TRANSPORT BILL.

HL Deb 25 June 1947 vol 149 cc279-385

4.5 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 95 [General provisions as to terms and conditions of employment of staff, etc.]:

LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (1), at the end, to insert: Provided that nothing in this section shall enable the Commission to make it a condition of employment of any person employed by them that such person shall or shall not be a member of any particular trade union. The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon and myself. This Amendment is designed to prevent the Commission from making it a condition of employment that a man should or should not belong to a particular trade union.

The operative word in this Amendment, of course, is the word "particular." Had that word not been inserted in the Amendment there might have been a suspicion that this Amendment was controversial; but the fact that it is there, I think, rules out that possibility, and I am sure that it is an Amendment which will be acceptable to the Government. I am aware that a large majority of the workers in the transport industry are already members of one or other trade unions. It is rather on behalf of those members of the industry who are not members of a trade union that this Amendment is moved. They are, admittedly, few, and the reasons for them not belonging are various. There is a possibility that one of the reasons why those workers have not wished to belong to a trade union is that they are being transferred, whether they wish it or not, into State employment, particularly the smaller concerns. And when this Bill becomes an Act we shall have obtaining a situation which gives rise, I think, to several important implications and repercussions.

The first of these which I would like to put is this: Is it right that a state monopoly should be able to make membership of a trade union a condition of service? If the answer to that question is "Yes," then there are two results, which I submit may be undesirable. One is that the State will have the power to make a working man industrially untouchable, even though he has spent the whole of his life in the transport industry, and even though he knows no other trade. The second is that, if the State should see fit to favour a particular union, then a private monopoly will arise which is completely backed by a public monopoly, and that private monopoly will be in a position to dictate to the Government but will not in itself be constitutionally responsible.

I am well aware that there are two aspects of this very vexed question of the closed shop. If I understand the situation correctly, one is the refusal of members of a trade union to work with men who are not members. There is nothing whatever in this Amendment which I am moving to-day which touches the principle of 100 per cent. trade union membership. The other aspect of the closed shop is the attempt of the larger unions to make a monopoly of membership in a certain field of the industry. I wish particularly to avoid being accused of provocation, so I will say only that there have been instances in the last two years when some of the larger unions have been in clashes with smaller unions and with individuals, and the results have caused the gravest misgivings to those who have the interests of the liberty of the subject and freedom of conscience at heart. I think that the experience of the last two years suggests that it would be a very unhappy thing to launch this great Act upon the industry with the risk of doing injustice in this particular respect to a small number of members of that industry. I think it would augur well and promise fair play and justice if the Commission give to a man entering an industry—whether he wants to enter it under State control or not—the right to choose to which trade union he will belong. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 102, line 37, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Mancroft.)

LORD WALKDEN

On behalf of the Government I have to state that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment. I am rather sorry it has been moved. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was a little confusing in what he said; he made some reference to non-unionists and then went on to say that his remarks referred to what I may call wrong-unionists, that is men in the wrong union. The non-unionist is a troublesome fellow, but he is generally open to persuasion. In my organization we always use peaceful persuasion; it is all done by kindness! But in the more horny-handed organizations they lose their patience and they employ other methods. They will not work with a man who will not join their fellowship. In effect they say to the employer, "The union established and maintains our condition, and we cannot tolerate anyone who does not help." The non-unionist seems to think he has a conscience, but it is an inflated ego. He has a queer mind. Those of your Lordships who have been in elections may remember that you come against these people when visiting the electors. They say, "I won't vote; I won't take any part." They are anti-civic in their minds. There are some people who will not have a doctor. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is in the legal profession. How would he feel if he were briefed to deal with a father who would not have a doctor in the house when his child was dying?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Are Christian Scientists to be prohibited from seeking employment?

LORD WALKDEN

They might be. There are strange bodies, including one called Christadelphians and what I believe are called Plymouth Brethren—I am not sure of the name, but they are queer, peculiar people. You must not be surprised if most working men say to the employer, "We would rather you sent that fellow off. He will only cause trouble," But the wrong-unionist is the worst man. I know the case to which the noble Lord was referring. It was on the London Passenger Transport Board. There was a man who joined a breakaway union, and in the trade union and industrial world there is nothing worse than these breakaway unions. This breakaway union was formed by a few busmen who did not like a settlement that Mr. Bevin had made. A friend of theirs in another place, Mr. W. J. Brown, a queer fellow who changes his political opinions every year, helped them to form another union of their own, until the other men said, "We cannot work with these fellows." They had overtures with Lord Ashfield, and he agreed that these men should be excluded from their occupation.

The greatest industrialist in the world, Henry Ford, said, "If I have to recognize trade unions I will recognize only one." Most great industrialists have minds like that, and in the world of labour it is an awful job when you have an infinity of unions. We have in the railway world a number of signalmen; there was a man who disliked J. H. Thomas and for that reason encouraged them to form a union of their own. That is what I mean by a wrong union. The men who go into these breakaway unions are a curse to industry. The London Passenger Transport Service to-day is happier and going on better than when those cantankerous fellows of W. J. Brown's were in their midst.

Coming to this new national transport service: In Clause 95, there are proper standardized provisions laid down by which the Commission will negotiate with the appropriate union—that is the union whom the Commission consider appropriate—with a view to making arrangements for carrying on the industry. When these unions get together with the Commission they will make the working arrangements. It is to the glory of the trade union movement that it accepts responsibility and tries to carry on industry harmoniously and satisfactorily, with the maximum production and working jointly together. A great deal is going on, and we ought not to crab it by encouraging these queer people to refuse to be harmonious with their colleagues. The Commission should be left perfectly free to make what arrangements they think best for the welfare of the industry, along with the great responsible unions, and no one should say "You must not have a closed shop." It would be a great mistake for this House to say that. We ought not to come in on a sort of side wind. I am sorry the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is not here, for I wanted to tell him that. The Commission should be free to make their arrangements, just as any other great employer is.

That is the general case, but there are one or two other facts. I was going to tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if he had been present, that this was fully discussed in another place. I was present at the discussion; it was very interesting and a clause like this was defeated when a vote was taken.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Was not the Amendment moved in another place an Amendment that nobody should be forced to join a trade union, whereas this Amendment says that people shall not be forced to join a particular one? Is that not so?

LORD WALKDEN

By and large, the substance would have the same effect.

NOBLE LORDS

No.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am sure the noble Lord will wish to direct his mind to what is before your Lordships. What is before the Committee is not whether there should be power to say that everybody must be in a union. The sole question before the Committee is: assuming that everybody is put in a union, is everybody to be forced to join one union?

LORD WALKDEN

I quite agree that is the text of the noble Lord's Amendment, and it is slightly different from the one that was dealt with in another place, but the principle at issue is just the same. I do not mind; we will stick to this. I think I have made it clear that the employer should be left free to decide on the unions that the men shall be in. If that is the decision, and they agree as to what unions they should be in, an employer should be free to say: "I do not want to worry about this little bunch of busmen; I do not want to worry about this little bunch of electricians; I want everybody to be in the Transport and General Workers' Union"; or whatever union he may be talking about. That will be much better for carrying on the business and maintaining harmony. That is the point of that, but it was discussed in another place and the principle of the closed shop was dealt with, and the Amendment was turned down.

Then there is something else which I hope will appeal to your Lordships still more. About a year ago we had in this House the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, which covered this question. It covered a lot of vital points, most important in the world of labour, and that Bill swept away the restrictions that the workers had resented for twenty years. One of those restrictions that was swept away was the refusal to allow them to have a closed shop if they could agree about it with the employer. The municipalities now are free, whereas two years ago they would not have been. Their engineer can say, "It is much better that you should be in the A.E.U., or something of that sort. We will work together very well. I would like everybody to be in it. "He can now say that, and the Commission should be able to say that if they wish to do so.

That Act was dealt with here. It was thoroughly debated on all points. We had a splendid Second Reading debate, and there was no Division in Committee. There were no Amendments, except one which was made by my noble friend Lord Merthyr, which was to take out of the measure one of the cardinal features. This is what the noble Viscount, Viscount Swinton, said then: We should be exceeding our proper constitutional function if we amended this Bill in a manner which struck at its fundamental provisions. I think that by its history, its structure and its provisions this Bill necessarily stands or falls as a whole. It stood as a whole and was carried without a Division. Having made that decision only a year ago, that each industry was free to have a closed shop, I do suggest it is most unfortunate that there should be an attempt to get back again in that indirect way to the principles which I know are very dear to the noble Viscount's heart, but which the workers of this country will not tolerate any more.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I gather that it is suggested that any Amendment of this kind is entirely contrary to the Bill to which this House gave passage without Amendment. I really have never heard a more extraordinary proposition advanced in a more curious speech. Did anybody ever suggest, when the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act was going through this House, that the object of it, which we thought was freedom, was to give power—indeed to give Governmental and statutory applause—to the proposition that men should be forced to join one particular union? Nothing of the sort was ever advanced, nor is there a clause or word in the Act which can justify any such proposition. The noble Lord has thought fit to take my noble friend to task for putting down this Amendment. I think your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for having put this Amendment down, if only for the fact that it has drawn from the noble Lord such an intensely informative and revealing speech.

It is a curious speech. A good many people came in for censure in it. We were told how iniquitous it is that a man should change his Party. Mr. Brown was cited. He was held Up to what is, I believe, called by lawyers "hatred, ridicule and contempt." because he had ventured to change his Party. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy have left the Chamber. They must have had notice of this question. The noble Lord ought also to have given notice to the Leader of the House. May I say that those Benches, and the Government Benches in another place, would certainly not be so full as they are if there were this prohibition on people changing their Parties? But no-body is to be allowed to join the union he pleases. I leave aside the rather gratuitous insults which were hurled at a number of religious denominations. I do not know why they should have been singled out for the noble Lord's scorn and cynicism. He may not himself belong to any particular religious denomination, but he might learn a little tolerance. After all we each serve the same Master, "you in your way, I in His."

Just see where this is leading us, this new doctine which has been adumbrated, that people must not remain outside the union which the Minister thinks it right for them to join. He gave us his experience, and I am going to ask where these men can remain, because from the Government Front Bench it sounds something like "His Master's Voice." He has the power of the trade unions behind him. Where is this leading us? I thought the noble Lord cited Mr. Bevin. The last speech of Mr. Bevin I read was one of the most eloquent that he has ever delivered against the One Party State—the wickedness, the denial of democracy when men were all forced into one Party. What else was the noble Lord saying in his speech? "You may be forced into one Party, when you vote at the election—or forced into one union." Now we know; we know what the policy is. The policy of the Commission is that they have a free hand, but they are to have a free hand with a blunt indication from the Government—because presumably the noble Lord was speaking with the full authority of the Government—that they had better see that everybody joins one single union; and that the union of which His Majesty's Government approve.

This extraordinary statement having been made on behalf of the Government, may I ask a final question? It is intended that the Minister is to give instructions to the Commission on matters affecting the national interest, and the noble Lord has just told us that he regards it as in the national interest that people should be compelled to join a particular union. I therefore put this question categorically, and I ask if I may have an authoritative answer: Under this Bill will it or will it not be within the power of the Minister to give direction to the Commission that men are to join a particular union?

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I want to add only a very few words, but having moved a clause not entirely dissimilar from this in connexion with another Bill a little while ago, I would like to say those words. I confess that I understood quite plainly the point which Lord Mancroft was making in moving this Amendment. He was not for a moment denying the right of a man to join a trade union, but was merely upholding his right to select the union he should join. I think that if the noble Lord who replied for the Government had listened to the point that was being made, he really could not have failed to understand that, Especially coming as it did from the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, the speech which was made just now was really an astonishing and, in some ways, a rather shocking speech. I wonder if the noble Lord, looking back on that speech, quite realizes what he has said, or if really he meant to convey the impression which I think unhappily he did convey to some of us.

Is he really saying that a man who chooses to join a union which is not perhaps a big union in the particular line of work which he follows, makes that choice only because he is suffering from inflated ego; that that is the only factor that can lead him to join any union other than what you might call the dominant union in his particular trade? Is it suggested that he does it simply because he is a cross-grained individual, an unsociable person suffering from inflated ego, and not because the smaller union might suit the particular purposes of his immediate craft better, and that he may be more at home and comfortable in the small union? Is it implied that there is in him some original industrial sin which makes him suffer from inflated ego, if he seeks to join any union other than the one which it has been arranged for him to join?

I have never heard doctrine in this connexion carried to these lengths before, at any rate, publicly, and I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord bringing it up to that pitch to-day. Would he, I wonder, go as far as this? We have had a reference to-day to the Trade Disputes Act. Under that Act one point was that persons who did not wish to contribute to the political levy were to be free to contract out. Would the noble Lord go the next step—because it seems to me it would be logical from what he said—and say that any man who contracts out of paying the political levy is doing so merely because he is suffering from inflated ego? If that be the orthodox trade union view we shall know a little better what the attitude is to those men who venture to contract out.

LORD DUKESTON

I venture to address your Lordships on this very important question in the hope that we may have a little more reason and a little less passion in our discussion. The plain fact is that this Amendment seeks to make it illegal to impose, as a condition of employment, membership of a particular union. That, as I understand it, is the purpose of the Amendment. From the statements made by some noble Lords, it would appear that they assume that there is only one union to be considered in this matter, and some little play has been made regarding what are called large unions. In the world of transport there are more than forty unions. There is complete agreement amongst those organizations as to how they conduct negotiations. I believe I am right in saying that in the Railway Shop Council some thirty-two unions have representation. There is complete harmony, and really it is not a case in the industrial world of the big union versus the small union. That is not the case at all. The question really is, what are you going to do in respect of a small minority who refuse to accept the terms of a negotiated agreement, elect to break away from their own trade union, form a separate organization and claim representational rights? That really is the problem in industry.

I beg the Committee to understand that the carrying into effect of this Amendment could mean nothing other than strife and difficulty in industry. I am sure that those who put this Amendment down, actuated undoubtedly by the motive of conceding the right of conscience to an individual, are really obscuring in their own minds the difficulty which actually exists. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords on this side of the Chamber when I say that we have as much respect for conscience as any other noble Lords. But we are not here dealing with a matter of conscience. It is very rarely that we find men who act in the way suggested by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. But considerations which lead to making membership of some trade union a condition of employment invariably arise out of the circumstances that I have already related. Let me carry this a little further, so that we may have the benefit of advice as to how an authority would act in the event of an industrial dispute arising over this very question.

It may be that any of the services functioning under the control of the Commission may be confronted with this difficulty. Some score or more of members, dissatisfied with the terms of an agreement which may have taken months to negotiate, may express their dissent by withdrawing their membership from a particular union or more than one union. There may well be other men, in the majority section, who are also dissatisfied with the terms of the agreement, but, being reasonable and having to arrive at an agreement of some sort at a particular time, they have compromised their position. That is the general practice in the matter of negotiating agreements, and those men continue in the expectation that at some later date a more favourable agreement may be negotiated. Then they find that in spite of their own reasonable approach a minority of their own members break away and set up a new organization. The men may become so incensed that rather than work with this minority they will strike. What can the Commissioners do in these circumstances? This Amendment would deprive them of the only practical way out, and I can well imagine public opinion becoming so incensed in those circumstances as to lead to difficulties which I am sure are not envisaged by those who have moved this Amendment.

I beg noble Lords to get away from this idea of abstract liberty. It does not exist. We are living in a world of balances and unless we can get a balanced position in industry we shall see this matter fought out in a manner inimical to the industrial interests and certainly inimical to the interests of the State—and I am sure the industrialists in this House will agree with what I am saying. The same problem arises with the individual corporation and private employer. What are they to do in these circumstances, accepting the theory that all are concerned with the general public interest? Where the private firm is confronted with 1,000 or 5,000 men so incensed at what they believe is an injustice as to cease work because of the attitude of a score or more men, what remedy can noble Lords suggest? That really is the problem in industry to-day. It has lead to more friction in the workshops than any other single problem.

I sincerely hope this Amendment will not be pressed. I said in an earlier speech in your Lordships' House that we are most anxious to see that British industry is carried on in future without this kind of internecine warfare between group interests in the industrial world. I am certain no one wants to see anarchic elements in the trade union side, any more than upon the employers' side. If it were appropriate I could reveal to your Lordships years and years of effort carried on by the trades unions, seeking to restrain and restrict the employer who does not play the game within the employers' organization; we have done that police work within my own experience, for well on to half a century. If I thought this began and ended with a matter of conscience I should have an entirely different approach. I have explained that membership of a trade union, measured as a matter of conscience, is a very small matter in the sense of the obligation placed upon the individual for there is nothing more than a contributory obligation imposed. That is really the beginning and end of it; there is no functional obligation. I thought I had made that clear.

I am afraid that I must tell you Lordships that if this Amendment is carried and becomes law it will create such resentment in the trade union world as to imperil the general peace in industry which we have all striven to create, particularly during the war years, and which has been carried over into the post-war period. I can see nothing but trouble arising from it. I can see certain elements taking advantage of this Amendment to rebel. They will do that not merely as individuals but will seek to seduce from their allegiance to the trade union move- ment certain rebellious elements which in every industry the trade unions have had great difficulty in restraining. I beg your Lordships not to pass this Amendment. I can see no good at all arising from it. I can see a great deal of evil following from it, and from the implications inevitably arising from it. I do beg of you not to press an Amendment which can make no contribution to the economical rehabilitation of our country and which does nothing more than throw a spanner into the wheels of that machinery which has been so painfully built up over the years, and which has become the standing example to other industrial countries.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I do not want to discuss the general question which has already been discussed but I want to put one point which is troubling me. This Bill is not dealing with industry in general, it is dealing with a monopoly. We have pointed out that this is in design a monopoly, and that means that if this Amendment is resisted, and a man has to join a particular union, a man who has been working a long time in this industry may find himself turned out by the decision of a particular union. If that union does not admit him, then he cannot be in that industry. That is a point which has not been mentioned by any spokesman on the other side. It has nothing to do with conscience, though all have a right to rebel; and conscience and the right to rebel are rather sacred and important things. You are dealing with this practical issue. If you are to insist that nobody may be employed in this industry unless he joins a union, the correlative is that the union shall not keep out a man qualified to join it, shall not of its own free motion refuse to admit him. It would be impracticable to require a union to admit a man and give him an appeal to the High Court. But if you do not do that then surely you are putting his whole livelihood—I am not concerned with conscience—at the mercy of a body which is entirely beyond any kind of control by Parliament and the Government. I hope we shall get some answer on that point.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I am perfectly confident that the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, in every action of his life has diametrically contradicted the theory he has enunciated on behalf of the Govern- ment—that is, that a man's conscience is only inflated ego—because the very existence of the union to which he belongs, and every great union, is due to the stubbornness of the British conscience. I intervene precisely on the point made by Lord Beveridge. If this Amendment is not to go into the Bill, then I think the Government should put in something like this: that no man who has applied to belong to a union and has not been accepted by that union should be refused or deprived of employment. I think the Government should put something like that in, and make it perfectly clear, in the light of what has already been said in this House. I shall very much regret if anything in this Bill, which is a Bill on a special measure, should ever limit the rather peculiar and uncertain, but very important, workings of the British conscience.

LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER

May I be allowed to say a word on this Amendment? If the Amendment is, as I hope it will be, rejected, while the power which is left to the Commission in the Bill might be used unwisely, as employers in industry might use the same power which they possess unwisely, unless they are allowed to use their wisdom and their sense in dealing with the problems that arise, all the disasters which my noble friend on my right described might occur. This is a question of giving freedom to the Commission, and trusting that they will use it wisely.

LORD MANCROFT

I owe the Committee an apology for having misinformed them by stating that this was an uncontroversial Amendment. I had no idea that the remarks which I made would cause so much disturbance. I am reminded of an occasion when I, together with two other members of your Lordships' House, succeeded in inducing a small but highly greased pig into the senior common room of an Oxford college.

LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER

It was you, was it?

LORD MANCROFT

I had intended on that occasion to cause trouble, but on this occasion I did not intend to cause trouble, and I do not propose to press my Amendment. I should say straight away that what, above everything, causes me to withdraw my Amendment, is the wise and impressive words of the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston. I agree with a great deal of what he said. I agree that there is difficulty in laying down hard-and-fast rules, and I must confess, quite frankly, that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, was laying down the wrong rule. I was very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord. Walkden—whom I have always regarded as the most mild and tolerant of men—should have made a speech which was, to my mind, almost saying that might is right. He is the last man I should expect to say that. I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, that it would be unfair to fetter the discretion of the Commission right at the outset, in a way which might prejudice the safety of the whole industry. I think this has been a useful discussion, and it has produced information from the Government on two vital points. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 95 agreed to.

Clauses 96 and 97 agreed to.

4.54 p.m.

Clause 98:

Provisions as to pension rights.

98.—(1) The Minister may make regulations for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say— (a) for providing pensions to or in respect of— (iv) persons who are or have been employed in connexion with the Caledonian and Crinan Canals or Holyhead Harbour, or by or in connexion with the Railway Clearing House;

VISCOUNT LONG moved, at the end of subsection (1) (a) (iv), to insert: "the National Road Transport Federation of the Road Haulage Association." The noble Viscount said: In rising to move this Amendment, which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Saltoun and myself, I would like to recall to your Lordships a few statements that were made in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport upon this particular Amendment. He said, in answer to a question: I ask him to consider for a moment that these organizations are not transport services at all they are employers organizations, and doubtless they are performing very good work … but we cannot possibly extend the provisions to cover them. He went on to say that nobody could possibly maintain for a moment that the Road Haulage Association, however well meaning, or whatever services it may have rendered to the country in the past, was a transport service in the same way as the canals, the buses and the lorries. He further suggested that the Association was comparable with the Railway Stockholders Association, and that the Railway Clearing House is a transport service. If you look at the Bill, your Lordships will see that the Railway Clearing House is to get compensation.

What are the actual facts? I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary did not desire to lead anybody astray, any more than did the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, in his speech just now. The facts are that for many years the organization has been used by the hauliers to discuss and into the whole of the difficult and complicated question of rates and charges. The Association has done direct haulage work, settling all sorts of things. His Majesty's Government must be aware of the fact that the Road Haulage Association took on work for the Milk Marketing Board, and the Coal Board, and arranged the rates within those organizations. It has supplied the majority of the employers panel of the Central Wages Board set up by the Government of the day to deal with the whole of the wages question in transport. But, further than that, since 1940 the Road Haulage Association has carried, in arrangement with the Government, the whole of the livestock and meat transported by road in this country.

If there are any other reasons needed, I can give many. I must press this question about the Railway Clearing House getting compensation. It would appear from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that he knows nothing at all about the work of this Association; otherwise he would not have made that remark. What has actually happened is that the Railway Clearing House has been working cheek by cheek with the Road Haulage Association throughout all these years, and since 1939, when the Road and Rail Conference was formed. Yet the Government deny to the one what is given to the other. Once again, I ask: Is that fair play? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 105, line 4, at end insert ("the National Road Transport Federation or the Road Haulage Association").—(Viscount Long.)

LORD CHORLEY

I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Viscount who moved it evidently feels rather strongly about it, but I must say that, after listening with very great care to what he said it does seem to me that the statement made in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry is really a proper estimate of the position. I would submit to your Lordships that these two organizations really are trade organizations and, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, they are not transport services in the way that the Railway Clearing House is. The Railway Clearing House is a joint organization established by the railway companies for the very necessary administrative problems which arise in connexion with the inevitable cross work between railway transport. The other organizations have no doubt proved very valuable organizations to the different branches of transport in the road hauliers system, but I think it is rather difficult to contend, as the noble Viscount did, that these two organizations are really part of the transport system of the country. In those circumstances, surely it would be a very dangerous precedent indeed to admit them in the way the noble Viscount suggests, and to grant those men (who have been no doubt carrying out very useful services to these two organizations) rights of pension and compensation under this Bill. In the circumstances, I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope the noble Viscount will not press it.

LORD SALTOUN

I do not want to say very much to strengthen the case which was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, but I was very much struck by the description of the Railway Clearing House given just now by the noble Lord opposite. He said: After all, what more is the Road Haulage Association than an organization set up by many different concerns for solving of administrative problems and difficulties on a common basis? I forget the rest of the words he used, but we will see them in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. They struck me as being extremely appropriate to the organizations for which my noble friend Lord Long was speaking.

VISCOUNT LONG

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. He said in the course of it that he thought his honourable friend in another place had been correct. His honourable friend in another place said we were like the Stockholders Association. Of course, the noble Lord may still think his honourable friend is correct, but we as an organization have nothing to do with the Stockholders Association at all. We work solely with the Railway Clearing House. I repeat that we have done a very good job of work, and should be given compensation. Yet you refuse the right. I have stated my views on this matter, and I am certain the position will be understood in the country. However, I do not intend to press the Amendment to a Division, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My first Amendment is in the nature of a drafting Amendment, and I understand that the noble Lord is prepared to accept it. That also applies to the next Amendment on page 105, line 34, and another Amendment over the page at page 106, line 47, in Clause 99. They are all connected with the same thing. I will move my last Amendment in its proper place.

Amendment moved— Page 105, line 9, after ("relating") insert ("in whole or in part").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 105, line 34, after ("rights") insert ("under the scheme whether such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last peceding subsection or not").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (5), to insert: (6) nothing in this section shall authorize the imposition of obligations on any company body or person whose undertaking or any part of whose undertaking has been transferred to the Commission or any other body with regard to contributions in respect of persons who are no longer in the employment of such company body or person, or of persons who remain in the employment of such company, body or person.

The noble Earl said: Clause 98 deals with pensions and it gives the Minister certain powers to make regulations. Under Clause 98 (1) (b), the following powers are given to the Minister: … for the continuance, amendment, repeal or revocation of existing pensions schemes.… Those powers are very wide indeed, and could be used to affect any existing pension scheme, presumably whether it exists in a private organization or whether it does not. My Amendment is intended to provide some measure of safeguard in that situation. I think it is perfectly clear that it is not intended in this Bill to impose any new obligations on existing pensions schemes which belong to corporations or bodies, and which will continue to exist apart from the Commission. Accordingly, the Amendment I am proposing should be introduced is as follows: nothing in this section shall authorize the imposition of obligations on any company body or person whose undertaking or any part of whose undertaking has been transferred. … I understand that this subsection, or something very like it, will be acceptable, and I think some modification of that sort is necessary. I do not stand on the words of my Amendment, but I suggest that the principle is perfectly clear and that some saving clause is necessary to counterbalance the very wide language in Clause 98 (1) (b). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 106, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD CHORLEY

I agree with much of what the noble Earl has said, and we are in principle prepared to accept the Amendment which he has moved. We do not altogether like the terms in which he has moved it, and I think if he will confer with us we shall be able to devise a satisfactory form of words which will suit his purpose. We shall then be able to put in an Amendment on the Report stage. Perhaps with that assurance the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I understand that there is a possibility that if after the word "transferred" the words, "by obligations of new regulations" are inserted, something of that sort will be acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.

5.7 p.m.

Clause 99:

Special provisions as to railway and canal pension funds, etc.

99.—(1) The provisions of this section shall, subject to any regulations made under the last preceding section, have effect in relation to pension schemes in connection with the undertakings of the bodies specified in the Third Schedule to this Act and in relation to pension rights of persons who have been in the employment of any such body.

(2) The provisions of this Act which direct that liabilities of a body shall become, as from the date of transfer, liabilities of the Commission shall apply in relation to customary obligations of the body in relation to pensions, notwithstanding that the body was under no legal obligation in respect of those pensions; and if any question arises as to the existence or extent of any such customary obligation, the question shall, in default of agreement, be referred to a referee or beard of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and the decision of that referee or board shall be final and the Commission shall give effect to that decision.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This Amendment is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 106, line 47, leave out ("in connection with") and insert ("relating in whole or in part to"). —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and the decision of that referee or board shall be final." The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Simon I beg to move this Amendment. The Amendment aims at removing what appears to be an inconsistency in the Bill, and I think and hope that the Government will accept it. Clauses 98 and 99, as your Lordships are aware, make provisions as regards pension rights and pensions funds. Clause 98 (3), at the top of page 106, says: Any dispute arising between the Minister and any person as to whether or not the said result has been secured by any regulations made under this section shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for his or their determination thereon.

Clause 99 (2), however, says: …the question shall, in default of agreement, be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service and the decision of that referee or board shall be final and the Commission shall give effect to that decision. I fail to see why the decision of the referee should be final in one case and not in the other.

In fact, the decision of the referee or board of referees on a matter of law should be reviewable by the Courts by way of case stated. This is rather a legal point, and I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is not in his place. If the words relating to the decision being final are omitted, it would appear that the board of referees can be directed to state a case for the decision of the High Court on a matter of law by virtue of the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1934.

I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the question that customary practice and customary obligation arises under the Third Schedule to the Railway Act, 1921, and that the tribunal there charged with determining those questions is an independent arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and his decisions can be reviewed on a point of law. Therefore, the precedent exists at present. A very large number of cases have come before the standing arbitrator during the last 25 years during which the Railway Acts have been in operation, and many of these have been taken to the Courts for review. It would, therefore, appear to be both in the interests of the Commission and the individuals concerned that the Court should have jurisdiction in the matter. I believe that this must be an oversight in the drafting of the Bill, and I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 107, line 12, leave out from ("service") to ("and") in line 13.—(The Earl of Dudley.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am at present unable to see why there should be this difference between, the powers of the tribunal. I am in hopes that the Government will be able to give us some satisfactory ground for distinction between the cases. The matters that may come before the tribunal under the subsection which is under discussion may be of great importance to people of not very large means. The points may be points of considerable difficulty, but I do not suppose many people will want to appeal against the decision of the tribunal. It does not seem to me, however, that there is any obvious ground for the view that there should not be appeal in any circumstances, even with the consent of the tribunal itself. In those circumstances I beg to support this Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I hope the Government will support this. It does seem unfair that railway employees drawing their pensions should be treated in a different way from others coming into the range of this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that at present railway pensioners have under the Act of 1921, a special protection which allows for an appeal in those cases. As the noble Lord has said, there have been quite a number of appeals, which shows that there is some substance in the suggestion that the appeal should be allowed.

Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I hope we are pushing at an open door here, the reason being, I believe, the inconsistency which the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, has referred to. It arises from the fact that there were put into Clause 98 in Committee in another place the words beginning "Any dispute arising." I think it must have escaped the notice of the Government draftsman. I feel confident that the Government will be able to accept it.

LORD CHORLEY

I regret that the Government are not able to accept the noble Earl's Amendment to this clause. The clause to which the Amendment is moved is a clause which represents the Government's considered view as to the way in which this particular type of matter ought to be dealt with. Whether the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is right about the alleged inconsistency with the earlier clause I really am not prepared to answer categorically, without further advice; but on this type of matter the Government take the view that this is not the sort of thing which is most appropriately dealt with by the rather protracted and formal methods of Courts of Law and Appeal. The situation under this Bill, and other Bills of a similar nature which are being introduced for the purpose of nationalizing certain of the basic industries of the country, is on quite a different basis from that under the Railways Act of 1921, which was a measure purely for the purpose of coordinating a number of privately owned railway companies. The Government's view on this matter is that this type of point, which will arise, not only under this Bill but under other Bills and has already been legislated for in earlier Acts, such as the Electricity Supply Act, is much more effectively and efficiently dealt with as an industrial problem than as a legal problem.

In order to decide a point of this kind, it is true, the referee should be a man with legal training and a legal background. I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is equally important, if not more important, that he should have an industrial background and that he should be habituated to dealing with problems which affect industry. A court of law has not that background and there can be no question that, on the whole—although speaking as an old member of the Bar I naturally have considerable sympathy with a motion which is intended to preserve work for the courts—looking at it as objectively as possible, one is bound to confess that, in so far as over recent years this type of dispute has been withdrawn from the ambit of appeals and cases stated, it has worked very successfully. The Electricity Supply Acts are one example.

There are particular problems which are continually arising under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, where the matter is finally dealt with by an umpire and does not come to the courts of law at all; that, I think, shows that this method has worked very successfully. There is no question at all that it does appeal to the trade unions who found under the old system, and who still do find, in so far as that system still exists, that very large amounts of money are frittered away on disputes which often have little substance in them, being merely a question of a cantankerous person wishing to go on as long as he can. The result is that, in this series of Acts, the ambit of which I have described to your Lordships, the Government have decided that on the whole it is better that a speedy and final decision of this kind should be come to by a perfectly well qualified and obviously perfectly impartial person in the form of a referee appointed for the purpose of dealing with problems of this kind. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not speak as a great expert, but I think that the Minister has not directed his mind to what is the purpose of this Amendment. He talks about the importance of an industrial background for the man who is to decide this: nobody disputes that at all. All the questions of fact we want to be decided by an umpire. The idea is that his decision should be completely final. But what may happen here, as I understand it, is that there may be a question where a pure point of law is involved. It may be a point of law on the construction of this not very clear Bill as to what his own powers are; it may be on a legal construction of the documents of title under which a person is entitled to his pension, not whether the man has met with an accident, or the amount teat he ought to get. On all these industrial questions everybody agrees there should be no appeal; they will be dealt with by the referee. But on a pure question of law—I do not know where the trade union comes in over this—maybe the Commission say that the referee is applying the law wrongly; maybe the man himself may ask why he should be deprived of the right to go to a court of law on a purely legal question. The Minister has said: "You know, that was all right when you were dealing with railway companies in the old days, but now we have a new kind of institution. We have this Government monopoly. That really ought to be outside the law; it ought not to be treated in the same way. When we nationalize an undertaking and people have the benefits of nationalization, they must forego the benefit of appeal to a court of law."

That is a very odd principle that has been enunciated this afternoon. We are not trying to create work for lawyers out of this. We are trying to preserve whether it is in the interests of the Commission, or whether it is in the interest of the private citizen concerned in this, that he shall have the simple elementary right, on a point: of law, to go to a law court. The Lord Chancellor introduced a Bill which we passed with enthusiasm, to say that anybody could sue the State or any Government Department exactly as a private individual can be sued. Why is this now to be taken away? I hope the noble Lord will look at this, because I am quite sure he has not directed his mind to what, as I understand it, is the purpose. He said he could not say what was the difference or that there was a difference between the clauses. That there is one there can be no doubt. If the noble Lord will read the end of subsection (3) of Clause 98, he will see that there is nothing there about the referee's decision being final. It says that any dispute: …shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for his or their determination thereon. Then subsection (2) of Clause 99 says that any question: …shall, in default of agreement, be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and the decision of that referee or board shall be final and the Commission shall give effect to that decision. Really, this is not a highly difficult piece of legal construction. It is written that he who runs may read. In both cases, the matter is referred to the referee appointed by the Minister of Labour. In one case the referee's decision is to be final, and in the other case it is not. I assert definitely that there is that difference. Perhaps the noble Lord cannot give an answer now, but if we cannot settle the point now we ought to return for more detail at a later stage.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

May I ask whether the railwaymen under Clause 98 (2) are in a worse position than pensioners under Clause 99 (3)?

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I suggest that the noble Lord who answers for the Government is just a little in doubt over the subject. The argument presented to your Lordships by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, does offer a means of compromise which I think the Government might accept. If a question of law arises, the decision of this tribunal would not necessarily be final. I understand the noble Lord thinks it is very unlikely that the question arising would be a question of law. If he inserted words which provided that should a question of law arise in determining the points at issue under this subsection, there should be a right of appeal, we should not be giving away any of the principles which the noble Lord has enunciated to the House, but at the same time it would greatly soothe the minds of some people who are anxious that pensioners should have fair treatment.

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Lord made it clear that it was a point of law, and my answer was entirely based on that subject. I accept that this Amendment is dealing with the question of law.Prima facie, looking at the two clauses, I am inclined to agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, says, that there is an inconsistency; and in these circumstances we shall have to reconsider the matter.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The Government are proposing to take away under one clause a right which they give under another.

LORD CHORLEY

It is obvious that there is a difficulty, which we should like to consider further. In doing so, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will be glad to give attention to the arguments which have been brought forward. It is obvious that there is a good deal of feeling, and if I may ask your Lordships to leave it on the basis that we will reconsider the matter, I shall be glad to see what can be done.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

If the noble Lord can assure me that he is not going to take away what is laid down in Clause 98, and that the point will be looked into, I shall be satisfied. After all, this is not an industrial matter at all, it is a direct matter of business; and everybody knows that you cannot deal with these pension cases in 100 per cent. of instances with a fixed yardstick. They are very delicate things, and call for a good deal of elasticity. The referee cannot possibly be a sort of super Solomon who will lay down, in every single case, the ideal answer. If I were the referee I should very much prefer that there should be a subsequent court of appeal against my decision, because I should know that it would be quite impossible for me or anybody else to give the right answer in every single case. It is a most important consideration. After all, your Lordships' House is the final Court of Appeal, and I am sure all noble Lords will haw great sympathy with demands that there should be a further appeal in these cases. I hope that not only will the matter of inconsistency be looked into, but also the fact that Clause 99 should be treated in exactly the same way as Clause 98. There must be a final appeal, where necessary, to a court of law.

LORD CHORLEY

My real point is that in addition to the arguments which noble Lords have addressed to the Committee on the merits of this proposal there is also the question of inconsistency, which is very important. In those circumstances I can give him the assurance for which he asks, that we will not go back on Clause 98. If he will withdraw this Amendment we will go into the whole matter and bring it up again at the Report stage.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

In view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 100 agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 100, to insert the following new clause:

Compensation to officers and servants of railway companies.

" —(1)(a) Subject to the provisions of this section the Commission shall pay compensation to all officers and servants continuously employed from the 19th November, 1945, to the date of transfer by a body mentioned in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act whose undertaking is transferred to the Commission under Part II of this Act or employed by or in connection with the Railway Clearing House and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened in consequence of the transfer or of the coming into operation of any provision of a scheme under this Act relating to the Railway Clearing House. Provided that, the Commission shall not be under any obligation to pay compensation under this section to an officer or servant who entered the employment of a body whose undertaking is so transferred or the employment of the Railway Clearing House in consequence of a direction or written request made by or on behalf of the Minister of Labour and National Service or the Minister of Labour for Northern Ireland.

(b) As respects any person who before the said 19th day of November, 1945, was employed by any of the said bodies and who before on or after that date left that employment to enter upon a period of whole time war service that period or so much thereof as was before the date of transfer shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a period during which he was employed by that body.

In this subsection the expression "war service" means any whole time service of the kind referred to in Section 6 of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1914.

(2) Compensation shall be payable under this section in respect of—

1. (a) loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or a worsening of position if such loss or diminution or worsening occurs within ten years from the date of transfer and if the officer or servant claiming such compensation gives notice in writing to the Commission of such claim within two years from the date on which the claim arises;
2. (b) loss or diminution of pension rights if such loss or diminution occurs within ten years from the date of transfer or within two years from the date on which the pension becomes payable either legally or by the customary practice of the body by whom the person was employed immediately before the date of transfer whichever shall be the longer and if the officer or servant claiming such compensation gives notice in writing to the Commission of such claim within two years from the date or which the claim arises.

(3) Compensation shall be payable in respect of an officer or servant—

1. (a) who suffers loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933, and those provisions shall accordingly apply as if they were herein re-enacted with the necessary modifications
2. (b) who suffers loss of pension rights by way of an annual sum or (at the option of such officer or servant) a lump sum representing the capital value of the annual sum;
3. (c) whose position is worsened by reason of the transfer by way of such lump sum as in all the circumstances the Commission or, in the event of dispute, the referee or board of referees think represents proper compensation for such worsening such sum being in addition to any compensation to which such officer or servant may be entitled under the preceding paragraphs of this subsection.

(4) Any dispute between the Commission and an officer or servant claiming compensation under this section as to whether any or what compensation is payable shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for determination and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination.

(5) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as enabling Regulations to be made prejudicing the rights of any person under the Third Schedule to the Railways. Act, 1921, or Part VII of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933."

The noble Lord said: In taking this clause we are approaching a matter to which everyone connected with the rail- ways attaches the greatest possible importance. This is a clause which affects the rights of the 650,000 railway workers who are being transferred under the Bill from the main line companies to the Commission, and unless we can persuade your Lordships to give us this clause something is going to be taken away from the railwaymen which they have had since 1921 as an absolutely indefeasible right, and to which every one of them attaches very great importance indeed. By way of preface I would like to tell your Lordships, on this question of compensation, that from the start it was only very briefly discussed in another place. It was not at all referred to on the Report stage, although it was briefly touched on during the Committee stage. The effect of the new clause is to take the officers and servants of the four main line railway companies and the London Passenger Transport Board out of Clause 101. There are some consequential Amendments to Clause 101, which would follow.

If your Lordships will take the new clause as it stands on the Paper you will see that it consists of five subsections. Subsection (1) makes it an absolute right that the Commission shall pay compensation, and that differs from Clause 101 by the fact that Clause 101 says "the Minister shall by regulations require the Commission to pay, in such cases and to such extent," and so on. Here we are putting back into the Bill the rights which the railwaymen have had under the Act of 1921. The second line defines the people who are concerned, and they are "all officers and servants continuously employed from the 19th November, 1945." It affects every single employee, both the officers and what we call the wages grades, every servant of the Company.

Then, a little lower down in subsection (1) you see a definition of the matters which will give the right to compensation, and that is taken either out of the Bill as it stands or is in accordance with the intention which the Minister has expressed; I think actually it is as stated in Clause 11 of the Bill. It is either in the Bill or as the Minister stated was his intention. I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I am not quite clear on what is in the Bill and what the Minister has said he is going to put in the regulations, because it comes to very much the same thing.

Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) is new. That says that "as respects any person who before the 19th day of November, 1945, was employed," he shall have the right to compensation; and that has been put in because the Minister indicated that compensation would only apply to people who had had eight years' service. We believe that the Minister's intention was to exclude from compensation people who had been directed into the railway service as a matter of war service, and we think it is not unreasonable that those people should be excluded. We have therefore provided for that in the new clause. On the other hand, we do not think it is fair that a man who was a railway man in 1945 and went off to the war should be excluded. Therefore I think that is the purpose of this paragraph (b): that the railwaymen of 1945 who left for war service, whose railway service was interrupted by the war, should not be excluded.

Then subsection (2) as to compensation follows the Minister's statement so far as paragraph (a) is concerned. As far as paragraph (b) is concerned there is an amplification which we think is necessary because it concerns pension rights. It may be difficult to ascertain at the termination of the ten years whether loss has been suffered, and consequently there is an extension there of either ten years or two years afterwards. Subsection (3) prescribes the scale which shall be payable in respect of an officer or servant who suffers loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule of the Local Government Act of 1933. Therefore we are going back to the Third Schedule of the Railways Act of 1921 which, up to the present, has always been regarded as, and has in fact been called, the railwayman's charter. But we have put in the Local Government Act of 1933 instead of the previous Act, which was the Local Government Act of 1888. That brings it up to date. In subsection (3) there should be a little (b). In my Marshalled List, the Eighth Marshalled List, the letter (b) has been dropped out. It does not make sense without it, and the letter (b) should come before the words: "who suffers loss of pension rights." In subsection (4) we have a provision which is something much the same as we have been discussing on a previous Amendment, that these disputes shall be referred to a referee or a board of referees, and that is equal to the Third Schedule of the 1921 Act, where a standing arbitrator was provided for. Over the page subsection (5) has been produced just as it is in the Bill.

I have taken your Lordships briefly through this rather complicated clause, and, in moving the Amendment, I would just emphasize that this is providing for the retention by the railwaymen of an absolute right which they possess at this moment. The idea in the mind of the Government or the draftsman is, I think, to put everybody who has been taken over on an equality. If I may say so, that is the sort of idea which any civil servant would quite rightly have. The Civil Service thinks that everybody should be treated equally, and there is a great deal to be said for it; but it is not fair in a case where the railwaymen already possess something which the other people have not got. The road haulage people have never been compulsorily transferred from one company to another. It might be right to have a new code for them, although we shall have some Amendments to move later in regard to Clause 101 which will improve their position also. In this particular case what we are seeking to do is to retain for the railwaymen the rights which they possess, and which I maintain Parliament ought not to take away. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 100 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT PORTAL

I wish to speak in support of what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has said on the question of this new clause. It is one which I am sure your Lordships will consider is a very right and proper clause on which those people who are associated with railway companies should speak. They should consider as their first duty their duty to the staff and then their duty to the stockholders. It is absolutely right and proper that they should speak on an occasion of this sort. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has put the case very clearly and I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I understand that our noble friend Lord Walkden is going to reply to this on behalf of the Government. It should be really a very easy matter for him to answer because he has for many years been discussing how very favourably the 1921 Railways Act, which prescribed the compensation code in the Third Schedule to the Act, has worked. He realizes better than anyone how well it has worked.

My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh pointed out quite rightly the great number of people that this concerns; and, as he said, it has worked very satisfactorily. I do not think anybody will deny that it has worked satisfactorily. You are going to take away, as he says, the privilege of right which these 650,000 railway employees have had. What is going to happen now? It is going to go entirely into the hands of the Minister, and the Minister himself will deal with this by regulation. I am not wandering from the point when I say that what the Minister has got on his hands at the present moment is something more than most people can sustain.

Now why should the Minister at this time want to bring in a regulation on this question, when since 1921 we have had in operation a system which experience has proved to be satisfactory? I think that the answer from the opposite Benches will be that it has been satisfactory from every point of view. The noble Lord has pointed out that the vast majority of the people concerned have looked upon it as a privilege to have this prescribed for them in the Third Schedule of the Railway Act. So I am asking Lord Walkden to consider this very seriously from the point of view of the Government. If the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, had been here and we had to deal with him, I should no doubt have adopted the same line as Lord Balfour of Burleigh and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who called him every charming name under the sun when they were trying to get something yesterday. But I would rather attack Lord Walkden, and say that he would be very hard-hearted and would not be using that conscience of which he spoke so much at the beginning of the sitting if he did not help us in the matter of this Amendment. Some of us here have been associated for twenty years and more with the railway companies, and we are perfectly sincere when we say that when we go out of office we want to see our staffs get the sort of deal that they undoubtedly deserve. On those grounds I heartily support this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I wish to support this Amendment very strongly. As has already been pointed out by the two noble Lords who have spoken, it is an Amendment which is of vital importance to the railway officers and staff generally. I think the Committee will agree that they should have a statutory code which covers their terms of compensation and their future fate, after the years and years of faithful and loyal service which in such a great number of cases they have given to the public. It should not be left entirely in the hands of the Minister to make regulations behind closed doors in Whitehall. It would be iniquitous if that were allowed to come to pass, and the prospect is most disturbing for the minds of the people concerned, as your Lordships can well imagine.

There is clearly an historical case for a statutory code covering compensation. Parliament itself has prescribed it for upwards of eighty years. In 1921, when the railways of the country were amalgamated into the present four main line railways, both Houses of Parliament gave this matter very careful consideration and laid down a statutory code of compensation which would apply in every case to these officers. The thing was not left in the hands of one man but was laid down by Parliament. As the result, these officers knew where they were; they had a fair claim and they were satisfied. Again, in 1933 in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board, Parliament laid down statutory compensation.

Why should these people be worse off now? Is it in keeping with modern democracy that dictatorial powers of this kind should be left in the hands of one man? I suggest that it is wrong. It is true that during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place the Minister laid down, in a rough and ready way, the outlines of the compensation—though only the outlines—that would be given. But he did say this: Regard will be had to the applicant's prospect of finding alternative employment. Do you think it is a right thing for the Minister to say, in the case of a faithful railway servant who may have given many years, or, as in some instances, practically the whole of his life, to the service of the railways: "Oh yes, we will investigate this, and if we do not want him we will look into the prospects of his alternative employment."? I say that it is a wicked thing, and I hope that the Committee will give full support to this Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I, too, wish to say a few words in support of this Amendment. One might say that we were asking for better terms for railwaymen than for others, but we are forced to do that because the conditions which We find in Clause 101 in the Bill are not such as seem to us to be right. There is no reason I can see why an Amendment of the kind here proposed should not be followed up, and applied to others who are taken into the services of the Commission. But there is no doubt that the railwaymen, at any rate, are entitled to the treatment which is here proposed in the Amendment. One can expect that as the Commission and the executives begin to re-arrange themselves and start business there will have to be a lot of changes—there is bound to be movement from one place to another—and it is for just this kind of case that this Amendment and, indeed, the original Act of 1921 provided.

In the case of the 1921 Act, Parliament made clear arrangements for compensation. In the present case it is to be done by regulation. Furthermore, at the beginning of Clause 101 we read: The Minister shall by regulations require the Commission to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation… This means that the Minister has power to exclude certain classes of people—perhaps those who have good prospects of employment—and also the power to exclude those who have not been in the employment very long. In that last connexion, I think he said it would be those who had not been in the employment for eight years. He proposed to leave out people who came into the employment within some period of less than eight years. But a number of people went into the employment of the railways within the past eight years, determined to make a permanent career for themslves as railwaymen, and I submit that they are fully entitled to the protection which others have and which they expected when they came into the service with the 1921 Act behind them. I feel that, as a matter of justice, it is right that this clause should be inserted definitely stating what are to be the conditions.

LORD MANCROFT

I should like to support the noble Lord who has just spoken and particularly to draw the attention of the Committee to the case of professional men—solicitors, accountants and so on—who may be affected. The noble Lord is right in saying that there is risk of real hardship being inflicted here. As I understand it, the applicant at the time of making his application must have been in full-time employment for eight continuous years including war-time service. That provision, it seems to me, will be a cause of great hardship to those who entered the service on a permanent basis less than eight years ago but before nationalization was announced. The Minister, speaking during the Committee stage on April 1, promised that rates of compensation and the whole treatment of compensation would be on the basis of the Third Schedule of the 1921 Regulations. I think it would be very much more satisfactory if we had that promise implemented in the Bill itself. I, therefore, feel very strongly that this Amendment should receive the support of the Committee.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I add a word on this point? It is largely a question of law and I am afraid that someone who is more fitted to discuss it than I is not able to be here to-day. I do not imagine—but I do not know—that the Government think that where there is a contract to pay any of the sums mentioned in the proposed new clause the Commission is not to be liable to pay them. I cannot think that that is the object, because all along the contractual obligations of the companies—we are dealing here only with railway companies, I think—are to be taken over by the Commission. All that this clause seeks to do is to put down in plain language what the obligations of the Commission will be. It is true that they are stated as positive obligations, and when we come to the next clause, Clause 101, we find there are some words which are going to be dealt with by an Amendment, if we are right, which make it not obligatory, but subject in effect to the will of the Minister. I do not wish to argue that point for the moment, but Clause 101 says: "The Minister shall by regulations require the Commission to pay" and now come the fatal words: in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to five classes of officers and servants who obviously are entitled to some kind of compensation for loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments or of pension rights. That clause as it stands, therefore, will not help the officers and servants whom we, on this side, are seeking to protect by this Amendment.

I am not sure that I understand, but I am sure that when the answer has been made from the other side I shall understand, what the real object of the Government is. It is not to deprive people who have been working for the railway companies all their lives of things to which they are entitled, either by contractual agreement or by customary agreement as to what sums are to be paid to people who are leaving the employment of the company, which company is now being acquired by the State. I do not quite know what attitude the Government are taking on this point, but I cannot imagine they are to deprive these poor men of their rights. For that reason I would say no more than I have said in support of the present Amendment.

LORD WALKDEN

We are grateful to, the noble Lords, Lord Balfour and Lord Portal, for the very clear way they explained the meaning of this very long Amendment. If I may refer to the little breeze we had, if I did go rather hot, it was because I suffered very deeply on three different occasions from break-away unions. We had no approaches from any quarter to suggest that this Amendment should go into the Bill, and the Minister wondered why this large Amendment had come along. Representatives of the hundreds of thousands of railway workers to whom Lord Balfour referred had been in contact with the Minister on behalf of their members, had watched the proceedings in another place on Second Reading and throughout Committee, had several interviews with the Minister and found him. quite reasonable, his answers satisfactory and assurances very good. When he made two announcements of an important character in Committee, the larger one on compensation and the other on superannuation, they were entirely satisfied with those statements, which are in harmony with the provisions already embodied in the Bill.

This Amendment has caused a little difficulty at this late hour, if I may say so, but it has been examined very carefully and there are some deep differences between this Amendment and the view taken by the Government on matters of this kind. I agree with the Minister that arrangements for compensation and other staff questions can better be dealt with by regulation than by clauses in an Act of Parliament. Regulations can be very ample and fully detailed, and they have the further advantage that they can be amended and adjustments can be made fairly easily. There is no question of the Minister pleasing himself. Regulations have to be laid before Parliament in both Houses and objection can be raised to them within forty days. Organizations concerned can examine them and approach the Minister, and arrange with friends to discuss them in both Houses if they are unsatisfactory. I agree that this measure is quite different from the 1921 Act when some score of smaller companies were merged into four. They are railway companies, not great public authorities responsible to Parliament, who must behave above board all the time. I am casting no reflection on the railway companies, but there is quite a difference between a private concern and a public authority.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

The railway companies are responsible to Parliament under the Act.

LORD WALKDEN

Therefore the staff have every confidence in the Minister's fairness and every effort will be made to treat the staff decently and properly in these matters. Any one group of workpeople concerned in this measure should not be segregated from others in the Bill; they should be integrated. It is very undesirable psychologically to segregate them in a Bill in which their future is to be arranged. That would cause comparisons and dissatisfaction and lead to trouble in the services. With regulations, if there is anything unsatisfactory, proper pressure can be brought to bear on the Minister and the Commission and proper adjustments can be made.

The noble Lord referred to compensation for part-time servants. I think that would be quite wrong. I think there would be a lot of part-time servants. If noble Lords will examine the list of rail- way companies in the Third Schedule, they will see that there is an extraordinary number of people who come into this category. In addition to the five big concerns, there are fifty-four little railways. I never thought there were so many in existence. I wonder the big four have not absorbed them. A number of railway companies can only have their work attended to by part-time staff, secretaries and accountants. For instance, there is the East Kent Light Railway Company. The general manager cannot be a full-time man—if they have a general manager.

LORD MANCROFT

When I mentioned the case of solicitors—if I did not say this, I meant to say it—I meant only those men employed on a permanent professional basis, and not part-time men.

LORD WALKDEN

I accept the expression of the noble Lord's intention, but the Amendment would cover part-time people.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am not so sure that it would. The words "officers and servants continuously employed" might be held to exclude part-time people.

LORD WALKDEN

The part-time people are continuously employed.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Of course, we would accept an Amendment to put that right. It is not the intention to include them.

LORD WALKDEN

It is one of the factors which arises in the Amendment. The Minister has been advised that it is likely to cover a great many people who may come along with claims which ought not to be entertained. If this is put into the Bill, they will have to be entertained. Then there is the matter of the length of service in the railways. I am not certain, but I think it was laid down that people should have five years' service.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Yes, it is five years.

LORD WALKDEN

That was because there had been a war running for four years. A lot of temporary people had been brought in during the war, and we felt it would not be fair to put the obligation on the new companies to pay compensation to those people, who had come in during the war and who would leave after the War was over. For the same reason, the Minister desires an eight year minimum period. He considers that reasonable, and I consider it reasonable. I dealt with all these matters many years ago. We do not think it right to compensate temporary people who never expected to have permanent employment. There are all kinds of temporary employees; I will not attempt to describe them or I may land myself in trouble. Some of your Lordships have rather reproached the Government on not discharging the temporary people whom they need no longer keep. We had a discussion this morning over people in the fire service, and we were reproached by a noble Lord on the opposite Benches for retaining more men than we ought to retain.

Under this arrangement those people all have a claim for compensation. I do suggest that in the public interest it would not be right to find the money, either provided by the users of the railways or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—because this is guaranteed under the new stock, and it would have to be made up. That would not be right from the public point of view. The regulations are really intended for older people, and they will all be properly covered; that is to say, all who have given more than eight years' service to railway work. Those are the reasons why the Minister wishes to deal with this matter de novo, in fresh regulations which would be perfectly fair, and to which all the organized workers have agreed.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Does the noble Lord mean that they have agreed to everything that is going into the regulations, or that they have agreed that it should be done by regulations?

LORD WALKDEN

The regulations are not in being yet. It will be done by the regulations, which are clearly indicated in the Minister's statements and which supplement what is already in the Bill. That covers hundreds of thousands of men through their organized representatives, and the arrangements which have been agreed are quite in line with similar arrangements in respect of other measures of a like character. My noble friend Lord Chorley has already pointed that out. In the national health service, which is coming into operation soon, any person adversely affected will be eligible for consideration on regulations issued by the Minister. The same applies to the national insurance service, and also in regard to the mines nationalization. That kind of structure, to provide compensation, protection, safeguards, pension rights, and so on, by regulations, has become a common form. That has all been agreed and. settled, and I think properly settled.

I was rather surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, talk about doing things behind closed doors. When an important Bill like this is on the anvil everybody interested goes to see the Minister —his door is open, and he hears what these people have to say. If that were not done, I do not know how we should get anything into shape which would be acceptable to anybody. We must do a lot of that kind of work beforehand, and it has been done. As the agreement has been reached, I do suggest to your Lordships (I know you take a great interest in agreements being kept) that you should consider very carefully the desirability, or otherwise—and I would suggest otherwise —of doing anything to upset the arrangement that has been arrived at. I am confident that it will work satisfactorily, and that an overwhelming majority of the people concerned are satisfied with it.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not know whether I can shorten this discussion. If my suggestion is unacceptable, then obviously a lengthy debate will have to follow. What I would suggest is this. Obviously, this is a matter in which noble Lords, quite rightly, take a very greet interest. Indeed, it is right that they should be extremely anxious to see that all these people receive the proper consideration. Parliament has always done this in all the railway amalgamations that have taken place, and it certainly is no less right that it should be done now, when they are being welded into a monopoly, than it was before. What one is anxious to see is that every class of person shall be treated fairly. It is true that you do not want to bring in people who have just had an odd job for a few years during the war. On the other hand, it is equally important to see that highly skilled professional people, who may have served for only a year or two with their company, but who may have served four or five years with the Forces in the war, and then come back, have proper consideration. One finds that there is a. great deal of lip-service paid to Service men when the war is going on, but one does not find that they get quite such a ready entry where they ought to when the war is over, and they have become ex-Service men. I think it is right that Parliament should be the very careful guardian of their just interests.

The difficulty I see is that however we devise these clauses it is difficult to tell whether we are really covering everything. You may get something wrong, and it can be altered only by an amending Act of Parliament. Then you find something has been left out which ought to go in or something has been put in that you do not like. On the other hand, if you proceed by regulations you get into this difficulty. Owing to the rather archaic system under which regulations are made, if you object to one tiny thing in the regulation, you cannot amend the regulation; you can only reject it. Then it comes up with a Prayer, after it has lain for forty days. Even the Minister cannot make an amendment. He has to take the whole thing away; again it has to go forward; and again lie for forty days. Then someone discovers something else, and there is another Prayer. The inevitability of gradualness applies to this procedure almost more than to anything else.

There is another procedure which we might adopt. The regulations are made in draft, because all these discussions have to take place with representatives of the interests concerned. But they are not the only people. After all, Parliament has a right and a duty in this matter, as well as the trade union representatives, and as well as the Minister. If we pursue this course and say: "Let the Bill go through in its general form; let the negotiations take place, and then let the regulations be laid in draft," that gives Parliament the chance of a detailed discussion on the regulations. Noble Lords can raise this point and that point, and it gives the Minister the chance of answering them and meeting them. Having laid the regulations in draft, and the discussion having taken place; he takes them back; and then, in the light of the Parliamentary discussion on each of the regulations, he makes his final regulations. These, too, come before Parliament and again are subject either to the affirmative approval or negative approval of the House.

I venture to suggest that that procedure might be followed, because we have already followed it on several occasions in both Houses, and it might be the best way of meeting what are the general anxieties of everybody. I do not myself see that we can go on discussing what must be, to some extent, abstract clauses before we can be satisfied that we are really getting the right protection for people we wish to protect.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

I have been giving careful consideration to the suggestion of the noble Viscount, and I should like to say that the decision to approach the matter in the form which is in the Bill was the result of the most careful and detailed consideration. Owing to the fact that these are exceedingly complicated and detailed matters, which must be dealt with here, the only practical way is to deal with them by regulations which will, of course, be made after detailed discussion with all the people concerned, as the noble Viscount has said.

There are some points in the Amendment which is before the House which I am quite sure could not be sustained in any practical shape. But I think there is a considerable substance in the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, although I cannot be held to be in the least committing myself to any final conclusion on the matter. I remember that we had a somewhat similar procedure before, but that is no reason why we should not find a better way of doing this. As the noble Viscount has said, when things are laid before Parliament you have to accept them en bloc or reject them en bloc, which does shut out consideration of detail. All I will say is that I will discuss this with my colleagues with complete good will to see if it is possible to make any use of the suggestion of the noble Viscount—namely, to have regulations in draft which could then, of course, be discussed, rather than in a finalized form. If I am not able to satisfy your Lordships by giving some satisfactory assurance on the Report stage, then, if you so wish, you can return to the case. I must not be understood as giving any pledge, but I will explore it with great good will. I think it is a suggestion which, if the Government can make use of it, will be very useful.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am all in favour of that, but I think there is actually some part of this Bill where it is laid down that some regulations are to be laid in draft.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That is the next clause. I wonder if I might try to clear up one point. I would like some information as to what timing is proposed for the laying of these regulations. I think my noble friend Viscount Swinton suggested that these regulations should be laid now, while this Bill is going through Parliament and before the vesting date. That would be essential.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

No, that would be quite impossible, because obviously negotiations have to take place with all the people who have to be compensated; that is really the difficulty of putting anything into the Bill. The Bill would be passed and negotiations would take place; the Minister would then proceed to draft regulations which would be laid before both Houses, and discussions would take place upon them. In the light of those discussions, the Minister would then lay his final form of regulations to which the House could assent or dissent.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

In those circumstances, I think I would like to make a counter suggestion in rather a different form. Before I do that, I hope your Lordships will allow me to make one or two observations upon comments which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Walkden. While he dealt with great ability and courtesy with my Amendment, I must also say that he filled me with amazement which grew greater and greater as I listened to him. In the first place the noble Lord protested very courteously—but protested—against an Amendment of this complexity being put down at what he called "this late hour in the life of this Bill." Really, I do protest against that. This is the Committee stage in the revising Chamber; and for us to be told that that is a late stage in the career of this Bill, just because the Trades Union Congress have settled everything with the Minister, I call—with the greatest moderation I can command—an outrage.

Secondly, the noble Lord told us that he could not understand why any of your Lordships should put forward an Amendment to improve the status of the rail- waymen, because everything is already settled between the trade unions and the Minister. Again, I protest at that. Where is the role of Parliament in this matter? Are we not to be allowed to produce Amendments, which we think right, just because there have been discussions between the Trades Union Congress and the Minister? I think that the noble Lord did not mean to put it in quite that way. I do not want to get in the least hot about it, but I think it may well be that the noble Lord should think again before he puts forward arguments of that sort. The noble Lord made what was no doubt a good debating point about part-time employees and small railway companies. Of course, that is not a point of substance, because I do not think that these small railway companies exist, except on paper. I do not think they have any employees —they have all been absorbed by the big railway companies. I do not think he need worry about the part-time employee. Whatever you do by regulations, you are going to interpret what the Minister has already said.

I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, for calling attention to a point which I had omitted to make. The point is that the Minister has said that his regulations will provide, amongst other things, for having regard to the applicant's prospects of finding alternative employment. If you are starting de nouo, that might conceivably be fair, but you are not starting de nouo. You are starting with an established code, and what filled me with amazement was the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, with all his admirable history with regard to railways and trade union leadership. I am sure he will not deny it—he must often have referred to the Third Schedule of the Act as the "Railwaymen's Charter." I think it must have been a Mr. Walkden who invented that particular phrase! If he did not invent it he has certainly used it a hundred times. That is what the Government are seeking to whittle away.

I now come to the proposal which I make as an alternative to the proposal put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I cannot believe that the Government wish to whittle away the established rights of the railwayman. This Amendment goes further, on the question of date, but I will not argue it because I want to put my proposal to the House. Indeed, the Minister has ad- mitted that the railwaymen are in a special class, because he said in the course of the debate: For the other workers there is no existing code such as obtains in the case of the railway employee. He admits that there is an existing code. If the Government will say, "We intend to preserve the existing code for the railwaymen," I do not care what the trade unions have agreed or have not agreed. I want to preserve the existing rights which the railwaymen enjoy, and if the Government will say to me: "We agree that we do not want to take away any rights that an existing railwayman has got," then I will withdraw my Amendment, and we will have further consultation and put down an agreed Amendment preserving those rights for the railwayman.

LORD COURTHOPE

Before your Lordships give consideration to the question of withdrawing the Amendment, I should like to raise two points. One is in connexion with the little railways. They do exist, in spite of an opinion expressed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for I happen to be a director of two of them, as a representative and nominee of the Southern Railway, of which I am also a director. I want to add this: there are a number of people—I have come across several officers of considerable seniority—who are not convinced or confident that their rights which they have earned by long service and by contribution even are going to be preserved to them in every case. I do not for one moment believe that the Government wish to deprive them of their rights, but it will be well worth while for the Government, and also in the interests of the officers themselves, to give them the assurance that they will not lose the rights which they have at present. I happen to know several officers of some seniority who have reached the age when they can retire and draw their pensions but who have not reached the full retiring age, who are considering withdrawing from the service because of lack of confidence in the treatment they are going to receive. The noble Lord, Lord Walkden, smiles: I know he does not intend, and I know that the noble Viscount who leads the House does not intend, that there shall be any harsh treatment, but if you want to keep the senior men in the service, men whom you cannot afford to let go, in my opinion, just at present, it would be well worth while to give them ample assurance that they will not lose any rights which they possess at present.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am rather surprised that the noble Lord should have any misgiving on that subject. I cannot imagine that, in the case of any man who has an existing right, there will be any question of that right being taken away.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

But that is what the Bill does.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No, I do not accept that interpretation. It is true that there is this existing code in the case of the railways and not in the case of the other workers. On the question of time, I am quite sure it will take a long time to work out these regulations. They will be exceedingly detailed and will apply to a large number of persons of different classes and grades and conditions of service. I can quite imagine that there will be very prolonged and detailed discussions with all those concerned before any form of regulation can be put into even a draft form. If your Lordships will look at Clause 101, subsection (2), you will there see that that very fact is anticipated: Different regulations may be made under this section in relation to different classes of persons and different classes of transfers, and so on. That contemplates that there will be various groups of regulations—it is inevitable that there should be—and they will take a long time in drawing up, I am sure. It is inconceivable to me that anything will be put in these regulations that will take away from any man any existing right. I cannot go any further. If the noble Lord will agree to our looking at Viscount Swinton's suggestion, as has been indicated, I hope that he will think that that is a sensible and practical thing to do. If we can agree on something between now and the Report stage, so much the better; if we cannot, the noble Lord will return to the charge.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Discussions will take place between now and the Report stage and some attempt will be made to get agreement.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It is right to point out that it is possible to have regulations in draft for discussion before they are finalized.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

On that understanding, I understand the noble Viscount will have no grievance if I return to the charge possibly with the same Amendment on the Report stage. In those circumstances, if your Lordships wish me to do so, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.25 p.m.

Clause 101:

Compensaton to officers and servants in connection with transfers.

101.—(1) The Minister shall by regulations require the Commission to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation—

(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) of this section—

1. (a) may prescribe the procedure to be followed in making claims for compensation, and the manner in which and the persons by whom the question whether any or what compensation is payable is to be determined; and
2. (b) may in particular contain provisions enabling appeals from any determination as to whether any or what compensation is payable to be brought, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service,

and where any such provision is made as is specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the decision of the referee or board of referees shall be final.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as enabling regulations to be made prejudicing the rights of any person under the Third Schedule to the Railways Act, 1921, or Part VII of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a body shall be deemed to be completely controlled by one or more other bodies if and only if it is a body with a share capital and no person other than one or more of the following persons, that is to say—

1. (a) the other bodies aforesaid; and
2. (b) bodies themselves completely controlled by one or more of those other bodies

has any beneficial interest in any of that share capital which carries voting rights, not being voting rights exercisable only in the event of a default in the payment of dividend.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "regulations," where that word first occurs, to insert "made before the date of transfer". The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friends, I wish to say that the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Minister shall make the regulations requiring the Commission to pay compensation to the officers and servants of the bodies transferred to the Commission under the Bill before January 1, 1948, or any other date on which the transfer may be prescribed in the Bill. I am sure you will understand that the compulsory transfer of men from one employer to another always has, and always must have, a very unsettling effect indeed on their minds. I can assure your Lordships that many of these officers and the servants are uncertain as to what is going to happen to them. Therefore, I think it is only reasonable that we should ask the Government to ensure that before a transfer takes place a man should be in a position to know what his rights will be if he suffers a loss of his emoluments or loss of his job or diminution of his emoluments or if his position is otherwise worsened. I think it is only right that not only should he make representations to the Minister in regard to the contents of the draft regulations if they are not satisfactory to him, but his present employer should be able to assist him as well. We have worked together for a great many years, and I am perfectly certain that it would be the wish of these officers and men that they should have the advantage of the help of their present employers—namely, the boards of the railway companies—in looking into these draft regulations. Therefore, I think it is a very reasonable request that these regulations should be drafted before the vesting date, and not after. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 108, line 19, after ("regulations") insert ("made before the date of transfer"). —(The Earl of Dudley.)

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. There are two reasons. I am advised that the Amendment as it stands would finalize the regulations and it would then be impossible to alter them as is contemplated in Clause 2, but that is a matter of construction. Much more important is the argument which was put forward by Viscount Swinton only a minute or two ago, that obviously a great deal of discussion and negotiation is going to have to take place about these regulations; and to suggest that, in so far as the Road Haulage Service, at any rate, is concerned, they can be ready by the end of the year is really quite impossible. My right honourable friend the Minister does hope that, so far as the railways are concerned, the regulations will be ready. As has been stated already this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, the Minister did, in another place, indicate the lines on which the regulations relating to railway employees would go, and there is every hope that they will, in fact, be ready and published before the date which the noble Lord has in mind.

I am suggesting to the noble Lord that it would be injudicious to tie us down by a statutory obligation of this kind, which might prevent the very sensible and reasonable negotiations which were going on from being properly terminated, by fixing a date in this rigid sort of way. In these circumstances I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

What the noble Lord has said only goes to prove how impossible it would be for the Government to do all they thought to do before the vesting date, and how important it is that the vesting date should be deferred. However, that is a matter which I suppose has already been settled and there is nothing I can do about it. I can quite see the noble Lord's point that it would leave very little time to draft the regulations and get them settled before the vesting date. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the words "in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment would be to leave out in subsection (1) of Clause 101 the words "in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations." Here again the intention of the Amendment is to put on the Minister the obligation to pay compensation. Had the new clause to follow Clause 100 been accepted it would have taken the railwaymen out of the Bill. That proposed new clause not being in the Bill I think that it is still important not only for the railwaymen but for everybody else that this matter should not be governed merely by regulations but should be in the Bill. An indication of what may be in the Minister's mind is the fact that he intends to exclude everybody with less than eight years' service. My anxiety is mitigated to some extent by the fact that it was agreed to have discussions. I do not think your Lordships would wish to have a long discussion. I take it the noble Lord will take into account the discussion we have had on the proposed new clause to follow Clause 100.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 108, line 20, leave out from ("pay") to ("compensation").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

We do not know what Clause 101 is going to be as a result of the discussions that are going to take place with respect to it. We should be very careful that the words of Clause 101 would not in any way diminish the duties of the Minister under the new Clause 100. That can be dealt with on the Report stage.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

It is almost impossible to discuss this Amendment without knowing what is to be done about the new clause.

LORD CHORLEY

I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, says, that this problem is of the same type as that with which we were concerned a few minutes ago. It seemed to me that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, put his finger right on the spot when he said that it is essential that matters of this kind should be dealt with by regulation and not by substantive clauses in an Act of Parliament. But the suggestion that he went on to make, that regulations of this kind were very much better discussed before they were laid, is one which obviously applies equally here, as it did in the proposed new clause. I think the suggestion put forward by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, applies here equally well. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, we will discuss the whole matter.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words from the beginning down to ("question") and insert ("Any"). The noble Lord said: These Amendments are consequential. I think they ought to go in because the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has conceded our whole case, and the result is really a foregone conclusion. If he would like to save time by just putting these in now it would be convenient. If he prefers to reserve the whole thing for consideration later, would it be convenient if I did not move them? Perhaps in the circumstances I will do so, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 109, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("question") in line 25 and insert ("Any").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD CHORLEY

Notwithstanding the winning charm of the noble Lord, I cannot concede that when we agree to look at something we are conceding the whole case. I would ask the noble Lord to agree that the matter, which is consequential under Clause 99, should be dealt with on the same basis.

LORD COURTHOPE

I do not think this is consequential on anything that has gone before.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It is consequential from the fact that the whole clause is in the melting pot, and I think I had better ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.39 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (5), at the end of paragraph (a) to leave out "and." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment in order to insert a new paragraph: (c) persons holding not more than one share each as subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of the body in question. The draftsman may be able to explain what is meant by "a body completely controlled by one or more bodies." A long experience in company matters and a vast range of contact with people who sign memoranda of association and who therefore become members of a company, have convinced me that in many cases these people forget. They have as a rule one share each. The Amendment refers only to such people. They do not pay for their share; very often they are clerks of the person who is forming the company; he pays their guinea sooner or later, and they forget all about it. They are not beneficial owners, of course, and you often cannot trace them. I have sometimes had cases where it was necessary to get all the shareholders of the company to agree to a particular course, and I have been held up by the fact that we could not get the signatories to the memorandum. I think therefore the Government should accept this very small Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 3, leave out ("and") —(Viscount Maugham.)

LORD CHORLEY

I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for pointing out this matter and have great pleasure in accepting his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

The next Amendment is connected with the first one; it is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 5, at end insert ("and

1. (c) persons holding not more than one share each as subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of the body in question".—(Viscount Maugham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: or in any other special circumstances defined in the Articles of Association of the body in question. The noble Earl said: I do not think this Amendment is consequential on what has already been discussed on Clause 101—

LORD CHORLEY

If is would save the noble Earl's time, I am very glad to tell him that we can accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I am glad to hear that. Then I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 8, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Dudley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.

6.44 p.m.

Clause 102:

Compensation to officers and servants in other cases.

102. —(1) The Minister shall not regard any scheme as satisfactory for the purposes of subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule to this Act, and shall not give his approval to any agreement providing for the transfer of the whole or any part of an undertaking which, under any provision of this Act, requires his approval, unless he is satisfied that appropriate provision has been or will be made by the scheme or agreement for the payment in the appropriate cases and to the appropriate extent of compensation to officers and servants who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened in consequence of the transfer in question.

LORD WALKDEN

This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 9, leave out ("any scheme"). —(Lord Walkden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WALKDEN

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 11, after ("Act") insert ("any scheme which provides for the transfer of the whole or any part of any undertaking").—(Lord Walkden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GIFFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "appropriate provision" and insert "provision in accordance with subsections (3) (4) and (5) of this section." The noble Lord said: There are a number of Amendments to Clause 102 standing in my name and the names of other noble Lords. To be precise, there are seven Amendments, of which I think five can be taken together, and of which the Amendment under discussion is the first of the series. The next one, the Amendment to page 110, line 16, deals with a separate issue, as does also the second one from the bottom of the page in to-day's Marshalled List—namely, the Amendment to leave out "officers and servants" on line 17 of page 110. I think it would be convenient to the Committee if we discussed the five Amendments which go together now. Of course, the main substance of the five is in the last one, page 110, line 26, which is to insert at the end a new subsection.

This series of five Amendments deals with compensation for loss of office of officers and servants. We have heard eloquent appeals on behalf of the railwaymen; and the road transport industry feels that the terms of compensation should be on some definite basis. I imagine that the draft scheme of regulation will also, to some extent, apply in this case. The fact that there is no set basis of com- pensation for these officers and servants is unfortunate and we believe it will make these people rather nervous as to their future. The basis of compensation is much too wide at present and should be stated in more definite terms. We consider that there is a very good basis for compensation provided by the Local Government Act of 1933, and these Amendments are so worded as to bring in the provisions of that Act.

It is true to say that nearly all the officers and servants concerned are those employed by municipal operators or company operators, and they are nearly all permanent servants. Many of them are not in fluctuating employment but have been in their employment for twenty, thirty or even forty years. I think we all agree that there should be some minimum period of service, so that it would not be necessary to compensate somebody who had been directed into the road transport industry during the war, and if the noble Lord opposite felt that some minimum period of qualifying service should be made, I think the industry would be quite happy to accept it. We do feel, however, that some definite system or scheme should be settled, rather than that we should adopt the wide and nebulous scheme in this present clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 15, leave out ("appropriate provision") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Gifford.)

LORD WALKDEN

I take it that there is agreement to the series of Amendments being considered together, as suggested by the noble Lord, and that will be greatly to everybody's convenience. I think in this case he is really asking that road transport operators, and I suppose administrators too, who may be taken over by the Commission should be specially and separately considered, and given standard terms such as have been applied in municipal mergers. Of course, they are rather different from railway mergers. If we take the welding of five small towns into Stoke on Trent, for example, we find that quite a few people were displaced, and of course they were properly compensated. That point will be fairly taken into consideration. But I really cannot accept the long Amendment which is set out in full, because the Commision will undoubtedly be taking municipal people, but they will also be taking other people employed by companies who are certainly performing the same functions. They will come under the Road Transport Executive, and they must be considered together. I can assure the noble Lord that due regard will be paid to municipal precedents, and the fairest possible consideration given to everybody who may be adversely affected. We are rather expecting that the reorganization of road passenger transport will lead to a great deal more passenger traffic, and we shall not need to ask anybody to go out of service. That applies also on the administration side. In the meantime, however, it is almost on all fours with the railway case we were discussing a little while ago, where precedents do exist. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, and to reconsider it in the same light. We must work by regulations, and they will be made available in the same way as my noble friend, Viscount Addison, explained to the House a few moments ago.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Is it entirely understood that the fact that we do not insert this particular provision in no way will be taken to preclude any of my noble friends, when the draft regulations come before us, from saying, "I think you ought to have applied here the old precedent of the Local Government Board Act," or whatever it is? Provided that everything is at large, and the mere fact that what I may call standards or principles are not laid down in the Bill, it leaves the Government free to say: "We want an entirely new standard," but equally it leaves both Houses of Parliament free to say: "We prefer to adhere to the old standard." As long as we know that we all have our rights absolutely preserved, and that none of us will be prevented from criticizing the regulations on their merits, I suggest to my noble friend that he should withdraw the Amendment. But I think that that ought to go on record.

LORD WALKDEN

I can certainly give the noble Viscount the assurance for which he has asked.

LORD GIFFORD

In view of what has been said I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment. But before doing so I should like to mention one fact which I think is obvious. The case here is not quite the same as that in respect of the railways, because the situation of which we have been speaking will not come about until the scheme is made. One other point: we do feel that the officers and servants who entered the service of the road transport undertakings had the right to feel that their security of employment was quite equal to that of the people employed by the municipalities. So we hold that they should not be discriminated against in any way. In view of the assurance which has just been given by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If I may, I will move this on behalf of my noble friends. I think it is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 16, after ("payment") insert ("by the transferee"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD CHORLEY

To save the noble Earl further trouble I can inform him that we are prepared to accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am much obliged.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GIFFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "officers and servants" and insert "persons." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to point out that there are quite a number of persons who come under the definition of officers and servants in the road transport industry who are not employed by any particular road transport undertaking. In other words they are whole-time employees, but they are not whole-time employees of, we will say, the Southdown Company, or the Midland Red, or any particular operating company. If I may, I will give some instances to show what I mean. Some of the groups of road transport undertakings have a central organization for the purchase of stores. That organization serves several operating companies, but is not directly employed by any one of them. Then there is a central organization for dealing with insurance claims, there is also a chief engineer's department, the workers in which are all employed whole-time by the group bit not by any particular operating company. Now these people might lose all or part of their employment.

For instance, if one or more of the companies which they serve were taken over it might be uneconomic to employ them—at any rate at the salary they were then receiving. Eventually, they would lose their full-time employment though they had never been directly employed by any one particular operator. The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that this particular class of person is provided for and will receive proper compensation. There is no intention behind these words of bringing in at any time directors or anyone like that. It refers to the whole-time servant, but to the man who is not the whole-time servant of any particular operating company.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 17, leave out ("officers and servants") and insert ("persons").—(Lord Gifford.)

LORD CHORLEY

I must confess that I thought that the noble Lord's Amendment was directed to the case of directors. I should have thought, on an off-hand reading of the clause, that the persons whom the noble Lord has in mind were, in fact, covered, because they must be joint employees of the organizations affected. But in case there is any actual doubt about it we will have the matter looked into. Obviously it is a matter on which the legal advisers ought to be consulted. Perhaps if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now we can deal with this matter at the Report stage.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think that my noble friend has a good point here. I do not think that these people are joint employees. This is the sort of case that I visualize. Half a dozen companies, motor bus companies perhaps, say "We will not each run a garage or this, that or the other service, but run one to serve all of us," and they probably do it through a subsidiary company. It is a very useful piece of co-ordination and that is a most convenient way of carrying it out. The people who are employed in the garage or whatever it may be are the employees of the subsidiary company which is owned by the half dozen or so motor bus companies. In law, those men are employees of the subsidiary company, and not employees of the different owners of the company. Such a man is employed absolutely full time. If under the Bill you take him on, well and good, but if not, he is just as much out of a job as if he were a servant of one of those owning concerns. I think this is a really good point and that it should have attention.

LORD CHORLEY

With deference to the noble Viscount, I should have thought that the company which employed the man was covered. But as I said, this is a matter which ought to be investigated, and I will see that it is looked into.

LORD GIFFORD

It is a fact that technically these men are not employed by any particular road transport undertaking. In addition to the subsidiary company mentioned by Lord Swinton, there is also the case of a holding company which might employ men who would be affected. There are hundreds of cases where men are not really employed by a particular operating company. In view of the assurances which have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment and I shall not move the other three Amendments on this clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.

(The sitting was suspended at seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.)

Clauses 103 and 104 agreed to.

Clause 105:

Procedure and enforcement of orders of arbitration tribunal.

(2) The provisions of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, with respect to—

1. (d) the costs of the reference and award,

shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in respect of any proceedings before the arbitration tribunal, but save as aforesaid the said Acts shall not apply to any such proceedings.

(3) The arbitration tribunal may, and if so ordered by the Court of Appeal shall, state in the form of a special case for determination by the Court of Appeal any question of law which may arise before them, and the decision of the Court of Appeal thereon shall be final, unless the Court of Appeal give leave to appeal to the House of Lords, which leave may be given on such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court of Appeal may determine.

LORD MORRISON

The next is a Government Amendment to remove the limitation of the right to appeal at present imposed by the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 112, line 43, leave out from ("them") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 106 and 107 agreed to.

Clause 108:

Jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal as to disputes.

108. —(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the arbitration tribunal shall have sole jurisdiction to determine any dispute to which the Commission is a party as to any of the following questions that is to say—

1. (c) whether a notice of disclaimer given by the Commission under any of the provisions of this Act with respect to any property or any contract or agreement is or is not valid; or
2. (d) any other question required by any provision of this Act to be determined by the arbitration tribunal.

LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c) and insert: (c) whether the acquisition of any property, or the making or variation of any agreement or contract with respect to which a notice of disclaimer is given by the Commission under any provision of this Act, was or was not reasonably necessary for the purposes mentioned in that provision, or was or was not an act of unreasonable imprudence on the part of the body or person therein mentioned; (d) whether any such notice of disclaimer is in any other respect invalid; or". The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, I beg to move this Amendment. During our previous debate the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, suggested in an Amendment which was afterwards withdrawn that the only appeal to the Transport Arbitration Tribunal on the question of a disclaimed contract was on the form in which the notice had been given, and that in consequence they had no jurisdiction On the question of the necessity or imprudence of the contract. The Government fully accept the principle that the Arbitration Tribunal should have this complete jurisdiction, and the draftsman is satisfied that on the clause he is drafting this jurisdiction is there. In view of the doubts expressed by Lord Simon, this Amendment is put down for clarification.

Amendment moved— Page 115, line 23, leave out paragraph (c) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD WOOLTON

We are very much obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, at the end of the clause to insert the following subsection: (3) Where a scheme made under section 62 of this Act constitutes or specifies a body or bodies for the purpose of providing passenger road transport services operating within or partly within the area of the scheme, and constitutes or specifies the body or bodies who are to administer or to take part in administering such scheme, references in this section to the Commission shall be deemed to include references to such body or bodies as the case may be. The noble Earl said: This is really a clarifying Amendment. Clause 108 deals with jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunals and only names the Commission, whereas under Part IV and the Eighth Schedule reference is made to "a body or bodies" who may or may not constitute a scheme. It might appear that they might be responsible in that case for compensation. I venture to suggest that this subsection might be included to make it quite clear that "bodies," so far as compensation is concerned, includes the Commission.

Amendment moved— Page 115, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Rothes.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I appreciate what the noble Earl desires, but—if he will forgive my saying so—the Amendment does not carry out his desire. You need here, if you are to apply this to other than the Commission itself, first, some words to get over the difficulty of the phrase which comes repeatedly in Clause 108, "under any provision of this Act"; and secondly, something which makes it plain that you are not dealing with the Commission but with a body which may be set up under a scheme. You have to have both these things. The Amendment, which is no doubt intended to give to the Arbitration Tribunal sole jurisdiction over disputes between the body or bodies set up under the Provisions of a scheme, and any other party, does not in fact achieve that object. It would merely substitute "reference to body or bodies" for "reference to the Commission," but it would leave standing untouched the other conditions limit- ing the jurisdiction—namely, that the only questions which the Arbitration Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide are questions arising "in respect of the transfer to the Commission, under any of the provisions of this Act." There is no reference to transfer under the provisions of a scheme. The object of the Amendment I venture to think has been more happily dealt with by Clause 112 and the noble Earl will see that in Clause 112 we have endeavoured to meet both these difficulties.

We say there: Any reference in the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act to any provision of this Act includes a reference to that provision as applied, with or without modifications, by any scheme or order. That is the first point. It goes on: and, except so far as the contrary is expressly provided by the scheme or order, any reference in this Part of this Act to the Commission shall, in relation to a scheme or order providing for a transfer to a body other than the Commission, be deemed, in relation to that transfer, to include a reference to that body. So that we have there dealt with both the necessary points. It is quite true that we say, "except so far as the contrary is expressly provided by the scheme or order." That we have done quite deliberately. There may be cases where some other system is desirable. Subject to that point, we have met—and I venture to think that the noble Lord's Amendment does not meet—both the necessary steps to enable this scheme to be applied to the body acting under the scheme instead of under the Act. For that reason, I regret I am unable to accept this Amendment.

LORD WOOLTON

I am sorry the noble and learned Viscount feels like that about the Amendment. As I am advised, this is an Amendment which we thought the Government were going to accept. We thought it arose directly out of Clause 68 in the Bill.

THE EARL OF ROTHES

I do not want to press this Amendment, and, of course, I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble and learned Viscount. I will withdraw the Amendment for the time being, and if I am advised otherwise I will refer to it later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 100 to 112 agreed to.

Clause 113:

Additional compensation to local authorities.

(2) The undertakings to which this section applies are—

1. (a) any undertaking of a local authority which falls to be transferred under Part II of this Act;
2. (b) any undertaking which, at the passing of this Act, is being carried on by a local authority, being an undertaking which could be transferred to the Commission or to some other body as aforesaid under a scheme under Part IV of this Act;

and the expression "the appropriate sum" means, in relation to any undertaking to which this section applies, such sum as may be specified in relation to that undertaking by regulations made by the Minister, so, however, that the total of all the appropriate sums for undertakings the activities whereof consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services does not exceed two and a half million pounds and the total of all the appropriate sums for other undertakings does not exceed two hundred thousand pounds.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (2) to leave out "regulations" and insert "orders." The noble Earl said: This clause deals with the additional compensation payable to local authorities. I have put down an Amendment which provides that those who are particularly interested in this sum should have the opportunity of representing their case. If the Government feel they cannot accept this Amendment, then I think the alternative is that they must explain the basis on which this additional compensation to local authorities is to be paid. I am going to put one or two questions to His Majesty's Government, and if they can answer those questions, I do not propose to press this Amendment. The first question I want to ask is: How is the global sum of £2,500,000 arrived at? I ask that question because it is very important to realize that the sum of £2,500,000 does not approximate in any way to the value of the transport undertakings which are to be taken over.

I have not here a figure showing the exact value of all the transport undertakings which may or may not be taken over, but I will give your Lordships those of a relatively small city of half a million people—the city of Edinburgh. That has a transport undertaking the value of which is £4,500,000, and the outstanding debt, if taken over, is about £150,000. That means to say that the payment to be made for it is very small indeed. The second question I want to ask the Government is this: What is the basis of allocation of this £2,500,000? I understand that there has been some suggestion that 1 per cent. of the receipts will be paid for six years. I do not know whether that is true or not. This is essentially to cover those incidental expenses and in particular the overhead expenses which Will arise for local authorities from the severance of their transport undertakings. The question of the recovery of income tax also arises in that regard. I should very much like to have a reply on that point.

The third point I want to make is whether any consideration is being given under this head to special circumstances. I want you to know quite clearly what the special circumstances are which exist in certain cases. The special circumstances to which I wish to refer are in regard to the city of Glasgow. There a situation exists which I think is unique in, the whole of the United Kingdom, because the transport undertaking in the city of Glasgow does not belong, in the ordinary sense of the word, to the Corporation of Glasgow but belongs to the common good. I will support that by referring your Lordships to the Glasgow Corporation Act, 1909, and in particular to Section 20 of that Act, which says that the tramway undertakings of the Corporation shall be, and shall be deemed to have always been, part of the common good of the city.

Now what is the common good? The common good is perhaps a phrase which is unfamiliar in England, and it may be that some of your Lordships are not familiar with exactly what it means. The common good, if I may put it in very simple language, is a trust of which the citizens of the city are the beneficiaries, and of which the town council are the members. What are the obligations which apply to the trustees in relation to the trust which they administer? Their relation's in fact are entirely different from those which exist in regard to an ordinary corporation dealing under an Act of Parliament with a transport organization. Their duties are to see that the moneys, or the funds placed at their disposal, are used in a manner which is beneficial to the whole of the citizens of Glasgow.

Now I understand the method in which it is proposed to take over these transport undertakings is as follows. The transport undertaking is still private, although the ratepayers are in exactly the same position, as they were before the change. In the case of the common good, you are dealing in fact with a trust which could have invested some money in any form of company or enterprise they desired. The effect of this Act is to deprive the citizens of Glasgow of a sum of about £10,000,000. The value of the transport undertaking is closely approximating to £10,000,000, and they are being paid for that the sum of £200,000. This is a point which His 'Majesty's Government have to answer, because it is not the case of an ordinary transfer between a local authority undertaking and His Majesty's Government—that is to say, a transfer from a local to a central authority. It is, in fact a transfer from the common good, which is something entirely different. I am asking His Majesty's Government if they would be good enough to explain what their view is, because this is something which is deserving of special consideration. For these reasons, I ask His Majesty's Government either to accept this Amendment as it stands, or to offer a full explanation in regard to the three questions I have posed—that is to say, how the global sum is reached; how it is proposed to allocate it, and whether or not special consideration will be given to certain cases. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 117, line 31, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("orders").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD SALTOUN

I would like to say a few words on the last point in support of my noble friend. I do not know if I should declare an interest, but I must confess to your Lordships that I am a burgess of the City of Glasgow. For those of your Lordships who are Englishmen, I would suggest that, if you want to find out more about the common good, which is important in Scotland, you should read that very amusing book called The Provost, by John Galt, which shows the various efforts made by the magistrates and corporation of the burgh in the 18th Century to appropriate to themselves the portions of the common good of the burgh to which they were entrusted.

The common good—and it has various forms—exists in a great many burghs in Scotland, and has a considerable public value. It often enables the burgh, not through the corporation but through the managers of the common good, to undertake works which are for the advantage of the citizens and which they may not be able to undertake under the Local Government Acts which govern the corporation. The property of these common goods is in the hands of trustees, and under the management of trustees, and they are mostly governed by their ancient charters which were nearly always made on liberal and advanced terms. It would be a very serious blow to Scottish social life if this Bill were to deal a blow at the common goods of the various burghs of Scotland, especially in such a signal case as the great and important City of Glasgow; it would be a very unfortunate thing indeed. I am sure that every consideration will be given to the common good of the City of Glasgow and that the people, under this Bill, will not lose anything that they might reasonably expect to receive because the circumstances should not be considered by the Government special, as my noble Lords on this side of the House consider them to be.

LORD MORRISON

I am afraid I am not in a position intelligently to enter into the detailed discussion about the common good, even after the eloquent appeal of the noble Earl. I was not aware that he is a burgess of the City of Glasgow. If there had been any mention or indication that a specific point intended to be raised in this Amendment was to be connected with the common good of the city of Glasgow, I should have made myself, to the best of my ability, acquainted with the particular circumstances. The answer to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is in the main that this plan or scheme that is proposed—the distribution of the £2,500,000 to which he has referred and the fact that the amount was fixed at £2,500,000—was decided after negotiation, and the whole proposal was changed after negotiation between the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Association of Counties and Cities of Scotland, who actually informed the Government that, in point of fact, they saw little likelihood of agreeing amongst themselves as to the allocation of the total sum. They themselves pointed out that this way, as indicated in the Bill, was the only way by which an equitable distribution was likely to take place or likely to be agreed amongst all of them.

The Minister, I may inform the noble Earl, has given a most explicit undertaking to the Association of the Municipal Corporations and to the Association of Counties and Cities in Scotland that in passing the regulation he will consult with these Associations with a view to arranging an equitable distribution of the global sums amongst the individual authorities. When a global sum of this character is involved, the principles of distribution must be agreed and there is no one who can agree these better than the Associations of the local authorities concerned. This is the reply to the further point raised by the Earl: if at some subsequent date some individual local authority were to seek, through special parliamentary procedure, a bigger share for itself, this could only be at the expense of all the other authorities. A share-out of this character is a matter for agreement between representatives of local authorities, with the Minister holding the ring as an administrative matter, and is quite inappropriate for special parliamentary procedure. In these circumstances, I regret I am unable to accept the Amendment.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Is this not a case that comes under the tentative agreement made with regard to regulations earlier to-day? The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, wants special parliamentary procedure, but the Bill says this is to be done by regulation. The system of regulations has already been shown to possess the great disadvantage that you cannot amend a regulation, though you may annul it. I should have thought that this was a case for investigation, together with the other matters which have been referred to—particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—and that the arguments that apply to what he put forward, and which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House agreed should have further consideration, would equally apply in this case.

LORD SALTOUN

I recognize that the noble Lord cannot answer now, by reason of the fact that, strictly speaking, the tramways of Glasgow do not belong to the local authority but to the common good; but they should not be deprived of any- thing merely by reason of the fact that the owners are not perhaps considered legally a local authority.

LORD MORRISON

If I had thought the noble Lord intended to raise the specific point of the Common Good Fund of the City of Glasgow, I would have fortified myself accordingly. May I just say further to the noble Lord who asked the specific question at the beginning how the £2,500,000 was arrived at, that it was the result of negotiations with the Association of Municipal Corporations. It was agreed that it was only possible to arrive by statistical methods at an over-all figure to represent compensation due by reason of severance. The figures taken represented about 1.25 per cent, of the gross receipts of municipal transport undertakings. That was agreed as a fair figure for overheads which the local authorities might be unable to eliminate.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Will the noble Lord say something more about this question of regulations? An agreement to discuss further the whole subject of these regulations was made earlier in the day —or at any rate a proposal was put forward in all these cases. It might well be considered whether the draft regulations, which could be altered by either House of Parliament, should not be agreed upon. I should have thought that that was eminently a case for the same procedure as that adumbrated at an earlier stage to-day.

LORD MORRISON

I thought I had pointed out that the Government took the decision that this matter could best be settled by negotiation with the Association of Municipal Corporations in England and the similar body representing the municipalities of Scotland.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not think that is necessarily in dispute. That really is not the answer to my noble friend's question. I am sure negotiations have to go on over this, but ultimately what is the issue here is the distribution to a number of Scottish beneficiaries of a certain sum. They are not satisfied with the sum. They have no doubt been unjustly treated.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Not at all.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It would not be practical for us, I agree, to move that they should get a more equitable share. On the other hand, when the sum is distributed, I do not envy the Government and the Secretary of State who start distributing an inadequate sum of money to a number of Scottish beneficiaries. But when the Minister has attempted that extremely invidious task and has put the thing into regulations, will the regulations come before this House for an affirmative or negative resolution in the same way that other regulations will? If so, there will be, I have no doubt, the representation of all the other Scottish beneficiaries in regard to these regulations. That is really the answer we want.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Those regulations will certainly be dealt with just as is every other regulation. With regard to the special point made by Lord Rankeillour, with regard to a special provision in an Act of Parliament relating to the compensation of railway employees, I should not have thought myself that the details for negotiation to which the noble Lord has made reference would be the sort of details which we should want to discuss in draft regulatons. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will not press that particular point with regard to these regulations.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Provided the Government definitely come before both Houses of Parliament for judgment and have to give an account of their stewardship in regard to the common goods and others, then I think it is sufficiently met.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

We have tried to follow this complicated Bill as best we can.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

We are all learning it, including the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

As my noble friend has pointed out, if you lock at page 120, Clause 118 (2), you will see that the regulations will come before the Houses of Parliament.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Yes, I agree.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Will they lie for the forty days?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Yes.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Viscount has said that the regulations will come before the Houses of Parliament, but as your Lordships know, there is only one way of dealing with those regulations, and that is to negative the whole lot. That is clearly impossible in this case, and the procedure which I propose allows for certain amendments and alterations to be made, and I think in that sense it is far more appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has replied in a way, if I may say so, to my first two questions. He has said that the global sum was arrived at by negotiation with the municipal associations and the counties and cities of Scotland. I have no evidence of that, but I am sure the noble Lord is right. But whether they are really satisfied is a different matter, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord.

The second point, in regard to the way in which they are to be allocated, he has not attempted to answer in the way it should be answered. The third point is whether any special consideration can be given to certain cities, in particular the City of Glasgow, which I have mentioned, and that question the noble Lord could not answer. I say, with great respect, that the Government must have known perfectly well that this question was coming up on this Amendment, because it was before the Ministry of Transport. It is perfectly obvious that this clause would need consideration. This is the only clause in the whole Bill which deals with the question of a contribution to local authorities. It must have been perfectly clear to the Ministry that this point was coming up, and I am very surprised indeed that the noble Lord has not been adequately briefed. However, there is nothing new about that particularly, and I am not complaining unduly on that point.

The noble Lord has said that this is a question of equitable distribution between the municipalities. I suggest that the best way to distribute equitably is to make arrangements behind the scenes and thereafter to allow presentation before Parliament. That can be permitted under special Parliamentary procedure for special cases when they arise. These local authorities are very powerful indeed, and I feel that they would be more satisfied if they were allowed to be represented by counsel before Parliament in dealing with a matter in which they feel they are so intimately concerned. I must ask the noble Lord to consider this point and the other points that I have mentioned before the Report stage. If the noble Lord is prepared so to consider this point, I am ready to withdraw this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I cannot promise to consider a suggestion that local authorities should appear by counsel before this House to dispute details of this allocation. I think that it is an extraordinary suggestion.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

With very great respect, I did not make such a suggestion. I suggested that special Parliamentary procedure which is entirely different should be allowed under this Bill. That is, that they should appear by counsel before a Select Committee of this House, which is something entirely different.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I think that Clause 118 shows clearly what will be dealt with, and, frankly, I consider that these powerful local authorities are perfectly capable of stating their own cases. I suspect, though, that they think they have been treated with extraordinary generosity. I think they have made a very good bargain.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I assure the noble Viscount that that is not the case with regard to Glasgow, which is peculiar for the reason I have mentioned. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but may I say that I shall expect some explanation of the view of His Majesty's Government with regard to the common good of Glasgow before the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 113 agreed to.

Clauses 114 and 115 agreed to.

9.4 p.m.

Clause 116 [Special provisions as to River Lee]:

LORD WALKDEN moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (4) Until the appointed day and save in so far as may be otherwise agreed between the Commission and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, the said Board—

1. (a) shall, as agents for the Commission, carry on that part of the undertaking of the Commission which corresponds to the undertaking of the Lee Conservancy Board, and for that purpose, have all such rights and powers as are transferred to the Commission from the Lee Conservancy Board by this Act; and
349
2. (b) shall, as respects the carrying on thereof, give effect to any directions as to the exercise of the said rights and powers which may front time to time be given to them by the Commission; and
3. (c) shall, to such extent as may be agreed between them and the Commission or as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries acting together, be entitled, on payment of such sums to the Commission as may be so agreed or determined, to make use, for the purposes of their own undertaking, of the services of officers and servants employed and property held by the Commission for the purposes of the said part of the Commission's undertaking."

The noble Lord said: This rather long Amendment, with its different subsections, is intended to augment the provisions contained in Clause 116 with regard to the Lee Conservancy Board and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, also the provisions in the Twelfth Schedule which deal further with adjusting the position of the Boards. The Conservancy Board is being taken over by the Commission for the purpose of utilizing its navigational facilities. But there have been other functions which the Conservancy Board have discharged, and there are to be regulations made for placing them under the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. These functions relate to water supply, fisheries, polution, and land drainage, and when the regulations are made in regard to those matters they will be made jointly by the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, so that all interests will be represented together when the regulations are made. The Amendment now before the House is to augment that and to provide arrangements for the transitional period. It is unlikely the Commission will be able to take over and operate this yet. They will have to appoint a Waterways Executive and a scheme has to be made for operating inland waterways; and that may take some time. In the interval there has to be an interim arrangement and this Amendment provides for that. The functions of the Conservancy Board can be carried on meantime by arrangements under this clause, and when the Commission are ready to step in and take over they will take over the whole "caboodle" and carry on.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Is that expression in the definition clause?

LORD WALKDEN

It is all perfectly clear. It renders quite unnecessary another arrangement suggested, whereby the original authority carried on in perpetuity under the æis of the Commission. The Commission will eventually carry on the functions itself. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 119, line 41, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Walkden.)

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

My Lords, I have to declare an interest in this undertaking because I happen to be a conservator in what I now know to be a "caboodle." We had a discussion on the position of the River Lee on Clause 12 and I explained to your Lordships then that the Lee is a small river but extremely important, because it supplies water to the Metropolitan Water Board which, in turn, supplies water to a large number of the inhabitants of the East End of London. The Lee Conservancy Board are charged with the supervision of the purity of the water. They employ a number of experts on the river, constantly taking sample to see that the purity of the river is maintained. In addition to this important work, there is a certain amount of transport. It amounted in the best year, 1938, to 2,000,000 tons, but that transport only brought in something like £28,000. The haul is very short and a great deal of tonnage is actually hauled without paying any dues. This is relatively a small undertaking in regard to transport from the point of view of income, but it is an extremely important undertaking in view of the duties laid upon it in protecting the water for the East End of London.

This clause seeks to split the activities of this Board. It seeks to transfer the navigational duties of the Lee Conservancy to the Transport Board and to transfer to the Lee Catchment Board the duties of supervizing the purity of the water and maintaining the flow from the river. That is a functional division which is quite impossible on this particular river. It makes all sorts of difficulties. For example, you have at the present moment one general manager running the Catchment Board and Conservancy Board and you have one engineer in charge. The two Boards are composed largely of the same members, though the Catchment Board, a much newer body established under the 1930 Act, have a few more members because their activities extend over a considerably wider area. I submit to your Lordships that it would be fatal to try and do away with the Lee Conservancy, to put the water supervision under the Catchment Board, and to let the Transport Board undertake the navigational duties. The water in which the barges move is, of course, water that eventually goes into the reservoirs, and it is, therefore, the responsibility of the Conservancy Board to maintain its purity.

Again, let us consider the locks. The locks on the River Lee are required for transport, but the weirs alongside the locks are required for flooding purposes. I submit to your Lordships that it is quite impossible to separate those two duties. At the present moment you have lock-keepers on the various locks, who attend to the sluices, which are to be transferred to the Catchment Board; at the same time they open the lock gates, which are to be transferred to the Transport Board. The whole scheme as proposed will, I am afraid, be very difficult to work. It will mean that you will now have to have two general managers, two engineers, and two workshops, because at the present moment the workshops of the Lee Conservancy and the Lee Catchment Board are combined, and they carry out more or less the same duties. This will, in consequence, greatly add to the expense and it will mean that the various ratepayers in the districts through which the Lee passes will have to bear this extra burden, which is quite unnecessary and is only brought about by this splitting of these functions.

I hope your Lordships will give consideration to the Amendment which I am moving subsequently, and perhaps if I deal with that now it may save the time of the Committee. I suggest, in that Amendment, that the Lee Conservancy Board should be made agents for the Commission, so far as the Transport undertaking of the Lee Conservancy Board is concerned. That in no way contradicts this Bill, because Clause 2, (2) (f), states that the Transport Commission can appoint any body to act as agents, should they so desire. All I am asking is that the Lee Conservancy Board should be made agents for the transport undertaking, so far as their navigational duties are concerned. In that way I think all these difficulties will be avoided. The undertaking would be carried on smoothly and efficiently, as it is at present, and at the same time full advantage can be taken of the successful management which we have at the present time.

LORD CROFT

May I briefly support the Amendment of my noble friend Viscount Falmouth? We were hoping that something much more definite would arise out of the previous discussion to-day. It so happens that I have been closely associated with the River Lee from my earliest childhood. I have no private interest in it, but lots of affection for it, and, I have seen the workings of that river, because my grandfather was a conservator, and my father for many years was the Chairman of the Conservancy Board. I entirely agree with every word that has fallen from my noble friend. To divide these functions would be a real mistake. It is such an efficient and well-run organization, and it comprises so many functions which cannot be divided up, that I hope His Majesty's Government will think again.

I have made a great deal of use of that waterway for some forty-four years. It is indisputably linked up with the question of London's water supply and with the whole of this catchment question. There again, I happen to have some knowledge, because as a property owner in the neighbourhood I realize how important it is for the purity of the water to be maintained. From every angle I would urge the Government to treat this as they are treating the Thames Conservancy, and not to embrace the River Lee in the whole "caboodle." You must realize that you are effecting no useful purpose whatever in this way, whereas you will achieve everything you want if you make the Lee Conservancy your agents. Why double your officials for all these various functions when the whole thing is being so efficiently carried out? I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will think again on the question. You do not want to swallow everything because you are in a greedy frame of mind.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I can assure the noble Lord that we are not in a greedy frame of mind at all. I think your Lordships have lost sight of Clause 12. We had a discussion on Clause 12, and it was arranged that we should try and put an Amendment on the Paper later to give a picture of the sub-division of functions. This Amendment has been worked out very carefully to fulfil that promise, and I thought we were doing a good deal to give effect to our undertaking in that way. I would point out to the noble Lord who has just spoken, and to the noble Viscount, that if you look at the subsection you will see that the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board shall act as Agents for the Commission during this time and that any prevailing scheme which may be in operation on the appointed day—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

What is the appointed day?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

That will be for them to work out. I cannot tell you when the appointed day will be. It will be when the scheme has been drawn up for these waterways. It is impossible to say to-day when the appointed day is to be. I only want to point out that this Amendment is in pursuance of an undertaking given when we were discussing Clause 12, and I think that it carries out that undertaking in a very practical and sensible way. I hope your Lordships will not want to repeat the discussion or go back on our previous discussion.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is always so persuasive, and I am sure he has done his best. I am equally sure that he can do better! I was perhaps unduly forthcoming on the last occasion, but we did agree that all our rights under Clause 12 were reserved. We passed from Clause 12 on the understanding that if we could get an adjustment under Clause 116 and the consequential Schedule, then Clause 12 could be recast on Report, but if we were not satisfied then of course we must come back to it. I really feel that there is not very much between us here. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that it is difficult to master all the details. I know it has been difficult for me; I have had to work on this Bill for six months. I have not the noble Viscount's responsibilities, but I find it difficult enough to understand it and follow it.

I hope we need not have a controversy where I believe we could all be at one. Let me hasten to say that I have no personal interest in this great undertaking, other than as one who consistently uses the London water to wash in and also, from time to time, to drink. Quite frankly, last time I was entirely taken in by the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, who made a most eloquent speech about the future. I am just going to say a word or two to him about it, because I took it all at its face value last time, but in the interim I have been making some inquiries. He said he wants to take ever "the whole caboodle"—a term not known to me in an Act of Parliament. If he wanted to be really classical I suggest he should have said "Uncle Tom Cobley and All" as being more hallowed by the Parliamentary meed of approbation. What happened last time? The noble Lord, having paid a tribute to the efficiency of the Lee Conservancy, and having told us that there was an immense amount of traffic upon the Lee, was rather careful not to specify what part of the Lee that traffic was on. I understand, in fact, that what happens is that where the Lee goes down near the docks it does carry an immense amount of traffic, just by its mouth, but where we get our water from there is nothing at all or very little—one horse a day, or something like that.

I venture to ask: Has the noble Lord been there? Will he really find all this vast amount of traffic? I asked him about ton mileage; he did not like the phrase—he liked "caboodle" better. If he takes the time, he will find that the whole of this tonnage, which is very large, is just where the river joins the docks. Lord Croft will correct me if I am wrong. For generations he has lived on this thing—I deliberately use the phrase "on it" and not "off it." I am told that when you get up to Enfield every now and again you see an old horse dragging along a canal barge. I believe now it is even doubtful whether you see that, because somebody—probably the Government—has introduced some wretched Bill which prevented the bargees coming on the canal and sent them all to school or into a trade union. Last time the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, completely bamboozled me—if he will forgive me for using that term—by a picture he drew of some enormous trans-English waterway like a great Rhine canal connecting London with the Wash. I am a most innocent person, and I took it all at its face value; I was not asked to put any money into it—no more than I as a taxpayer have to put into this undertaking—but I have been inquiring into it and I am told that all that is the greatest nonsense, and that no one in his senses, or even out of them, will ever contemplate driving this extraordinary Rhine-Maas canal across England. If you attempted to do it, you would upset the whole of the drainage and water levels of England, and, after you had done it, no traffic would want to go from the Wash into London anyway. Really, I do not know where he obtained his information but the noble Lord must have been reading the wrong brief; it certainly bears no relation to the facts and no relation to reality.

What have we here? It is admitted that we have an admirably conducted undertaking. The intense traffic which goes along at the end of the river goes along perfectly well, and there is nothing mysterious in keeping a perfectly good, constantly operated canal open; and by all means let the Commission own the barges which run along that canal. What they want is a road to run on. If the noble Lord wants to swallow the undertaking, let him eat the barges which are to go along the canal; let him carry the traffic along it; but why should he want to drink the water as well? He does not want to take over the roads because he confiscates all the transport that runs along the road; he is content for the time being to leave the roads under the control of the Minister of Transport and the local authorities.

As regards the Lee, it is an extremely complicated business—this business of seeing that the water levels keep right and that the water keeps pure. The drainage and maintenance of water levels, and dealing with flood water, is all very difficult. When we had those frightful floods some time ago the water supply was contaminated. It was bad enough then in an emergency, but there was one set of people to deal with it, and I understand that they dealt with it rapidly and competently, and had the water pure. But that is a terribly complicated business. People who are accustomed to running it and who know it, were running it. It is exactly like running a complicated machine. Your Lordships know the difference between having an amateur and having someone who really knows the job. If you know a horse, when you take him over a jump you know just what he will do. With engineers it is much the same. Why cannot we leave that great undertaking alone? We want a great deal more water in London.

The noble Lord beats me. When you come to some things he is so conservative that he will not change the views he formed seventy years ago; but when he comes to something else, about which he knows nothing, he wants to change it all! I suggest that the whole of this great undertaking should be left in the hands of the Lee Conservancy, not as an agent in consultation, nor only until the appointed day. I do not know when appointed day is. It may be the Resurrection Day or it may be to-morrow morning. Why do you not do the sensible thing? That is the sporting offer I make to the Government. Leave well alone. Take over what you regard as your genuine business under this Bill and run it; but leave the rest of the work to the River Lee people to run. They will see that the water comes down to the end of the river, you need not worry about that. The barges will not be left high and dry. It will not be the water that will stop running when the Government take control of it, it will be the transport. Leave it to the River Lee people. Let them conduct the enterprise which they are now conducting to everybody's great satisfaction. They are a nonprofit making body, a public authority, with everybody's good will.

If you find, some time in the future, that the Commission want to do something else, let them come to Parliament with an order making a change, and with an affirmative Resolution. I submit that this is a sensible proposition and a sporting offer. Do not make unnecessary enemies. If we have to have this Bill, let us pass it with as much good will as we can find, and with all the competent allies we can secure. If you will only accept the proposition I am making to you now, you will keep the good will of the Lee Conservancy, you will run your transport all right, and you will make a friend instead of one more fellow who will vote against you at the next election.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

In response to the noble Viscount's statement, may I say that I really think that he should read the clause. We are not proposing that the Commission shall take over the water supplies and the functions of the Catchment Board. If he will look at subsection (2) of the clause he will see that it says there: Notwithstanding anything in the said Part II the functions of the Lee Conservancy Board, so far as they are declared by regulations made under this section to be functions relating to water supply, fisheries, pollution or land drainage to which it is expedient that this subsection should apply, shall, in lieu of becoming exercisable by the Commission, become exercisable by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. In other words, we do the very thing that the noble Viscount wants us to do; it is in this clause. All I have to say is that I put down this Amendment in complete good faith. You have spoken of functions and what was to be done in the interval. The division of functions is prescribed in the clause. If the noble Lords do not want my good will Amendment, very well. I do not want them to have it, and it will not be in the Bill at all.

LORD WOOLTON

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I wonder whether the Leader of the House has appreciated this quite simple fact: that this Amendment begins with the words, "Until the appointed day." That is the difficulty. After that you can do as you like. It is that one phrase, those few words, that seem, to me to vitiate the whole of the rest of the offer.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

You should pay attention to the Bill. It says that: "notwithstanding anything," these functions will continue to be exercised by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. We are separating the functions in the Bill.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I have read the Bill, and I am trying to look at it fairly. You really are not doing what you say. I am asking you to leave well alone; and you say you are doing what I want you to do. But you are not, with great respect. The Bill says: "Notwithstanding anything in the said Part II, the functions … so far as they are declared by regulations.…" That is certainly not leaving well alone; it is leaving you to do what you please by regulation. The very thing I am complaining about is that you are dividing the thing up unnecessarily here by making these regulations. You are going to divide the func- tions. I ask the noble Lord definitely: Is it not your intention, and would you not have the power, to take over the lower waters of the Lee and hand them over (which I believe is what is going to happen to the Transport operation) or to hand over, as I think Lord Walkden said, the whole of the canal to the Commission?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I can only tell the noble Lord that I am referring him to the Bill, and that the navigation duties, and so forth, will of course belong to the Commission. That is their business. I understood him to say he wanted them to do that work. That is the business of the Commission, but it provides here that those other functions which are not those functions shall be exercised by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am very sorry to press the noble Lord over this—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

If you do not want the Amendment—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Viscount really need not get fractious with the House. We are trying to make this into a better Bill and, quite honestly, the water supply of London is worth half an hour's consideration, even after dinner. The word is "functions," and the phrase is, "the division of functions." What I have asked the noble Viscount—and I really should have thought it could be answered —is: "Who is going to have vested in them this waterway? That is what matters—who owns the waterway and deals with the water. You are going to get the worst of both worlds out of this. You are going to vest the waterway, so far as I can make out, in two people. But maybe you are going to vest it as Lord Walkden said last time. The canal, which is the bed with the water in it, he told me last time was going to vest in the Commission. He told me that quite definitely. Is that so? If you are going to vest the waterway in the Commission, what is the good of saying that a function is going to vest in someone else? The man who owns the water is going to deal with the water. Really the noble Viscount must know that the worst thing you can possibly do is to have two people responsible for the same job. You never know who you have to hang if things go wrong.

At the present moment, we are left in complete uncertainty as to what is the appointed day. It has to be settled under regulations. Under regulations the functions can be divided. I think I have made a helpful proposition. I believe that when the noble Viscount is less tired than he is now, he will appreciate that I have not been unhelpful with regard to this Bill. I was not unhelpful over the railway clauses before dinner, and I am not being unhelpful over this. But there is a great issue here. Do not think that I am trying to score a Party point. Go on and mess up London's water supply, and you will give me a political cry than which I could not have a better. But I want to get this right. I believe that it is wrong to divide functions by regulations. If the noble Viscount pleases, I will suggest that we accept what he has put in; but I must claim the right to come back to this on Report stage, because I am not prepared for any theoretical handing over of a canal which, except at its lower end, is practically non-existent, without being satisfied that I am doing right and that I am not putting in jeopardy the water supply of London.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to leave out Clause 116 and insert: Notwithstanding anything in Part II of this Act the Lee Conservancy Board shall as agents for the Commission continue to carry on the undertaking of the said Board which vests in the Commission under Part II of this Act and the said Board shall as respects the exercise of their functions as a harbour and canal authority give effect to any directions which may from time to time be given to them by the Commission.

The noble Viscount said: I have spoken on my Amendment previously and I would just like to say a further word or two about it if I may. The whole object of the Amendment is to avoid "boggling the caboodle," for that is what is going to happen if these functions are separated. As the noble Viscount has explained, you cannot separate the water, the barges on the water, the locks, the weirs, and so on, from one another. The different functions must be combined. It is hopeless to try to separate them. If you do, you will have endless expense and endless correspondence—correspondence between the engineer dealing with locks and the engineer dealing with weirs, corre- spondence between the manager dealing with one side and the manager dealing with another side. Instead of that the same man now attends to both matters and there is no difficulty.

The whole object of my Amendment is to carry out the intention of the Bill, which says that anybody may be appointed under Clause 2 as agent for the Commission. I am asking you not to split the Lee Conservancy Board but to appoint them as agents to act under the Commission as regards their transport functions, and in that way, so to speak, to leave the matter alone. I am sure that that will work very well. The Minister of Transport will be able to include the 2,000,000 tons of traffic in his returns, and we shall get along very well. The Thames has been excluded, and it is a parallel case. It supplies water to West and Central London and has barge traffic, but this traffic is nothing like so great. In all other respects the position is parallel. The Thames has been excluded and I would ask the Committee to accept this Amendment, which simply means that the Conservancy Board will act as agents for the Commission.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 116 and insert the said new Clause.—(Viscount Falmouth.)

VISCOUNT ADDISON

This Amendment is in direct contradiction to the one we have have just accepted, and I hope the noble Viscount will not go on with it.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

In view of what has happened I do not think we can pass this Amendment. We will see what we can do about it on the Report stage.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 117 agreed to.

Clause 118 [Other provisions as to orders and regulations]:

LORD ROCHDALE had given notice that he would move, in subsection (2), after "department" to insert: (other than regulations a draft of which is required by any provision of this Act to be laid before each House of Parliament before they are made). The noble Lord said: This is not being moved, but if I may make an observation, this is consequential on the Amend- ment which came up to delete the whole of Clause 81. But as was suggested earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, in regard to draft regulations on another matter, this Amendment may have to be reintroduced on Report.

Clause 118 agreed to.

9.43 p.m.

Clause 119:

Penalties.

119.—(1) If any person, in giving any information, making any claim or giving any notice for the purposes of any provision of this Act, or any regulation or order made thereunder, makes any statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to bath such imprisonment and such fine, or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "four months" for "three months." The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment to strike out the word "three" and substitute the word "four." I need not inform the Government, though possibly I ought to inform some of the members of this Committee, that the object of this Amendment is not to increase the penalty against road hauliers and others who are unable to make a success of the puzzles set before them by this Bill. Nor is the Amendment dictated by any theoretical preference for even numbers as compared with odd. I would be equally prepared to accept, if the Government desired, the word "five" or "seven" in place of "three." The object of the Amendment is simple. Having regard to the general law of the land, if for any particular offence the maximum penalty on summary conviction is three months, then the person accused has no right of appeal to a higher tribunal, the Quarter Sessions or the Assizes. If you increase the possible maximum penalty above three months, then he has that right.

The object of the Amendment is to raise the question of whether, for the great mass of new offences of making false returns to Transport Commissioners, the penalty should be one which can be inflicted by a court of summary jurisdiction without any chance of going to Quarter Sessions. I suggest that it would be no answer to this Amendment to say that three months is what applies under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to most of the offences which we wittingly or unwittingly committed during the war. The Transport Bill is based on the assumption that we are ultimately to get out of war conditions into conditions of normal peace, and it is important to realize that it will be very difficult for people to make statements about all their journeys in the year 1946 and it will be very difficult often to say whether wrong statements are recklessly made or not. If I were a road haulier I might make a statement rather recklessly in order to avoid the research which would be required to make a duly proved statement.

I put down this Amendment in order to raise the question as to whether these functions under this Bill ought to be such that they can all be dealt with on summary conviction, or whether there shall be a right of going to a higher tribunal. I hope it may be regarded as a reason for legitimately taking up the time of this Committee, on this later stage, that this is one of the clauses which was more completely guillotined than almost any other clause—or, at any rate, as completely guillotined as any other clause—when the Bill was under discussion in another place. This clause was not discussed at all. In fact, three Amendments by the Government, extending the scope of the clause, and applying it to offences against the regulations, and others, were put down on the Committee stage in another place, but were not discussed at all. This all happened on April 1, 1947. That was the high water mark of the Government achievement. I think this was one of the fourteen clauses of this Bill which were guillotined without any discussion whatever in the other place. That being so, I venture to suggest that it is part of the duty of this Committee to see that there is some explanation. Every word of these clauses stands not as the considered view of another place, after the democratic discussion about which the Minister spoke in introducing the Bill, but as the view of what the Government and their officials thought was fair to the public.

Let me say at once that I am delighted to see the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on the Benches opposite. If he, as the guardian of our judicial procedure and as being responsible for fairly adjusting our judicial and criminal procedure to the various offences which citizens are liable to commit, in the due dispensation can assure me that he considers what is proposed in the Bill is right and just, and will maintain the high standard of British justice, I shall at once without question withdraw my Amendment. I have moved this Amendment so that the Government may give us their reasons for saying that the policy proposed by them, of making all these offences summary jurisdiction offences, without the possibility of appeal to any other court, is the right procedure. I beg to move, in order to have that discussed, as it was not discussed, or even considered, in another place.

Amendment moved— Page 121, line 4, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Beveridge.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have no hesitation in telling the noble Lord that I think acceptance of this Amendment would be most unfortunate. I am not prepared to give precise figures, but I think that something of the order of 98 per cent. of all the criminal cases in the country are tried and disposed of before magistrates. To my mind, it would be absolutely disastrous to the working of our jury system if we did not have this differentiation between cases which are disposed of summarily and cases which go before a jury. In this Bill I am not creating a new precedent; I am following a precedent which is nearly one hundred years old. Countless Acts of Parliament do this in order that the small offences may be dealt with summarily. Incidentally, the noble Lord did not mean that there was no appeal from the magistrates. There is, of course, an appeal from the magistrates, but there is not a right to a jury.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

An appeal to Quarter Sessions from the magistrates?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes. If we adopt this principle and do away with differentiation between the small case and the big case, and give the right of a jury in every case, I tell your Lordships, quite frankly, that in my opinion, the whole system of the administration of justice would break down. I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.

LORD BEVERIDGE

I am naturally delighted to accept the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount—who does stand for the justice of this country and its judicial procedure—that this is the right procedure. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MANCROFT moved, at the end of the clause to insert: Provided that no such person shall be liable to fine or imprisonment if he shows that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe that a competent and reliable person was charged with the duty of seeing that the provisions were complied with and was in a position to discharge that duty. The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, and myself. This Amendment is closely linked with one moved some days ago by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on Clause 18 (3), and it will be within the memory of the Committee that the purpose of that Amendment was to set the noble Viscount's mind at rest from the point of view of a director who might be liable if a dividend were declared after the date upon which the Bill decided that no dividend should be declared. The noble and learned Viscount wanted to ensure that the director would be exonerated from blame if he had acted on the advice of a competent and reliable official, charged with seeing that the provisions of Clause 18 were carried out.

He prayed in aid Clause 19 of the Companies Bill, as it left your Lordships' House—and perhaps I might be forgiven for reading that clause to your Lordships. It is very short, and it is directly in point with this Amendment. Clause 19 reads: A director shall not be liable to a fine or imprisonment under section one hundred and twenty-two or one hundred and twenty-three of the principal Act or any provision contained in the sections of this Act relating to a company's accounts for failing to take reasonable steps to comply or secure compliance with any provisions of that Act or this Act, if he shows that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe that a competent and reliable person was charged with the duty of seeing that that provision was complied with and was in a position to discharge that duty. I think that Amendment was actually inserted in the Bill at the instigation of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, in conjunction with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.

The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in replying for the Government, would not accept the Amendment at first, and the reasons he gave for turning it down were twofold. First he said that Clause 18 applied only to the payment of a dividend which was solely the responsibility of a director, and he felt that the director should not be able to throw off that responsibility. Secondly, he said that the penalties to which a director would be liable if he failed were only to make good the sums that had been paid, and were not penal: He would not be liable to be fined or imprisoned. However, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, realizing that he had two ex-Lord Chancellors against him, agreed, with some discretion, to reconsider the matter. This Amendment is on very much the same point. As I understand it, what the clause says is this. A director or any other officer of any organization will be held guilty of an offence which that organization may have committed against the Bill, or the regulations made under the Bill, unless he can prove that he neither consented to nor connived at it and took every precaution to prevent its commission. That is very much wider, and I must submit to your Lordships that it is unreasonably wide. I would almost go so far as to say that one can see the question of the burden of proof raising its ugly head again.

I also had in mind the point which has been raised more than once—the case of a director who has been appointed for his technical qualifications consenting to some act of a financial nature, about which he really knows very little, and which he does on the advice of a competent accountant whom he was perfectly justified in trusting, and with the accountant acting in all good faith. If I may take up the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, on the two points he raised previously, this Amendment applies to the whole Bill. It applies right through Clause 18 and not only to dividends. Moreover, my Amendment does embody a penal distinction. It says quite distinctly that no such person shall be liable to fine or imprisonment. Having read Clause 19 of the Companies Bill, I think it would be wrong not to agree to this Amendment because this Amendment and that clause are completely in agreement, and it would be contrary to that Bill and to natural justice if this Amendment were not accepted. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 121, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Mancroft.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think we ought to accept this Amendment. It is quite true that when I was in a particularly benevolent mood I did concede some such proposition in the Companies Bill relating, if hay memory serves me right, to accounts, but I cannot conceal from myself this fact that an exactly similar provision to that contained in this clause appears in the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946, the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, Civil Aviation Act, 1946, Exchange Control Act, 1947, which is later than the Companies Act, and in many Bills now before Parliament. I could not accept this Amendment and I do not think it is right to accept it; on principle, I think it is wrong. There is no question about onus of proof; that is perfectly plain. If an offence has been committed, it is placed upon the director to prove that he was not guilty. That is a practice in all these recent Acts. What must he show? He has to prove: that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance, and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and in all the circumstances. If a director is appointed for some particular purpose which has no relation to the offence, having regard to his functions and in all the circumstances he would, without the slightest difficulty, prove that he was not to blame. We must assume that the Judges who try these cases have some common sense, and they would say that a man in that capacity was quite blameless and would discharge the onus. There are unfortunately some directors of bodies corporate who are not very anxious to prevent offences and who are sometimes anxious to shelter behind the body corporate. In those circumstances, I suggest to your Lordships that this clause, hallowed now by long usage which in practice has worked very well and has not led to any of the difficulties suggested by the noble Lord, is the right and fair way of dealing with this matter and it will prevent a body corporate from being able to drive a coach-and-four through the Act. I cannot accept this Amendment in these circumstances.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I hesitate to challenge the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on a legal matter, but this is rather more than a legal matter, because a good many people who are not lawyers are likely to be concerned in prosecutions under this clause. I do not think anybody has the least doubt or has suggested that the High Court Judge would not be able to come to a conclusion upon this matter; no one has cast such a reflection upon a High Court Judge. But the whole point is this: Should a man who is quite capable and well able, without any difficulty, to prove himself innocent to the satisfaction of a High Court Judge, be prosecuted in the first instance? That is the issue here. I leave aside for the moment the fact that it is rather an unpleasant thing to be prosecuted. Everybody knows when a man is concerned in a criminal prosecution, but a good many people are apt to forget whether he was acquitted or convicted. It is rather like being in the Divorce Court: nobody remembers whether one was the petitioner or the co-respondent, and some of the mud sticks.

What happens about costs? A man is brought before the court and he has to brief somebody. He is perhaps a reputable person, and it is a terrible thing to be charged in a criminal court. He has got to brief somebody in the capacity which the Lord Chancellor occupied in pre-war days, and that costs quite a lot. I once had the privilege of contributing, though it was not in a criminal case, and it was well worth the money. But it cost a great deal of money, and why should he be put to that expense? If he is acquitted what is going to happen then? Are the Government or the Commission who prosecuted him going to pay costs? The Lord Chancellor has said that we have put this provision into one or two Acts of Parliament.

I have a recollection that in the Exchange Control Act the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor himself—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—made a particular appeal for rather exceptional treatment because these things were so very difficult to detect. We know the difficulty about these exchange operations. The Lord Chancellor also said that we were living in a state of economic siege (I think those were his words) and that therefore we must take very special precautions. We are not living in a state of economic siege so far as the transport system of the country is concerned. Nothing of this kind was done in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am told that exactly the same thing was done in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act of 1946. I am sure I did not say anything about "economic siege" in the debate on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

We have gone through this Bill, with its more than 120 clauses; and as one goes through it one finds one offence after another being created. They are not such offences as where a man is accused of having made a statement in order to get some money out of the Government by false pretences. In every clause we find that something is to be done by regulation. Regulations are to be laid in draft, so complicated are they, before they are promulgated. The clause applies to "every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary, or other similar officer "—I do not know what that means; I suppose it is anybody similar to a director, general manager, or secretary. There is a very common practice of employing highly qualified firms to act as secretaries to companies. One does not want indifferent people; it is much better to get a firm. Are a great firm, a firm of accountants or chartered secretaries, going readily to take on a job of this kind if, when any offence is committed under any of the million regulations made under this Bill, they are going to have to brief expensive counsel to defend them?

I really do feel that we should have a little sense of proportion in this matter, and that it might be not unreasonable that it should be up to the prosecuting authority to decide whom they should prosecute. Obviously, what will happen under the Bill as at present drawn is that they will find that one of these offences is committed. The Lord Chancellor was himself saying how difficult it was to remember all the forms one had to fill up. I dare wager that there is hardly a member sitting on either Front Bench or Back Bench who has not to-day, quite unconsciously, been guilty of some offence under one of the million and one regulations—not because we deal in the black market; we do not; but because the pig's return, or perhaps the pig's grandmother's return which we have filled up is completely wrong. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor is a farmer like myself, but I spend the whole of Sunday afternoon trying to fill up the ridiculous returns that are thrown at us to-day. I do not suppose there will be any reduction in the number of them when this scheme gets going, and then anybody who fills them up will be liable to be found guilty of an offence.

I regret that the great legal authorities are not in the Chamber at the moment, and I certainly say that this matter should be looked at. When we were applying this principle in the Companies Act it was in regard to the keeping of accounts. In that case there was a very specific thing, one kind of offence. The form in which the accounts are to be kept is laid down in the Bill. The Lord Chancellor himself agreed that a person should not be liable except in the terms of the proviso my noble friend has moved. But here, where there may be a hundred and one offences, everybody can be prosecuted. The whole "caboodle" will be prosecuted, and every one of them will have to brief somebody to prove his innocence. That is the kind of slave State that we are entering, and this is the kind of legislation that will bring it about.

LORD SALTOUN

I would like to suggest to the noble and learned Viscount one thing. There may be among these officials of the body corporate a man who has had nothing to do with the offence, and really had a very vague knowledge of its commission. By reason of his ignorance, he might find great difficulty in proving that he was not implicated. He may be engaged in another side of the business and may not know what is going on at all. He might find difficulty in proving it because he did not know what was going on.

LORD MANCROFT

I am sorry that I have not had the good fortune that the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, had in finding the Lord Chancellor in a good frame of mind. I do not feel justified in asking your Lordships to make an issue of this matter, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 119 agreed to.

Clause 120:

Power of Minister as to inquiries.

(2) Where an inquiry is held under this Act, the Minister may make such order as to security for the payment of, and as to the payment of, the costs incurred by him in connection with the inquiry as he may think fit:

Provided that no person shall be ordered to find security for the payment of, or to pay, costs of an inquiry to which he is not a party.

(3) Any costs directed by the Minister to be paid under this section may be recovered by him summarily as a civil debt.

LORD ROCHDALE moved to leave out subsections (2) and (3). The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend, Lord Hawke, and myself. This Amendment deals with the clause—

LORD MORRISON

If the noble Lord would forgive my interrupting, it may facilitate matters if I say that we propose to accept this Amendment.

LORD ROCHDALE

In view of that delightful statement by the noble Lord, I beg leave to move it formally.

Amendment moved— Page 121, line 34, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Rochdale.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 121 and 122 agreed to.

Clause 123:

Interpretation.

123.—(1) In this Act, except so far as the contrary is expressly provided or the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say,— licensing authority for goods vehicles" means a licensing authority within the meaning of Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; licensing authority for public service vehicles "means one of the bodies established under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and heretofore, known as "Traffic Commissioners"; local authority" means the council of a county, the Common Council of the City of London, or the council of a county borough.

LORD MORRISON

On behalf of my noble friend Viscount Addison I beg to move this Amendment, which is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 123, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 124.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in the definition of a local authority, at the end to insert: and includes in section 62 of this Act any joint board of local authorities constituted by a local enactment".

The noble Lord said: The first of these Amendments refers to the special case of the Stalybridge Board, which consists of representatives of four non-county boroughs and conducts a transport undertaking which during the year ended March 31, 1946, carried very nearly 28,000,000 passengers. It seems generally to be agreed that they should be consulted, but it is not quite clear whether they do come within the category of those whose representations have to be considered under Clause 62. This Amendment is being moved to make it clear that this should be so. It is possible that this turns on the definition of the word "person", but I think that it is desirable that it should be clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 224, line 7, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I shall be glad if the noble Lord will allow us to accept this Amendment, but in a somewhat different form. I understand that the words "joint board" are rather too wide for the purpose which he has in view and to which we should like to agree. If he will, between now and the Report stage, let me consult as to the form of words which are required, I think we can arrange to insert words that will cover the case which he has in mind, and others like it.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount, and I shall be happy to enter into any consultations that may be necessary. In view of his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in the definition of local authority, to leave out "county borough" and insert "borough, including a metropolitan borough." The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the definition of a local authority. Under the Bill that definition now reads: 'local authority' means the council of a county, the Common Council of the City of London, or the council of a county borough. I should very much prefer the definition of "local authority" to be the same in all acts. I have submitted two Amendments on this matter because the points are not quite the same. The first Amendment, which is to omit "county borough" and insert "borough, including a metropolitan borough" restores words that were in the Bill when it was first introduced into Parliament. The alteration was made by the Government during the Report stage in another place. It was made with no explanation and it has, therefore, not been quite clear what the reason was for that definition being altered.

The references to local authorities in this Bill concern first of all Clause 6 (4) (b), which refers to the transport users consultative committees. They also concern the clause about the right to make representations. I would urge that these are essentially matters for a local authority and not for the county council—that is much more remote. It is the towns in the country in large and scattered areas which are the focal point to and from which traffic flows, and therefore those councils have their transport problems most in mind. Experience, particularly in the war years, has shown that the ordinary man and woman in the street with a grievance goes to his local council and consults them, and not to the representative on the county council.

Secondly, on this matter of consultations, again under Clause 62 (2), I am given to understand there were consultations between representatives of the municipal authorities and the Minister of Transport, and certain arrangements were made to meet their views. Those who represented municipal bodies were clearly under the impression that they were dealing with the definition as it was then in the Bill, and they consider that the alteration of the definition makes a very material difference to the carrying out of the arrangement then under dis- cussion. Again I think it may turn on the definition of that word "person" in Clause 62 (2) on the fourth line of page 77. I should have thought that there was a distinction between the bodies referred to, and that "a person" would exclude a corporate body like a non-county borough. I think it very important that certain larger non-county boroughs and particularly any who actually conduct transport services should be consulted under this clause and they should be included in the definition of local authority for both of the other clauses to which I referred.

LORD MORRISON

I hope it may be for the convenience of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House if I deal with this Amendment and the next one together. I am sorry I am unable to repeat the success which he had a moment ago in having an Amendment accepted, but I am able to give him what I think will be a satisfactory explanation. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that when the Bill was originally introduced the definition included non-county boroughs and metropolitan boroughs. The reason why the Government decided to amend the definition was because the urban districts then asked, owing to the inclusion of non-county boroughs, that urban districts should be included, and it came to the knowledge of the Government that the rural districts were preparing to make a similar request.

The effect of that would have been to extend the field of consultation over an unreasonably wide area, and accordingly the Government reached the conclusion that the definition should be amended so as to embrace only county boroughs, county councils and the Common Council of the City of London, leaving the views of inhabitants of non-county boroughs and county districts to be ascertained through the county council, and not both through that channel and also directly. That Amendment, as the noble Lord knows, was effected during the Report stage in another place. The Government have gone a long way in requiring the Commission to consult with local authorities to ensure that local wishes and views are fully placed before the Commission, but a point is reached at which excessive consultation can stultify effective action. If the field of consultation is extended beyond the county and county borough limits, it is the Government's view that stultification will begin to arise, and if if the urban districts are included there would be little ground for resisting a similar claim from the rural districts. I regret that in these circumstances I am unable to accept the Amendment.

LORD ADDINGTON

I regret the reply of the noble Lord. I do not know whether it would meet the case if there was a limit to the size of the district which the Commission would have to consult. For instance, it is quite possible to add to Clause 62 in order to impose, a limit, and there would then be no obligation to consult any local authority below a certain size. I will not pursue the matter now, but we might have a word about that matter when we consult on the other Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON

On behalf of my noble friend Viscount Addison, I beg leave to move the next Amendment which, as your Lordship will have noticed, is a definition of the word "meat."

Amendment moved—

Page 124, line 7, at end insert— ("' meat' means carcases of animals, parts of carcases of animals, or offals of animals, being carcases, parts of carcases or offals suitable for human consumption, whether fresh, chilled or frozen, but not being carcases, parts of carcases or offals which have been cooked or subjected to any process other than skinning, trimming or cleaning").—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD TEYNHAM

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment, which really explains the definition of the word "meat" in Clauses 39 and 52. I moved an Amendment on both those clauses to deal with perishable goods. I think this meets the case very well, and I am sure the Association of Food Manufacturers will be very pleased to hear that this Amendment has been agreed to.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

On behalf of my noble friend Viscount Addison, I beg to move this further Amendment, which deals with the definition of "superimposed trailer."

Amendment moved—

Page 125, line 46, at end insert— ("'superimposed trailer' means a trailer which is normally attached to the vehicle that draws it in such a manner that part of the trailer is superimposed upon that vehicle and that not less than twenty per cent. of any load evenly distributed upon the trailer is borne by that vehicle").—(Lord Morrison.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Will the noble Lord tell me just what this does mean, and also whether it has any bearing on the matter of ancillary vehicles which we agreed we would consider further on Report stage?

LORD MORRISON

The Amendment is linked with the Amendment to Clause 47, page 58, line 21, in the name of my noble friend Viscount Addison. The definition of "superimposed trailer" is by this and the related Amendment transferred from subsection (1) of Clause 47 to the interpretation clause, Clause 123. The transfer is desirable since the expression is also used in the proposed new Clause 55.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It is really a drafting Amendment, and leaves the question of ancillary vehicles as it was.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.

LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to insert the following new clause: Notwithstanding anything in the Trustee Act, 1925, it shall be lawful for trustees to invest the proceeds of the sale by them of any British Transport Stock in any security comprised in the sixteenth Schedule to this Act.

The noble Lord said: I propose this Amendment to insert a new clause in the interests of beneficiaries who are seriously penalized in their income under the provisions of this Bill, and whose trustees can do little or nothing for them, owing to the law as it now stands. I raised this question earlier, but it was under somewhat unsatisfactory conditions. I thought it was necessary to bring it in at an earlier point and, therefore, I drafted an Amendment rather hastily, and was not able to supply a schedule to carry it out. I therefore had to bring in requirements about Treasury regulations and orders, and their being laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament, which was a very unsatisfactory way of trying to carry out my object. But now I have been able to construct a schedule—at any rate a schedule for argument—though I do not attach any great importance to its exact provisions. To construct a schedule in these circumstances, showing what may be allowed and what may not be allowed, is an extremely difficult task, and whatever is proposed will be taken to err either by excess or defect. Looking it over, I find that I should have included guaranteed stocks and excluded securities subject to call.

Thanks to the kindness of an informant on the general question of the schedule, I have come across a very relevant precedent to this clause. It is in the Coal Act of 1938, Geo. VI. I. 52. It comes in the Third Schedule, paragraph 21, subparagraph (5). When I read this provision I was, in the celebrated saying of Lord Clive, really astonished at my own moderation, because that which is the law of the land, and which was passed in somewhat similar circumstances, goes much farther than I propose. It goes so far as to include debentures, guaranteed and preference stocks of companies on whose ordinary stock only 3 per cent. for a period of five years has been paid. I propose in my schedule that they will have had to pay 5 per cent. for fifteen years. Then this Act of 1938 actually admits ordinary shares that have paid 5 per cent. over ten years, and I do not admit ordinary stock at all. I do not, however, want to argue the exact particulars of what should and should not be included, but I do say that here is a proposal which has more than ample precedent behind it. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the Coal Act dealt with the compensation proposed when the coal royalties were taken over, and I have never heard that there was any very strong objection to it.

I should explain that I have included a proviso which would bar the question of admission to this Schedule of a company which had the balance of its finance overweighted by prior charges. That would obviously make it easier for the dividend on the ordinary stock to be paid, and thereby qualify the preference stock while diminishing the margin of safety. I could hardly be so sanguine as to suppose that this Amendment will be accepted in its entirety, but I do ask the Government and your Lordships generally to consider the matter. I am not going into details of the hardships which beneficiaries will suffer in individual cases. That has already been fully gone into, and I can add nothing to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on that subject. I think it is admitted that there is a hardship, and I beg to move this Amendment in mitigation of such hardship.

Amendment moved— After Clause 123 insert the said new clause. (Lord Rankeillour.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I quite understand the motive and the object of the noble Lord, and I agree that it would be wrong of me to try to write it off merely because of the technical details of his schedule. If this Amendment were to be carried, it might be that we should have to consider that schedule. But I must say this to your Lordships. I do feel that a Transport Bill is a completely inappropriate vehicle in which to make a very far-reaching and important change in our law in this regard. That ought to be done in the Trustee Act. I myself am concerned in trusts and I can well understand—I will put it in this way—that there is a case for consideration as to whether the provisions of the Trustee Act should not be extended and enlarged. I am satisfied that it is inappropriate to do it here. It is the fact, as the noble Lord has said, that in the Coal Act of 1938—I do not know whether he only knew that after he had put his Amendment down—

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Somebody else's mind has been moving on the same lines as my mind.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Then it is a case of great minds on this occasion thinking alike. It was the fact that in that Act there was a provision that compensation money—I forget what the exact amount of money involved was; I believe it was a comparatively small figure compared with this sum of money, something of the order of £66,000,000—was allowed to be invested in certain securities therein set out. The noble Lord wants to do very much more than that. His Amendment has this effect: that the trustees can either get allotted to them a case for holding railway stock, for instance, or they can go into the market and buy this stock afterwards and can do exactly what they like, though in substance it is a breach of the terms of their trust altogether. That seems to me, as one of those responsible for the protection of trusts, an impossible situation. There is a place to consider Whether, or not in the circumstances to-day there is a case for enlargement and relaxation of the requirements of the trustee, but it cannot be done by a Transport Bill, which should not fundamentally alter the law applying to all trusts. In those circumstances, whatever the terms of the Sixteenth Schedule are, I could not possibly accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not dissent from the general proposition that this is not an appropriate Bill in which to introduce this Amendment, although in the Coal Act it was done, and it was done to meet cash compensation. After all, the only reason why cash compensation is not paid here (which Lord Nathan said was the way it ought to be done) is because the Government did not want to produce an inflationary market by paying out cash. They are therefore compelling people to take stock. Lord Morrison shakes his head, but I have learned it from Lord Nathan, and that is what Lord Nathan said. Indeed, it is the only possible justification for paying stock and not cash, as the noble Lord agrees. The argument that it was right to give the coal people the power to invest in a wider range of investments because there were not so many of them, but that it would be wrong to do it here because there are a great many sufferers, does not honestly seem to me to be a very good argument. This kind of argument—that it is only a little one—seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, to be more appropriate to an errant housemaid than to an upright Lord Chancellor, but I do not dissent from the broad proposition that this ought to be done in an Amendment to the Trustee Act.

I am glad the Lord Chancellor agrees, but without committing himself definitely (and I would not expect him to do so on this clause), that it is urgent that that matter should be considered. What vie are, I think, entitled to ask the Government on this clause is not to express a definite opinion of what extension should be made in the Trustee Act, but, as this subject has become urgent and insistent because of the cumulative acts of the Government who are taking away against their will, time after time, the investments of trustees, to admit that this is a problem that ought to be dealt with. We say to them, "Will you undertake in the next Session of Parliament to give time for such a Bill?"

LORD BEVERIDGE

I confess to great disquiet at the answer given by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. It is no good amending the Trustee Act afterwards. It would take a long time. With regard to one argument used by the Lord Chancellor—that this proposal would enable trustees at any time to go and buy transport stock and then sell it and get rid of the trustee condition—I suggest that this could be absolutely met by limiting the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, to British transport stock issued under this Bill in compensation. That would make it impossible for the trustees to go into the market, and it would also make it clear that this Amendment is not a general amendment of the Trustee Act but an attempt to produce more justice and equity in this particular compensation proposal, which at present is wholly without the elements of equity or justice to the stockholders.

Surely it is no good to wait for an amendment of the Trustee Act and surely you do not want it. There may not be a case for generally increasing the powers of the Trustee Act, but there may be a case for enabling trustees who are forced to sell now part of their holdings which are giving them perhaps 4 per cent. in return for a holding giving perhaps 2½ per cent. to make better provision for their trust. The question has been raised: what was done in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. But are you saying that you cannot do it now because you would be doing it for so many? That is to say: a small injustice you will not do, but a big injustice you will. I beg the Government to try to bring some element of justice and humanity into their treatment of this problem and not to bar the door to the last attempt to display these qualities in their treatment of the railway stockholders.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

There was one important admission made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and that is that he is responsible for the protection of trusts. That is a point which I was trying to extract the other day and he was reluctant to answer it. That puts the whole question of compensation on different lines altogether. If the Lord Chancellor acknowledges that he is responsible for trusts, we are entitled to expect some ex- pression of that responsibility, because there is no doubt that the effect of the present compensation clauses is to force down one lot of trusts and to force up the other lot. If that is a criterion of parity and fairness, it is not my criterion. But I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I was not convinced by the argument of the Lord Chancellor. I cannot see what is the difference between the principle as applied in 1938 and the principle as applied in 1947. In both cases certain assets—call them what you like—were taken over by a public authority. In one case the compensation was given in cash, in another case it was given in stock; but the trustees could do very little in 1938 with the compensation they received. Now, in 1947, trustees in this case can do less. I confess that I do not understand the differentiation between the one and the other on the principle of justice. I do not like to withdraw an Amendment, and I shall not press it; I would rather leave it to be negatived.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

10.40 p.m.

Clause 124:

Application to Scotland.

(3) For any reference to the Minister of Health (except in section thirty-four) there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.

(6) Section twenty-four shall have effect as if for publication under subsection (1) in the London Gazette, there were substituted, in the case of a body having its principal office in Scotland, publication in the Edinburgh Gazette.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3), at the end to insert "and for any reference to the High Court there shall be substituted a reference to the Court of Session." The noble Lord said: I am sorry at the fate of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour's proposed new clause, but it certainly does encourage me in the Amendment which I have to move—that in the application of this Bill to Scotland, wherever reference to the High Court is mentioned there shall be substituted a reference to the Court of Session. I am quite sure that the Government will accept that Amendment because it will certainly take a major Act to defeat the jurisdic- tion of our ancient Court. I also observe that a little lower down on the page there is a reference to the Court of Session. I beg leave to move my Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 127, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD MORRISON

I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend with regard to this Amendment, which I am advised is not only quite unnecessary, but indeed misconceived. I think it must have been put down under a misconception. To substitute the Court of Session for the High Court in the provisions would not achieve the object which my noble Friend has in mind. A similar provision in the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933, regarding the Appeal Tribunal set up under that Act, proved unsatisfactory. A provision has been made in Section 124 (13) for the enforcement in Scotland of orders of the two Tribunals by recording them in the Books of Council and Session. In view of this perhaps the noble Lord would not wish to pursue his Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I understand from the noble Lord that it is not necessary, and that what I want is already in the Bill. Under those circumstances I will certainly withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of the clause to insert: (14) Nothing in this Act shall affect or be deemed to affect rights of the superiors of any lands or heritages the dominium utile of which is transferred to the Commission under or in pursuance of this Act to payment of their feuduties and to all other rights vested in such superiors prior to the passing of this Act. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved by way of clarification. There is at the present time an action pending arising under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act which has left certain dubiety in the minds of those immediately concerned, and I would like, if I may, to read to your Lordships a Clause in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act which has left this dubiety. It refers to the taking over of liabilities and obligations on the part of the National Coal Board and it says: The vesting of any assets by virtue of this section shall take effect free from any charge or lien for securing money or money's worth to which they are subject.

Precisely those words do not appear in this Act, but there are a number of clauses which have a different bearing, and I will give them to your Lordships now. They are Clauses 14, 15, 45 (subsection (2)) and 46. But I would refer your Lordships perhaps to the simplest one which is Clause 45, subsection (2). Clause 45 (2) of this Bill says that Subject to the provisions of this section, all the relevant property shall on the date of transfer, vest in the Commission free from any mortgage or other like incumbrance". The word "incumbrance" is completely incomprehensible to a Scots lawyer and I therefore refer, if I may, to the interpretation clause which appears in this Bill. I then find that the definition of "incumbrance" is put in this way: "mortgage or other like incumbrance" means a heritable security (within the meaning of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924, but exclusive of a real burden ad factum praestandum), or a pledge, charge or lien for securing money or money's worth, and "incumbrancer" means the creditor in a heritable security, or the pledgee or person entitled to the benefit of the charge or lien.

The point which this Amendment is designed to establish, is that a future duty, that is to say the relationship between dominium utile and dominium direction does not fall within that category. It is, of course, not the business of this House to interpret the law, but so far as it is possible to interpret the law, this does not fall within the limits of this interpretation. I would put it the other way round that dominium utile is in fact a burden on dominium directum rather than the reverse, it is a condition. Dominium directum is a pre-eminent right of property and is not in any sense a real burden. I am submitting this simply as a matter of clarity. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. But I think it is equally important that the Bill should be clear in what it means. One thing that has arisen over a smaller Bill is that an action is pending as to what exactly that Bill does mean. I am asking His Majesty's Government to make clear what in fact this Bill does mean. If His Majesty's Government can do that I shall be quite content. I shall be quite content if they make it clear what they mean or accept the Amendment as it stands. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 128, line 13 at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I wish to support this Amendment, and at this late hour I shall do it very briefly. This safeguard is important, and I am sorry that the necessity for it has been overlooked. But perhaps that may be due to some misunderstanding with regard to conditions under the Scottish Law. The Government will doubtless wish that the Commission shall fulfil all their obligations, moral and legal, and some such words as this should be a useful reminder to them. I hope that the Government will either accept the Amendment or give us an assurance.

LORD SALTOUN

I should also like to support this Amendment and I too shall do so briefly. The feu system is well established and well known in Scotland. I do not know whether this clause is necessary, and I should very much like to have a declaration from the Government on the point, because it does alarm me that any Government Department should repudiate their duty to pay feu duties under an Act of that kind. I do not want to comment upon a case which is sub judice, but I can imagine a great many peculiar things that might happen in any such case. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, accurately said, though everybody may not quite easily have understood it, there are points in which the subordinate tenure as you might call it, the feu, is sometimes better ownership than the freehold.

LORD MORRISON

As noble Lords will have observed, we are now approaching the hour at which Scottish humour is at its best. We have been delighted by three speeches from Scottish noble Lords explaining this very simple Amendment. Unfortunately I have to inform the House that I am advised that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary. I hope the brief explanation I am going to give will be clearly understood by all noble Lords in the House, and that it will not involve me at this hour in a detailed discussion on the feudal system of land tenure in Scotland. The Amendment deals with the case where there is transferred to the Commission land belonging (say) to a railway company. If that land is held of a superior entitled to feu duty, or in other words if the railway company is the vassal or owns only the dominium utile,—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

What?

LORD MORRISON

As I have explained on a previous occasion, I made the unfortunate mistake of leaving Scotland in my youth and I have suffered from it ever since. The transfer to the Commission of the company's estate or interest in the land can in no way affect the separate interest or estate of the superior, who will continue to own the dominium directum and be entitled to payment of his feu duty from the Commission and to any other rights open to him prior to the transfer. In some cases where a railway company acquires land compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, it gets a statutory title to the whole interests in the land. In such a case the Amendment is equally unnecessary, there being no superior to protect. I hope, in view of that simple explanation, that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord, but after all what he said is no more than what I say in my Amendment. Why do the Government not accept that simple, clear statement of what the noble Lord has said? I am only making this point because there is an action pending at the present time owing to some dispute over a similar Act.

LORD MORRISON

What I did say in explanation was proof that the Amendment is quite unnecessary.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

In that case, if the point is fully covered and there is no intention of including a dominium utile, if I may use the word, as a heritable security, I will withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It becomes a dominium futile.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 124 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

In view of the fact that we are now approaching the Schedules—and I sincerely hope we shall get through them without unnecessarily prolonged discussion—I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

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