far as possible, with a view to finding some form of Amendment which would satisfy the noble Viscount. But he will, of course, understand that that does not pledge me to agree with what he has adduced.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If the noble Viscount on his side will get this put into the right legal form as he wants it, then we on our side will get it into the right legal form as we want it, and your Lordships can take a decision, knowing that you are taking a decision in the right legal form. On that understanding, I will withdraw this Amendment and put the whole chain down again in the right form on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 agreed to.

Clause 65:

Schemes as to harbours.

(4) The Commission may be the body specified, or one of the bodies specified, in a provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, and a part of the undertaking of the Commission may be the subject of a transfer under a provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection.

(6) No provision of any scheme made under this section shall apply to any private dock undertaking, oil dock undertaking, coal dock undertaking or drydock undertaking, unless either the person carrying on the undertaking consents to the application thereof or the undertaking is carried on in pursuance of some private Act or some order having the effect of an Act.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (4) For the purpose of the exercise or performance of his powers and duties under the Eighth Schedule to this Act, the Minister shall not regard a scheme as making satisfactory provision with respect to the matters dealt with therein unless the scheme provides that the body who is to administer the scheme—

1. (a) is to be a body who does not carry on its undertaking with the object of making profits for, or distributing profit as dividend among, the members or proprietors of the body;
2. (b) is to be constituted so as to include among its members persons representing the respective interests of payers of dues for the facilities afforded in the harbour or group of harbours and of workers employed in the harbour or group of harbours; and
3. (c) is to administer the scheme from a place at or in the immediate vicinity of the harbour or one of the harbours within the group of harbours."

The noble Viscount said: Now we come to another matter of very great importance and that is how we are to deal with the docks of this country. Again, with your Lordships permission, I would like for a moment or two to examine the whole position, because without that I do not think that the purpose of this Amendment can be fully appreciated. I want to do it not only to make the position plain, but also because I think that when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has heard what I have to say he will agree that when we took a decision on an earlier clause he perhaps used rather exaggerated language as to its effect. I think I shall be able to show him that.

Let us see what the Bill, as it originally stood, and the Government plan, do, as compared with tire Amendments which the Leader of the Opposition and I propose here. Under the Bill, until the Committee determined otherwise, a Docks and Waterways Executive would have been set up, and this Executive would have had the duty of managing all the railway docks vested in the Commission. Under the Bill the Commission, and not the Executive, have the duty and power to review docks and harbours and make schemes. As the Lealer of the House said, it would be unthinkable that in making the scheme the Commission should abolish the very successful harbour trusts like the Clyde, London, Mersey, Newcastle, Leith, or any of the many smaller ones which are also extremely efficient. Under the Bill as it stands the Commission can make a scheme for all other ports, establishing similar port trusts if they wish, but until a scheme is proposed the status quo will be maintained for every port. As soon as the railway docks vest in them, the Commission will operate the railway docks in whatever way they think best. Other docks will remain operating as they are at the present time.

Let me point out what changes our Amendments make. Although important, they certainly do not alter the whole structure of the Bill, as the noble Viscount suggested. The railway docks will all vest in the Commission on the appointed day. It is true that there is an Amendment put down to Clause 68, requiring the Commission to transfer the railway docks within a period of four to five years. We can discuss that on its me6s when we come to it, but I would like to say at once that it is not necessary to effect the plan I am proposing, which is that where there is a change it should be by port trust. It is not in the least necessary that that Amendment should be mandatory or, indeed, that it should go in at all. I know that many people feel that the railways and the Commission should hand over the docks sooner or later to a public trust. But if I could establish the essential proposition that the right system of managing docks is by this independent public trust, I would be perfectly content to leave the railway docks to be run by the Commission by any Executive they please or in any way they please, until such time that they think they should transfer them to a port trust; because I am sure that sooner or later the Commission will feel that the right way is to deal with them through such a trust. I ask the noble Viscount not to consider the Amendment essential to the plan I am putting forward.

Under these Amendments the Commission is given the power and the duty to review all ports and make schemes exactly as the Government propose. The only difference is that under the Government plan any or all of the ports can be vested in this centralized administration in Whitehall, while we believe that to be fundamentally wrong. We say that if you want to make a change you ought to make it by establishing a port trust on the precedent of these non-profit-making public utility trusts. The arguments for that are very strong indeed. Ports are the links between land transport and sea transport. They ought to serve them both, but they should be controlled by neither. I would be as opposed to putting the ports under the shipping lines as I would be opposed to putting them under the railway lines. They are where the two meet, but they should be under neither, though they should serve both. Experience is in favour of this. The Royal Commission on Transport, from which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has quoted, said this: We are definitely of opinion that, in principle, it is undesirable that one form of transport should own docks and harbours to which access is essential by other forms of transport. We are further of opinion that the best kind of authority to own docks and harbours is a public trust, such as exists in London, Liverpool, and elsewhere.

That is strong evidence, but it goes much further than that. Many others who have no political interest in this whatsoever, but who are concerned only that the ports should run to the best advantage because it serves their trade, have taken the same view. The Traders Docks and Harbours Co-ordinating Committee unanimously endorsed this principle. This Committee represent everybody who uses the docks, and include the whole of the British Chambers of Shipping, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the Mansion House Association of Transport, the National Farmers' Union, the Timber Federation of the United Kingdom, and a whole chain of organizations representing practically every user of the ports. The whole shipping industry, who do not claim to run the ports and upon whom we increasingly depend, not merely for our transport but for our export trade, not merely as carriers of exports but as invisible exports themselves, and who also represent the mind of foreign shipowners, unanimously take the same view. After all, if we run these ports properly we make a great deal of money out of foreign ships, and we make hard currency at the same time.

All experience proves the importance of local knowledge and local administration. These port trusts which have been so successful are administered locally by bodies representative of all the different kinds of users, of the local authorities of the port, and of labour, and they also include independent members. There can be no great political argument against this. I know the Government have a mandate, and they have always claimed they wanted to nationalize the railways. I am not going to say whether they are right or wrong, but I think they can prove they have a mandate to nationalize the railways. They have never claimed a mandate to nationalize the docks. I have caused a most exhaustive inquiry to be made into all the labour manifestoes and publications, but there is not one in which this has been claimed. I ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to correct me if I am wrong, but I am advised that there is no publication of any sort or kind where the Labour Party have claimed to nationalize the ports of this country.

It has been claimed that they ought to be improved—although the last authoritative document I have been able to find from the Labour Party is singularly complimentary to the way the ports of this country are run. We all agree that the more they can be improved, the better, but I do not think the way to improve them is to nationalize them. There is no ideology at stake in this. Certainly the public interest will be served if the working models of these port trusts, who have served the country so well, are included. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)

9.40 p.m.

LORD LEATHERS

Unlike my noble friend who has just sat down, I do not need to apologize for always being on my feet; rather do I apologize for putting in my first appearance to-night. I felt it necessary to come to this House to-night, because of this very clause and this Amendment which we are now considering. I want to tell the House that I am in full agreement with the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Viscount Swinton. I say that, first, because when this Bill was introduced into Parliament there was an Explanatory Memorandum which said: The purpose of the Bill is to set up in Great Britain a publicly owned system of inland transport and of port facilities. In spite of many things that may have been said so far during the course of the discussions on the Bill, I think we must remember that that was the original intention—and it may still be the intention—in the minds of the Government. It has been my life experience to be associated with the docks and with shipping, and I feel that I can speak with some knowledge of the docks. I would also say that during my term of office in the Coalition Government, for some four arid a half years, I had occasion to have the ports within some jurisdiction because, although we did not take any active control, they naturally fell under a measure of control to ensure that the utmost war effort was secured from them. In that experience, I found that where the port trusts were operating they were a very competent dock authority. They have, indeed, come out of a trying experience with an enormous amount expected of them and delivered in a way that can never justify any suggestion that they are inefficient, or anything approaching it.

We ought to have in mind, too, that the ports under public trusts are very important in the tonnage value in this country. In 1938 two-thirds of the total imports and exports of this country came through the ports that are under public trusts. That means that these eight ports were represented by two-thirds of the tonnage of the whole country, compared with 340 ports operating throughout the country. We have a vast amount of our imports and exports passing through the ports governed by these trusts. I think we should keep in mind that this Bill already throws an enormous burden of responsibility upon the Minister and it is not as though we have to go round scraping a little more, perchance, in order that the job may be worth while. I suggest that there is no occasion to seek that additional burden; and indeed, what is the use of putting that burden on to the Bill, overburdened as it must necessarily be, by going out of our way to place within its jurisdiction public trusts and ports which have so capably conducted their business over a period of years?

I would like to strengthen all that my noble friend Lord Swinton has said in support of the argument that he has made. I feel that we should be making a grave error to interfere with a system which has worked so well, even though we might hope that under such new jurisdiction something as good might be achieved. I think it would be wrong to do it, because under the present regime of port trusts there is an absolutely essential independence from any of those sides which matter so much; and the Commission will, for certain, be on one side. Those are the reasons which prompt me to say, and prompt me to urge, if I may, on the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that there is really essence, there is really importance in this suggestion which has been made from this side of the House, and I do beg of him to give it the utmost consideration.

LORD TEYNHAM

I should like to add my support to this Amendment, the object of which has been so clearly explained by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. This clause is, of course, of profound importance to the shipping world, and it is for that reason that I feel I should emphasize certain points. It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, that in the Bill, as originally drafted, the whole of the trade harbours together with the ancillary services would have come under the control of the Transport Commission. By "ancillary services" I mean stevedoring, lighterage and warehousing. This executive control would have had the most far-reaching and detrimental effects upon the efficient handling of ships and the loading, discharging, and distribution of cargoes. An Amendment was accepted by the Government in another place whereby the powers of the Commission to bring under compulsion all the ancillary services by State ownership were removed, and the shipping interests are grateful for this concession. But the very fact that this important concession had to be made shows quite clearly how little this section of the Bill had been properly thought out and considered in its effect on the efficiency of our ports.

Again by Amendments agreed to in another place, the private docks, dry docks and oil undertakings are in general now excluded from the scheme that can be made by the Commission. For this further reason I cannot help thinking that it would have been far better to introduce this clause into the Bill only after thorough public inquiry into the best method of State and public control of harbours and ancillary services. The commercial harbours and ports of Great Britain are approximately 330 in number, and are in the hands of local or private authorities. They can be divided into four groups: those under trusts which are not run for profit, amounting to some no in number; the Municipal authority group, amounting to 70 in number; the railway group, amounting to 50 in number, and the remaining harbour companies, amounting to 100 in number. With the exception of the railway ports and the harbour companies, all the principal harbours are already under a form of public ownership. It is either the trust system or one of municipal ownership, like Manchester and Bristol.

As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, if we take into consideration the municipal port of Bristol, the municipally controlled port of Manchester, and the railway docks, which in the Bill will come under the control of the Commission, the ports at present are operating under the trust system, and it will be found that 85 per cent. of the total exports and imports of the country were handled by these ports, which are already under a form of public ownership. The object of this Amendment is to leave undisturbed this efficient form of public control of our ports, and at the same time to allow the Commission to retain power of review of the ports which are not already under the public trust system, or publicly controlled. If they decide that under the scheme, as a result of this review, certain ports should come under public ownership and perhaps be grouped with other ports, the scheme must be largely that of a public trust system, similar to that already in force in London or Liverpool.

Perhaps I may be allowed to read an extract from the report of the Royal Commission on Transport issued in 1931. In paragraph 450 on page 126 it says: The efficiency of many of the undertakings controlled by these Public Trusts cannot be denied. The Port of London Authority, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and the Clyde Trust, to mention the three largest, are examples of statutory authorities which have done a very great deal to provide the most modern and convenient accommodation for shipping, both ocean and coastwise. The same remarks apply in no less degree to many of the municipally-owned and railway-owned undertakings, such as those of Bristol and Avonmouth … That Report certainly does not indicate that the ports under public control are inefficient, but on the contrary that they are run very well, and in the best interests of the country generally. I emphasize that there is a marked difference between the public trust in relation to harbour administration and public ownership, or such control as it implies, under the Bill. Under the trust system administration is conducted locally, which, of course, is very important, and it gives full scope to local initiative responsibility and civic pride. And all that would be lost if the ports came under State ownership and centralized control.

I am well aware that in another place the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport implied that it was the general intention of the Government to keep the trust port system, but as the Bill is drawn the Transport Commission would still have power to hand over the commercial harbours to State ownership and centralized control. I have had some personal experience of the control and management of the largest port in the world, and I have come to the conclusion that this centralized control really only worked successfully because the Government, in exercising their war-time emergency powers, left the harbours and ports to local trusts and municipally-owned systems. The nationalization of ports, as already mentioned, was no part of the Government's Election programme, and it is a very grave matter that no inquiry has been held to ascertain the effect on the country's industry and trade of such nationalization. No evidence has been produced to justify this scheme, and no evidence has been forthcoming from any responsible quarter in favour of the system proposed. I implore the Leader of the House to accept this very reasonable Amendment.

LORD REA

I should like to support the Amendment, not because it has any immediate application, but because it may set some check upon the megalomania that afflicts the present Government. This is a disease that is, I am told, apt to grow and is quite incurable. I should like to make quite sure that in spite of the undoubted powers which are given under this Bill for the Transport Commission to take over the extremely efficient ports which are now run under local and independent authorities, those ports will still be sure of that local supervision and care. Much depends upon that in those ports, which, by the way, as one of the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite has said, are commercial undertakings in competition with foreign ports and therefore must be run on a commercial basis. It is essential that they should be run by people on the spot and under the advice of those who actually use those ports.

May I be allowed to give a personal experience of one of the ports controlled by a local trust? Many years ago I applied in my business capacity for a berth, for something which all the members of that port thought was a wild speculation; but they were local people and I am happy to say that they had sufficient confidence in my family to accept it as right. We were able to set that berth up, and for the last fifty years it has been a very prosperous undertaking. It is something which would never have been set up if we had had to apply to someone in London to get permission. I had no experience of it during the last war, but during the First World War, when I was actively engaged in business, we thought that when a Government Department necessarily took control of that particular port the efficiency was very greatly reduced. It was infinitely more difficult. to secure decisions, which it was vitally necessary to secure promptly in war time, when there was a Government Department at the back to which the local ma n had to defer.

Therefore it is of the greatest importance to the export and transit business of this country that great organizations like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Port of London Authority, the Clyde Trustees, and so forth, should be run predominantly by local men who know all the circumstances and who should not be subject to the crippling control which, with the best will in the world, must ensue if decisions have to be referred to Whitehall. There I would differ, perhaps, from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who was prepared to leave the railway ports in the hands of the railway companies or of their successor, the Ministry of Transport. I am not at all sure—although it does not perhaps arise on this Amendment—that it would not be in the interests of this country. and in the interests of our competition with the foreign ports across the Channel, if such ports as Southampton and those in South Wales were to be put under local trusts, similar to those in London, Liverpool and elsewhere.

There is a further reason for that. I am very distrustful of those ports which are owned by the railway companies, in that the rates for the port and the railway rates are all one, and nobody knows how they are made up. I know from my own experience how it has been possible for a railway company, in the bad old days of competition in South Wales, to make its rates so that nobody could understand them. Suppose that this Government, from its own point of view, very properly chose to favour South Wales instead of somewhere else, because it is a depressed area. I want to be sure that something is done to see that they do not juggle with the combined rates of railway and dock dues so as to fa your unfairly one district over another. So I urge that though this Amendment has no immediate effect, it is a very real safeguard, not against the present Minister of Transport but against some successor who may be not so careful of his reputation and not quite so impartial. It is a safeguard to ensure that under some future Minister of Transport at any rate our great ports shall not be submitted to the deadening hand of control from Whitehall.

LORD ROTHERWICK

I would like to support the Amendment from the point of view of the shipping industry and indeed from the point of view of a great many manufacturers and traders in this country. The main purpose of this Bill is to nationalize road and rail transport. I have heard of no special mandate given to the Government to couple State ownership of ports and harbours with nationalization of inland transport, yet in this Bill we find that ports are linked up with transport. The noble Viscount told us, I think, that he had read the report of the Royal Commission, 1930–1932. That report did not advise nationalization; in fact, it favoured and actually advocated the public trust system as being the best. But we have a later report still than that, and that is from the Labour Party, who in 1944, reporting on "The Post-War Organization of British Transport," said: "Broadly speaking dock facilities and methods in this country have a high efficiency."

What more do you want? There is no question of inefficiency here. The efficiency of port trusts, in fact, has never been questioned. I do not wish to stress political considerations but I do wish to point to the seriousness of the situation to the shipping industry of this country if the public trust system is disturbed. Our principal ports are essentially international in character, and anything which hampers their efficiency will react upon the ability of our manufacturers and traders to hold their own with their foreign competitors. The progress and prosperity of our ports hale been built up on the basis of keen competition between one port and another. At present, as has already been stated, there are no ports administered by local commissions and trusts-these include the Port of London Authority, the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, and the Clyde Trust. The constitution of the Port of London Authority provides that members shall be elected by shipowners and traders using the ports and paying clues, wharfingers and owners of river craft.

The public trust system is non-profit making and is run voluntarily. I think we should mete out a great deal of praise to the men in all the various ports of this country who have devoted so much time to the work, and have clone so much to make them efficient and to bring them up to the state in which they are to-day. These ports are administered by the users of the ports; that is to say, by those people who are most capable of infusing energy and life into their management. Of course, the essential feature of the port trust system is that they are locally autonomous, and, as has been said, they provide full scope for local initiative. Local knowledge of conditions is of paramount importance. To be able to act promptly, to make quick decisions on the spot, is absolutely essential from a shipping point of view, where you may miss a tide if decisions are delayed.

Contrast that with State ownership and State control of these ports. To me that is fundamentally inconsistent with efficient management of the ports. Centralized port administration would arrest development. How can people in London quickly grasp conditions in Glasgow or Liverpool? They are out of touch with local conditions. They are not on the spot; they are unable to give quick decisions, and it would also mean a greatly increased cost to users of these ports. It would withdraw incentive to initiative, lead to inefficiency and waste time—especially in regard to ships. I am certain it would lead to inefficiency in the handling of ships, the loading and discharging of ships and the distribution of cargoes. It will inevitably be harmful to the trade of the country. The good points of the port trust system appear to me to be entirely lost if we adopt the Government's proposals.

The primary purpose of the docks is to provide facilities for shipping and, as the noble Viscount has said, they provide the link between inland transport and shipping, and it would be quite right to say they should be independent of both. He read out a great many firms who support this Amendment, and I need not go over them again, but practically all the principal national trading organizations in this country support it. They regard with utmost concern the sweeping powers given in the Bill to the Commission and the Minister to bring ports under State ownership and centralized control. I appreciate that the Government may say—I believe they do say—that it is not their intention to jettison the public trust system; but the Bill does give the power to bring any or all of the 330 ports under State ownership and centralized control. Two-thirds of the imports and exports in 1938 were handled by eight of these trust ports. They include all the big ports—London, Liverpool, Gasgow, Leeds and Newcastle. All function well and efficiently. Why not leave well alone? What is the case for disturbing the trust system of these eight ports, some of the biggest ports in the world, and the best managed, too? With the shortage of shipping which exists-to-day, a quick turn-round in port is of the utmost importance, not only to shipping but to every person in the country and the only way to ensure this is to leave the job to those who know about it and understand it. The import of our food and raw materials and the export of our manufactures depend an shipping. Every day lost in port affects the food of the people, as well as trade and industry.

It has been ascertained that just prior to the war, in the tramp shipping trade in the North Atlantic—Canada to the United Kingdom, and the Plate to the United Kingdom—about one-third of the voyage time was spent in port, and today that figure is much higher. Every day lost in port intensifies the scarcity of ships and increases the operating costs, and to-day these costs are very high indeed. Wages are two and a half times more than pre-war, bunkers are 150 per cent. up, shipbuilding is about two and a half times more than pre-war, and repairs are anything from 150 per cent. up—it is very hard to say what they are. To-day, more than ever, shipping requires an efficient port management. With Our shortage of ships, delays in building and delays in repairs, it appears to me hardly the time to pull down the whole structure of the port trusts, with the risk of destroying the efficiency of these ports, for the sake of adopting doctrinaire theories which may have far reaching and disastrous consequences in the administration of our ports. I beg to support the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

I would like to say a word on this, because it is of vital importance to those of us who live and work in the Western Islands and the Highlands. We have come to realize that piers, which are included in the provisions of this Bill, are like water supplies and roads. They have got beyond the means of private individuals. Most of the piers in the Western Islands and the Highlands are owned by local authorities or private individuals, and for some years we have felt that the day has come when these piers, as harbour works, should be handed over to some public authority. There are two different kinds of piers. There is the pier owned by private individuals and the pier owned by a public authority. The piers owned by private individuals are in scattered places in the smaller islands such as the islands of Coll, Mull, Eigg, and Islay. These islands have a mainly agricultural background, with a few visitors, and the piers simply do not pay. There are twelve piers on the Clyde alone which are either closed because they failed to pay, or are awaiting serious repairs, and there are other piers in the Western Islands. But a pier that cost £6,000 twenty-five years ago will now cost £25,000 or £30,000.

The piers owned by local authorities, such as at Dunoon and Rothesay, have been built by local authorities as a source of revenue, and they cost enormous sums such as £40,000 or £50,000. But these authorities have rated the citizens of the boroughs to pay for these, so that they will be a source of revenue to the borough; and when we come to deal with compensation I would stress that the Government must not merely take over the structure but must pay compensation for the loss of anticipated revenue in the years to come. That would be only fair because the ratepayers have been taxed for them, and in a case like Rothesay they will lose about £4,000 to £;6,000 a year. That should be paid for. It is an excellent idea that these piers, when they are taken over by the Government, should be run without profit. I quite agree that charges should be made to maintain the piers, but I think it is a good idea, to encourage transport to the islands, that they should be run without profit.

Then the question arises: Who is to create a reserve for repairs? I presume that will come out of the general funds of the Transport Commission. When we come to deal with the public authority to run these piers, I rather like the idea of a trust—put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Ordinarily speaking, the county council would be the local authority—or perhaps the district council—but if it is to be a nominated authority of a local area, there will be a danger of jobbery going on by a trader or efforts to secure a representative on the local committee of the pier. I am not saying anything against co-operative societies, but they wish to get the piers because they wish to control the trade in the islands. This has certainly caused grave fears among the private traders. They have bought steamers, and have started on one or two of the islands, and if you are to have a local authority nominated or elected locally to run the piers there will be danger of jobbery by some private trader, or somebody else. I think these authorities should be elected by the people locally—not nominated, but elected.

I hope, when this goes further, that the Government will not terminate their control by dumping the passengers on the pier, and there leaving them. They should have buses to take passengers to their destinations. You cannot run buses on an island for forty miles—they might come under the "C" class. I think the Government put too much importance on distance. It is the distance that always makes the transfer difficult in transport. You can run eighty miles from Glasgow to Perth quite easily on a main road, but it is another thing to go over the "Rest and Be Thankful." It is the same with the islands. You have to run a short distance, but it is a bad road. Therefore, some arrangements should be made to control the transport at as low a level as possible, because the cheaper it is for the working man in the Western Islands to get from the centre to his home, the more you will do for trade and transport. It is the cost of transport that is ruining trade in the Highlands to-day. We must have better transport. Therefore, I do beseech the Government, not merely to dump passengers on the pier and leave them there in the pelting rain to find their own way home, very often at high cost, but to give them transport right through to their homes. I would like to support the Amendment, because this matter is of vital importance to the Highlands.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

Unfortunately for myself I am the last to speak, but I have only a few words to say. We have in Glasgow the Clyde Navigation Trust, which for years has controlled the harbours of the estuary and of Glasgow itself. I should like to ask a straight question of the Government, and it is whether or not this efficient organization will, under this Bill, remain in control. They do not want to be placed under an Executive unless they themselves are the Executive. They want to remain as they are—a great trust which has the admiration and respect of all seafarers who frequent the Clyde. I myself once berthed a ship in the Clyde, and I was gratified and pleased with the celerity and efficiency with which we were secured alongside. The management of a large group of docks and harbours is a very different proposition from the management of road or rail transport. Sea lanes are very different from lanes used by buses and road transport. The Trust deals with ocean-going ships, which are often held up at sea, and do not always arrive on the date they are supposed to; even nowadays they spring a leak and come into the docks with a much greater draught than was expected. Again, the ship may be held up by storms. The point of this is that there are many sudden decisions to be made, and, therefore, you must have an efficient organization to make them. I hope that such a body as the Clyde Navigation Trust, with its great managerial experience, will remain the great Trust it now is, and will continue to carry on the difficult work it has so well carried on in the past.

LORD HACKING

I will not delay a decision being reached for more than a few moments, but although there have been many different aspects of this clause dealt with to-night, there has been no mention up to the present moment of the comfort and the welcome which can be given at our ports to visitors from overseas. I have felt for a long time that it is a very important thing that the facilities of all our ports should be such as will be appreciated by our visitors when first they land in this country. First impressions count for a good deal, and it is because I am terrified of the dead hand of Whitehall having a very bad effect upon the organization and general efficiency of our ports that I desire to support this Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I would like to support this Amendment and to make just two points. The first is in connexion with the railway docks. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said that his Amendment, which is to come up later on, is not actually vital to the scheme which he is proposing, but it has some relation to it, remembering that the railway ownership of docks was mainly acquired with the object of attracting traffic to the railways and the docks. They were either acquired by the railways or developed by the railways, and very large sums of money have been spent from time to time by railways on docks, always with the object of securing an increase in traffic.

I think there is one argument which would suggest that they might as well be separated as to continue combined, and that is the fact that under this Bill there is to be a co-ordinated and combined system of the transport, which has its own means of persuading traffic to go either by road or rail, so that the direct ownership between the railways and docks no longer applies in the form in which it did. I think that is really material to this Amendment, although the railway-owned docks themselves do not come into it. Further, from the operational point of view, one's experience seems to show that the wide range of difficulties of operation do not seem to be any greater under one system than any other. I would like to support the general contention that the port trust is the best solution, particularly when you think of the port as part of the surrounding district.

I have been for some years a member of one of these port trusts—a small trust it is true, but one in which all parties interested in the working of the port are represented. There is a great deal of keenness and enthusiasm amongst all those who are working there, and I think a fairly good level of efficiency is achieved. I am quite certain that a distant control, worked from some larger group, whether from London or, more indirectly, through a docks representative, if there is to be one, would not produce the ease and flexibility in achieving what is required. However, I entirely agree with the proposition in this Bill for making schemes whereby local docks can be combined with others near them. They can help each other financially by the exchange, interchange and loan of plants, such as those used for dredging, and by achieving some kind of uniformity in their methods of charging—not specifically in their rates, but in their arrangements for negotiating with the labour employed, and so on. I hope very much that the final outcome of this will be that we shall have a system of port trusts, each independent, each self-governing, but perhaps combining some of the small ports.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

We have had a long and exceedingly interesting discussion on this Amendment, and so far it has purported to be rather one-sided; but I confess that when I listened to some of the speeches the one-sidedness was not quite so manifest. For example, the noble Duke complained of the present system in the Highlands, and gave us a gruesome picture of people being left stranded on the pier in drenching rain, and so forth; and he demanded that the public—the State—should come in and rescue the citizen from this deplorable state of affairs. Yet he opposes the Bill. That is what puzzles me. I leave it at that. The noble Duke complained of these desolated piers and all the rest of it, and I think he wanted them to be taken over by the public; it was the public that was to come to the rescue because the present system was bankrupt—and yet he objects to changing the present system. It does not seem to fit. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, must have shivered in his shoes when me listened to him, because we know how magnificently Lord Leathers directed our transport during the war, and the immense debt the nation owes to him.

LORD REA

I specially covered myself—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am not having these post hoc explanations. We are all delighted to see Lord Leathers, whose administration was so admired by everybody. And yet the noble Lord below the gangway, Lord Rea, speaks of the paralysing hand of Whitehall. Then he extolled the system that had developed in Wales—I gather because Bristol Corporation has taken the docks over—and he suggested how much better it was than in the bad old days of competition "(I took the words down). I thought that competition was what the noble Lord believed in; and yet he says it was a deplorable state of affairs until the local authorities took the docks over.

With regard to some of the other criticisms, I really was tempted to ask, with complete deference, whether some of our critics have really read the Bill, because I cannot find anywhere in it these terrible proposals, or any suggestion of them. Here let me say that I would join with everything the noble Lords have said with regard to what we owe to some of these magnificent Harbour Trusts. Of course everybody recognizes that; and I cannot imagine anybody charged with this duty who would fail to recognize the value and importance of the excellent work, say, of the Port of London Authority and many others one could mention. Listen to this: The Commission may, with a view to securing the efficient and economical development, maintenance or management of any trade harbour, or group of harbours, prepare, in consultation with the persons theretofore carrying on harbour undertakings in or in connexion with the harbour or group of harbours and with such bodies or persons as the Commission may consider to be properly representative of shipping and traders actually using, and of workers actually employed in, the harbour or group of harbours …. They have to prepare their scheme in that way, in consultation with the Port of London Authority. That is where we start from. But is it possible to imagine that anybody starting off with that statutory instruction is likely to draw up a scheme which will ignore all the magnificent work these bodies have done, and fail to make the best use of it? It is completely inconceivable; that is all. I have no doubt at all that the magnificent work of these trusts will not only be made full use of but, in all likelihood, will be very much extended. That is almost the inevitable outcome of this kind of thing.

What the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, says is that there are 340 ports. He told us about eight of the great ports under these trusts, but at any rate, with those great trusts, there are 340 ports. What about the other 332? Apparently there are more than 300 others. Is it not reasonable that we should take them into account? They may not be very big ones—in fact, many of them probably are not; but they ought to be taken into account. What is it we ask these gentlemen to do? We do not ask them to nationalize these ports—not at all; that is not the instruction in the Bill. We do not ask the Commission to put them under the "paralysing hand of Whitehall" —nothing so stupid. Now that the noble Lords have finished their applause I will give them two very good reasons for the soundness of my statement. First, under the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, Whitehall did not paralyse them, and we certainly should not put in the Bill anything which is inherently absurd. It is not paralysing, and nor was it in the war.

At all events, the point that I am making now is with regard to these 330 ports—or whatever number it is—that are not under this system. What about them? All we ask is that this Commission should make inquiries, in consultation with the persons carrying them on, and so on, and should prepare a scheme. That is on pages 80 and 81.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

We are not proposing to amend that.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No, but I am going to say something about that later on. The noble Viscount wants the good bits, but he wants to amend what they are really there for; in other words he wants this Commission to prepare the scheme and then he says: "Having prepared it we cannot allow you to have anything whatever to do with it." That is what it comes to, and I do not think it reasonable. If the Commission can be trusted to prepare a scheme, why veto them in advance from setting up any proposed scheme of working that they like? why say that they must, of necessity, adopt this particular pattern—because that is what the Amendment says. What the Amendment says is: "With regard to the other docks—300 or more of them—for which you are required to prepare a scheme, you must prepare a scheme on this pattern." That is what we object to. We say; "Let the Commission prepare a scheme to carry out the provisions set out in this clause on pages 80 and 81."

The noble Viscount still wants them to do that, because he does not propose to omit it. Let them prepare a scheme. But surely, if they are to be trusted to prepare a scheme, they must be trusted to prepare a scheme of management that goes with it. That is part of the scheme. Why should we in advance stereotype the type of management which they have to produce? We cannot accept that. We cannot possibly accept an Amendment which tells us in advance precisely what they have got to do. We just cannot accept it—I am sorry. In saying that I am not saying a word against these trusts, I extol them, as much as any noble Lord in this House, for the magnificent work which they are doing. But their particular pattern may not properly be applicable in all cases. You may have all kinds of devices for management; why should the Commission not be at liberty to make proposals with respect to the docks, all of which proposals can he open to local objection, and all of which will have to be approved by Parliament? Surely it would not be right to carry out a process of stereotyping in advance.

Hoping, as I do, that we shall not have to repeat this discussion at the next sitting, I might perhaps say a word now about the sequel Amendment of the noble Viscount which I was very glad to find that he did not necessarily press.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If the principle is accepted on this Amendment I am perfectly prepared not to move that one.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Then I am afraid we must differ. I cannot accept the principle of this Amendment, for the reasons which I have been endeavouring to state earlier. With regard to the statement which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, may I say that since he spoke I have had put into my hands a document called the Cooper Report—I believe it is a Report made by Lord Cooper—on the Clyde estuary and the ports in that district? I am sure that the gentleman responsible for that Report was not appointed by this Government. I expect the noble Earl well knows who appointed this gentleman to make this Report, He does not agree with the noble Earl. Let me read from his Report the first recommendation. If you want anything to support the proposals in the Bill here it is. It is no longer compatible with the most efficient operation, or the best expansion and development, of the ports' navigational facilities on the Clyde that they should be administered, as in the past, as separate and unrelated undertakings. That is from a Report made by Lord Cooper. If you want justification for our proposals, there it is.

I have only one further point to make. I hope, notwithstanding what he said, that the noble Viscount will not persist with what he proposes in a later Amendment. It is an Amendment to insert a new clause and it appears on pages 11 and 12 of to-day's Marshalled List of Amendments. What it comes to is this: although the Commission are to be trusted to frame a scheme, although the Commission are to take over one hundred or so clocks belonging to the railways at the beginning, they must of necessity divest themselves of them within four years. They are not to be trusted to keep them. Really, I am astonished at that suggestion. What is proposed is that the Commission shall prepare schemes; and there is one other thing, according to the noble Lord's proposals, that they will be able to do—they will be able to give out money. I do not know what the Public Accounts Department will say to that. At the end of the period I have mentioned the Commission have to divest themselves of authority with regard to the whole lot of the ports. I am sorry but we cannot possibly accept a proposal of that kind. It would knock the heart out of the whole of this part of the Bill. Frankly, it is not reasonable, and I think that I have proved that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is with very considerable diffidence that I intervene in this debate at all, because I cannot pretend to be an expert on docks, which is something that apparently every noble Lord who has spoken so far is. But I would like to say a word or two as to the broad issues that have been raised. After all there is a broad under-lying issue. That is why this Amendment was such an important one. I think we were all impressed by the noble Viscount's speech. It was most agreeable entertainment and an extremely skilful Parliamentary performance. The noble Viscount made considerable play with one or two remarks made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. He made admirable fun of one or two sentences picked at random out of speeches of other noble Lords. All this produced a most admirable red herring—if a red herring can be admirable—but it did not conceal the truth from the House that the Government are up against the difficulty they are always up against when it comes to a question of nationalization. They are always swaying between two motives. They are afflicted by a sort of schizophrenia which I am told is an extremely dangerous complaint and nearly always incurable. They cannot make up their minds whether the motive for their action is to be efficiency, or merely doctrinaire considerations.

I think it is true to say that in politics there is nothing so dangerous as making a moral principle of something which has no moral principle at all. If we go back about forty years we can see that that is what happened to Tariff Reform and Free Trade in this country. The Tariff Reformers and Free Traders made it a question of moral principle. It was not a moral principle at all: it was a question of practical expediency, as we found out after suffering the consequences for many years. The same thing may happen on this question of public or private control. I am sceptical, naturally, holding the views I hold, of public centralized control. The noble Viscount and other Lords opposite are sceptical of private local control. But for both of us the real test must be efficiency, and that must be based on the experience of the past.

We have had some very notable contributions this afternoon by men well qualified to speak, not because they belong to any particular Party but because they have a knowledge of the industry. We have had speeches from Lord Rotherwick, from Lord Rea and, in particular, from Lord Leathers, who has unrivalled experience in the working of ports, and recently of ports during the period of the war. I imagine that Lord Leathers, if I may say so in his presence, had as much to do with the winning of the war as anybody in this country, and that was because he knew his job, understood the people with whom he had to work and made use of the organization that came to his hand. One knows from what he says that he found in existence an organization that could stand up to the severest test that could be put upon it. What an extraordinary movement this is, to try and alter that organization! The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, shakes his head, but he has heard Lord Leathers—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am not differing from it. We are not trying to alter what is there. That does not necessarily follow at all.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The present management has proved to be efficient. The reason was given by Lord Rotherwick—because it is locally autonomous. That is the universal view of the great experts who came down to speak to your Lordships to-night. It is their view that it is fatal to try and put such an organization as this, which is diverse in character, in various parts of the country, into the straitjacket of centralized control. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, shakes his head. The noble Viscount said in his speech that no Government in their senses would do that. Then why put powers in the Bill to enable them to do it? The noble Viscount says they are not there, but if he will look at Clause 65, subsection (4) he will find it states there that "The Commission may be the body specified." The Commission is a centralized control.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Not necessarily. You said necessarily.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But it gives the power in the Bill. The noble Viscount says "not necessarily"; but how foolish to put a provision in the Bill when your main hope is that it will not be applied! I do not think it can be read any other way. The noble Viscount said, as I understood it, that any noble Lord who said the object of this Bill was to nationalize the port facilities and bring them under a central control could not have read the Bill. I am afraid the noble Viscount himself must have restricted his reading, because I have here the first lines of the Preamble. The noble Viscount can have read only the title, because the preamble says that the purpose of the Bill is to set up in Great Britain a publicly owned system of inland transport and of port facilities. That is doing away with the existing system.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Not where a public trust is concerned—that is not privately owned.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

At present these trusts are local autonomous trusts, and the object of this Bill is to put all these activities of inland transport, whether they be by land or by water, under the control of a centralized Commission. That is the whole purpose of this Government scheme.

We do urge most strongly on the Government, in no controversial spirit, that the purpose of our Amendment is to preserve what is both efficient and one of the glories of our country. Why is it that the ports have succeeded? One of the main reasons is that throughout there has been a healthy competition between them. There has been competition between Glasgow and the Clyde and Liverpool, and competition between Liverpool and Southampton, and this competition has kept the various ports up to the mark. The management and the workers arid all the people concerned are proud of their own concern and keyed up to beat the other port. The Government scheme will do away with that entirely. They think they have smoothed it out into a neat scheme of co-ordinated control, but all they will do is to take out all the spirit which makes the ports what they are.

The noble Viscount asked what should be done about the small ports. I should not have thought it was beyond the wit of man to deal with small ports I should have thought it was possible to produce a system of joint trusts. I should have thought that these joint trusts over ports [...]n[...] a certain locality would be a far more [...]e and living concern than central control under the Commission. I do urge the Government not to be carried away too much by doctrinaire considerations. We shall divide on this—we must divide on this—but I do hope that after the Division has taken place the Government will consider the matter further, and will not hand over control from those who have proved they know their job to those who are untried and who cannot know it so well. This is a big issue. It is an issue which involves whether we are going gradually to centralize more and more or whether we leave alive in this country an

institution which has succeeded and is succeeding. If the noble Lords say—as they do say constantly—that efficiency is their test, then let them prove it by allowing the existing dock system to continue.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I have only this to say. I have seldom heard a case more misrepresented than this has been in this debate. There is no proposal here to hand this over to any stereotyped, central system. Powers arc taken to make the most varied kind of arrangements which sensible men may devise after consulting those on the spot. All I have to say is that if the noble Lords wish to eviscerate the Bill in this way, they will do it; but they must accept the responsibility for doing it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Viscount the Leader of the House cannot have it both ways. What he is saying in effect, is: We are making no alteration by this provision. Then, why do they put it in the Bill?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

You are proposing a fundamental alteration. You are compelling the Government to adopt one single stereotyped system, and we refuse.

On Question, Whether the proposed subsection be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 18.

NON-CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Darwen, L.	Mountevans, L.
Addison, V.	Henderson, L. [Teller.]	Nathan, L.
Hall, V.	Holden, L.	Piercy, L.
St. Davids, V.	Kershaw, L.	Quibell, L.
	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Shepherd, L.
Chorley, L.	Morrison, L. [Teller.]	Uvedale of North End, L.
		Walkden, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD TEYNHAM

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 28.—(Lord Teynham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

In moving that the House do now resume, I should inform your Lordships that we have made an alteration in the arrangements of business, and that this Bill will be taken again on Monday next.

Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.