TRANSPORT BILL. (Hansard, 26 June 1947)

HL Deb 26 June 1947 vol 149 cc387-419 387

§ 4.5 p.m.

§ House again in Committee (according to Order).

§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

§ First Schedule agreed to.

§ Second Schedule:

§ Provisions as to Executives.

§ 1. Each Executive shall consist of a chairman and not less than four nor more than eight other members appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Commission from among persons who appear to the Minister to have had wide experience and shown capacity 388 in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration or in the organisation of workers.

§ LORD TEYNHAM moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "the Minister after consultation with." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which is really consequential on a previous Amendment already agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 129, line 25, leave out from ("by") to ("the") in line 26.—(Lord Teynham.)

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)
This is one of a number of consequential Amendments and I suggest for your Lordships' convenience that we might take the whole of them together. All of these Amendments to the Second Schedule, except the one in the name of the noble. Marquess, Lord Salisbury and other noble Lords, at page 129, line 28, relate to the same subject. They are consequential upon an alteration that has been already made. As your Lordships are aware, we differed from the majority of the Committee in this matter. I suggest that noble Lords on the Government Benches should formally register their dissent by saying "Not content" and that the whole lot should be taken together without a Division.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD BEVERIDGE
I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.

§ Amendment moved— Page 129, line 27, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission"). — (Lord Beveridge.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEYNHAM
I beg to move the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury.

§ Amendment moved— Page 129, line 28, after the first ("in") insert ("inland waterways"). — (Lord Teynham.)

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
Our view is that this is amply covered by the other words. I should have thought myself it was not necessary.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
We pat the Amendment down but I agree that by 389 inserting these words it might look as though we are excluding something else. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TEYNHAM
I beg to move the remaining Amendments to the Second Schedule standing in the name of my noble friends the Marquess of Salisbury and other noble Lords.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 129, line 34, leave out ("the Minister and")

§ Page 130, line 5, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")

§ Page 130, line 5, leave out ("himself") and insert ("themselves")

§ Page 130, line 8, leave out ("Minister") and insert ('Commission")

§ Page 130, line 8, leave out ("himself") and insert ("themselves")

§ Page 130, line 10, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")

§ Page 130, line 11, leave out ("Minister'') and insert ("Commission")

§ Page 130, line 12, leave out ("him") and insert ("them")

§ Page 130, line 12, have out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")

§ Page 130, line 13, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission'')

§ Page 130, line 13, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").—(Lord Teynham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Third Schedule [Bodies whose under-takings are transferred to Commission.]:

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
The next two Amendments are purely verbal Amendments in order to make the matter clear. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 132, line 29, after ("The'') insert ("Company of Proprietors of the") Page 132, line 29, leave out ("Company") and insert ("Navigation"). — (Viscount Addison.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Fourth Schedule [Securities to be replaced by British Transport stock]:

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
The next Amendments clown to the one in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, are entirely verbal in order to make the designation specifically correct. I beg to move.

390

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 135, line 9, leave out ("loans") and insert ("The L.M.S. Railway (Midland) loan")

§ Page 135,line 10, leave out ("account")

§ Page 135,line 11, after ("charges") insert ("Hartlepool and Clarence class C preference shares")

§ Page 135,line 25, leave out ("5 per cent. loans") and insert— ("5 per cent. Debenture bonds 5 per cent. First debenture stock 5 per cent. Second debenture stock ")

§ Page 135,leave out line 26.—(Viscount Addison.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
The Amendment in my name at page 136, line 30, immediately following that in the name of Lord Falmouth, which has not been moved, relates to a stock which has been placed in the wrong list. It is a guaranteed stock, and therefore it should come in a later list. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 136, leave out line 30.—(Viscount Addison.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ADDISSON
The remaining Amendments on this Schedule which stand in my name are all verbal Amendments. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 136, line 52, after ("The") insert "Company of Proprietors of the"),

§ Page 136,line 53, leave out ("Company") and insert ("Navigation").

§ Page 136,leave out line 54 and insert— ("Ordinary shares of £100 Ordinary shares of £140'')

§ Page 136,line 58, at end insert— ("The Lee Conservancy Board 3½ per cent. Mortgage loan."). — (Viscount Addison.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Fifth and Sixth Schedules agreed to.

§ Seventh Schedule [Wagons exempted from certain restrictions under Part II]:

LORD ROCHDALE
I think there is a mistake in drafting, and I understand that the Amendment I now move is going to be accepted. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 141, line 29, leave out ("ore").—(Lord Rochdale.)

391

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
We accept this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ 4.12 p.m.

§ Eighth Schedule:

§ Orders giving effect to Schemes.

§ 1.—(1) Where it appears to the Minister that the scheme submitted to him makes satisfactory provision with respect to the matters dealt with in the scheme, he shall prepare the draft of an order embodying the scheme and give notice of the preparation of the draft and that he proposes to proceed with the making of the order:

§ Provided that, in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act which provides for the transfer of the whole or any part of any undertaking, the Minister shall not regard the scheme as making satisfactory provision unless—

(a) where the person theretofore carrying on the undertaking is a local authority or is a joint committee, joint board, joint authority or other combined body, being a committee, board, authority or body all the members of which are, or are representatives of, local authorities it makes provision for compensation to local authority, joint committee, joint board, joint authority or combined body, is, in the opinion of the Minister, identical, as near as may be, with the provision made in the case of transfers under Part II of this Act from local authorities;

§ (2) Where it appears to the Minister in the case of any scheme submitted to him that it would not be expedient to give effect to the scheme in the form in which it was submitted to him, he may refer the scheme with his observations thereon to the Commission for their further consideration and thereupon they shall re-consider the scheme in the light of the Minister's observations and may again submit the scheme to the Minister with such amendments as they think fit.

§ 2.—(1) A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be published—

(a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the scheme affects England, Scotland, or both; and
(b) in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned,

and shall specify a place where the draft of the order may be inspected, and copies thereof Obtained at all reasonable hours, and the time (not being less than forty days from the publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, any objections to the draft may be made to the Minister, and the Minister shall consider any objections made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice:

§ Provided that the Minister shall not be required to consider any objection unless it 392 comprises or there is submitted therewith a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds for any amendments, additions or modifications asked for, or any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.

§ (2) Any such objection as aforesaid may ask for amendments, additions or modifications to or of the order which amount to amendments, additions or modifications to or of the scheme.

§ 3.—(1) If there are no objections which the Minister is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn, the Minister may make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications, if any, as he thinks fit, being amendments, additions or modifications which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the draft as published.

§ (2) Where any such objection is made and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall cause inquiries to be made, and the Minister may, after considering the result of the inquiries, make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit.

§ (3) The amendments, additions or modifications referred to in this paragraph may amount to amendments, additions or modifications to or of the scheme.

§ 4. Any power or duty of the Minister under this Schedule [...]ause inquiries to be made shall be exercised or performed by causing a person, appointed the Minister for the purpose, to [...] such inquiries (including, so far as the said person considers necessary, the hearing of oral evidence) as the said person considers necessary and to report thereon to the Minister.

§ 5. The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay out of moneys provided by Parliament to persons appointed to make inquiries for the purposes of this Schedule such fees and allowances, and to persons giving evidence such allowances, as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in paragraph 1 (i), after proviso (a), to insert: (b) in the case of an undertaking or part of an undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred to in subhead (a) of this proviso), the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services, and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services, it complies with the provisions of Part II of this Schedule.

§ The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is necessary in order that the new Part II which I shall be moving later, may apply to passenger road transport services. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 142, line 3, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Addison.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

393

§ THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, in paragraph 1 (i), after proviso (a), to insert: (b) if the scheme is a scheme under Section sixty-two of this Act,

(i) it specifies the undertakings or the part or parts of the undertakings to be transferred and the date of transfer which shall be a date not later than twelve months after the date on which the scheme takes effect; and
(ii) it complies in the case of any undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred to in subhead (a) of this proviso) with Part II of this Schedule."

§ The noble Earl said: The Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself is in two parts, the first of which deals with a new point. We offer this suggestion which we really believe would be helpful and constructive in assisting all concerned in inaugurating a scheme. The suggestion has really two points. When a scheme is made, the undertakings affected should be set out by name in the scheme, and when the scheme takes effect, that is, when the body to operate it is set up, then those transfers should take place within a year. There seems considerable fear that if some procedure of that kind is not established, a body may be set up who, in due course, might specify the undertakings to be taken over, and again, in due course, call upon the undertakers to effect those transfers. If that were to happen I suggest there might be a period of delay, anxiety and friction to all concerned. We feel it to be most desirable that that should be avoided, and that the best way of avoiding it would be to set out in the Bill a clear-cut scheme for the smooth working of the take-over. That is the first point.

§ The second point I approach with very great diffidence because I find it extremely difficult to understand the wording of the noble Viscount's Amendment. It seems to me to contain two provisos. First of all, an undertaking must be carrying on a passenger road transport business, the whole or part of which is to be transferred under a scheme, and secondly, that after the corning into operation of the scheme it should not operate any such passenger road transport undertaking. The noble Viscount shakes his head, and I may be wrong, but that is how I understand it. It will be appreciated that an operator who has part of his fleet taken away and part left on his hands, would be placed in an extremely awkward and difficult position if he were to be prohibited from 394 carrying on the part which remained on his hands. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 142, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Rothes.)

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
May I add a word on this, because I venture to think that it is exceedingly difficult to understand the last three lines of the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, which appears on page 3 of the Marshalled List of Amendments. Of course, it is very difficult for people who have not spent their-lives in passenger road transport services to understand exactly what we are dealing with here, and I should be very much obliged if my noble friend Lord Addison would explain it to a somewhat jaded intellect. I am glad to think that the noble Earl who has just moved his Amendment, and who is full of life and vigour which. I can no longer enjoy, is also puzzled. These are the words which puzzle me so much: (b) in the case of an undertaking or part of an undertaking"— then there is a bracket which excludes certain undertakings, and in particular those of local authorities— the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly.…

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
Could the noble and learned Viscount tell me from what he is reading?

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
From the bottom of page 3 of the last Marshalled List. I am trying to help the noble Viscount by letting him know why I am "flummoxed," if I may use the term, by this provision. It continues: the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services.… That is all clear; but then come these words which I do not understand: and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services, it complier with the provisions of Part II of this Schedule. What is the object of that qualification? What does it mean, and what is its effect? The noble Earl who moved this Amendment is naturally alarmed lest the effect of it should be to exclude cases in which the owner of such an undertaking does in fact do some work in respect of 395 passenger road transport services. But what is the process arising from the collocation of the activities in connexion with passenger road transport services and the activities which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services? I am baffled, though I have no doubt the explanation is quite simple and I shall do my best to follow it when it is made.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
There are two quite different subjects relating to the two Amendments. The first one relates to the specification of good undertakings to be transferred, and I think there is no doubt at all that they would be specified. If your Lordships look at paragraph 4 of the Ninth Schedule you will find these words: …having regard to the extent and nature of the property held in the year for the purposes of the undertaking as compared with the extent and nature of the property which vests in the Commission.… That is to say, they must specify the property which vests in the Commission, and as far as that is concerned it is already completely provided for.
Now I come to the much more tricky point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, and I will do my best to make clear what the difference is. This Amendment of mine, which has already been accepted by the Committee, is to enable the compensation to be payable to road passenger transport services which would not otherwise be provided for in the new Part II, which is coming later. If we look at proviso (a) in paragraph 1 it will be seen to relate to passenger services run by local authorities. Therefore we have got to have a new paragraph in order to bring in the passenger services that are taken over by other persons, persons who are not local authorities; and that is what the Amendment provides for. It then becomes proviso (b). Proviso (a) relates to local authorities. This one relates to other people running road passenger services; and they will become entitled to compensation as provided for in the Schedule. That is why it is put in.
Now I come to the words in the Amendment: in the case of an undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred in sub-head (a) of this proviso), the activities of which before the 396 transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services, and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services… That is to say, you may transfer and pay compensation for road passenger services which that concern previously ran, but after the transfer they will no longer run; they will then be organized by the Commission; and it is in order to cover that that this is provided. These are terms beloved by lawyers. What it means is that you will have transferred this man's road passenger undertakings to the Commission, and he will no longer run them. He will then become entitled to the compensation payable under the new Part II. I think it is all right.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I will take it home and consider it and sleep over it, but I should have thought that the words were wholly unnecessary if they mean only what the noble Viscount says they mean. I cannot see what more there is to say.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I will certainly consult my legal advisers and if the words are not necessary I shall be very happy to leave them out; but I thought that we ought to make quite sure that these people became entitled to compensation.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I will say no more except that I am obliged to the noble Viscount.

LORD GIFFORD
There is one point which the noble Viscount has not dealt with and that is the question of the date of taking over. If the date is unduly delayed, it is going to put the private undertaker in a very difficult position. In the first part of this proposed Amendment it says the date shall be a date not later than twelve months after the date on which the scheme takes effect.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
That relates to specifications of the undertakings which will be specified in the scheme—and they must be specified.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
While you may be specified in a scheme, the question arises as to when you are taken over. There are some provisions about carrying on in the meantime as agent for the Commission. One does not want to rush this thing unduly; on the other hand, a man may be going to contest the scheme. If 397 it is to take effect and he is to be out of business, I should have thought that in everybody's interest that ought to take place as soon as possible; and twelve months does not seem unreasonable. Is not some time limit desirable in this?

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I was advised that it would be specified in the scheme. I will certainly have a look at it, but I imagine the scheme must contain those particulars.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Of course, the thing has got to be specified in the scheme, but a man may be specified and yet left in the air as to when the taking over is to take place.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
The scheme might contain a clause which would require a transfer not later than say a couple of years after the scheme; that would be most unreasonable and cause great hardship to the owners of the undertaking in question. The point of the noble Earl's Amendment, as I see it, is, so far as it relates to a date, not that the date must be fixed in the scheme—of course there must be a date fixed some way—but that it should not be more than a year later. There ought to be some limit to the possibility of postponing the date in question.

§ LORD BEVERIDGE
That really connects with a point I raised on Clause 44 respecting road transport undertakings. I said then that the acquisition must not take place earlier than a certain time but also not later than a certain time. I think the noble Lord who spoke for the Government is considering that point. The schemes can incorporate anything that is in the Act. The scheme for taking over road transport under Part IV can incorporate other parts of the Act, and therefore, if in any other part of the Act you have a provision which undertakes that there must not be undue delay in taking over, that will automatically come into the scheme. In any case, on this point—I am happy to agree with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on the other point—the schemes, having in fact to come before a Joint Committee of both Houses, I should have thought that there would be ample opportunity for ensuring that the general principle, if it is accepted under Clause 44, is applied also to the scheme.

398

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I understand that the point is that the men do not want to be left in a state of anxiety, and of course that is clearly reasonable. I am advised that it would be provided for in the scheme, but I will look into it and it will be made clear.

THE EARL OF ROTHES
I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. The real thing that we were frightened about was that there might be a period of delay during which the undertakers within the area of the scheme might have to run their undertakings subject to direction, and that friction and delay may arise therefrom. If I might say one more word regarding the Second Part, I followed very closely what the noble Viscount said. I had in fact appreciated how it applies to a road passenger undertaker who has the whole of his undertaking taken over; he cannot run it any more, because it has gone to the Commission. But the case that I am worried about is the case of the undertaker who only has part of his undertaking taken over, and is left perhaps with the major part on his hands. As I read the clause I understand that he would not be allowed to operate that part that remains in his possession. If the noble Viscount would be so kind as to look into that before the Report stage, with the other point, I shall be very pleased to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

§ 4.34 p.m.

§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph 2 (1), after "A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be, to insert "sent to every local authority whose area or any part of whose area is within the area to which the Order relates and shall be." The noble Lord said: This point concerns the notice to be given with regard to schemes. Obviously there are going to be a great many schemes, and they are going to affect very different areas. There are probably few people who have got more power in the course of all this legislation than the legal advisers to all the local authorities. They are concerned with all the laws and regulations which are being dealt with at the present moment by different Government Departments. I think it would be helpful, instead of having to search the London Gazette, that a notice should be 399 sent to the clerk of the local authority concerned. You have only got the county borough and the county council, and it would not mean a very large addition for those who are drawing up these schemes, but it would be an enormous saving to the very overworked clerks concerned, who are having a very difficult time at the present moment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 142, line 23, at the end insert the said new words.—(Lord Addington.)

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I cannot imagine that the clerk of the local authority would not be informed. In the first place under Clause 62 of the Bill, at page 77, as the noble Lord will see, before a scheme is drawn up the Commission shall consult every local authority whose area is within the area under consideration, and they are statutorily obliged to consult them. Then paragraph (2) of the Eighth Schedule says: A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be published (a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both…and (b) in such local newspapers and in such other ways, if any, as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned. It is inconceivable to me that, with all those things being done, the town clerk would not know about it.

§ LORD ADDINGTON
I thought it might have been of help, but in the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in paragraph (2) (i), after "Minister," where that word occurs for the third time, insert "(unless he considers any objection to be frivolous)." The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to the type of inquiry, which is going to be carried out in certain cases under this measure, and one of the most important of those inquiries is that to be carried out under Clause 62. If I may make one or two preliminary remarks on the general position of this inquiry—because there are one or two Amendments where there are references generally to the same point —when we were discussing Clause 63 in particular the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, made a great point that, although the powers given were extremely wide, and he was undertaking to look 400 at some of them, even so there were a number of safeguards, and two in particular. One was that the scheme envisaged under Clause 62 would be approved by Parliament, and the other that an inquiry would be held.

§ The first remark I have to make is that the schemes do not have to be approved by Parliament. In so far as I understand the word "approved" to mean an affirmative Resolution, that is not necessary. In point of fact, representation on the general principle of the scheme can only be made after an affirmative Resolution has in fact referred the scheme to a special committee. That means to say that the other safeguard, the inquiry, must—and I feel sure your Lordships agree—be very thorough, because these schemes are important. A great many people with different attitudes are involved, particularly the local authorities, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, will be extremely interested, and it is important that these inquiries should be conducted on a satisfactory basis. There is no hurry in this case, in the sense that it is quite clear that the Government do not intend to take action immediately. It is generally stated that it may be perhaps five years or more before schemes are put into operation. It is, therefore, all the more important that these inquiries should be well conducted, particularly as it is fair to say that the present system of road transport is not inefficient and it is certainly solvent.

§ The proposal in this Amendment is this, and if I may, with your Lordships' permission I will take the two Amendments which stand in my name, those at page 142, line 35, and page 142, to leave out line 37 to 41. The one at page 142, line 35, inserts that the Minister need not consider an objection raised to the draft scheme unless he considers it is sufficiently specific, or if he considers any objection to be frivolous. Then it changes its proviso clause here from, shall I say a negative position to a positive position. As the paragraph stands now it reads: Provided that the Minister shall not be required to consider any objection unless it comprises or there is submitted therewith a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds… My objection to that is that the Minister may object to, or may refuse to consider, an objection because the grounds are not sufficiently specific. In other words, he 401 would not be objecting to the merits of that objection but he is merely stating that the grounds and merits on which the case is put forward are not sufficiently specific. I think that is a poor reason for refusing to consider an objection.

§ If I may refer to the Amendment at page 142, lines 37 to 41, that says simply first of all, as I have said, that the Minister need not consider any objection which is frivolous; and secondly that objections must state the specific grounds for any omissions, additions or modifications asked for. I am moving this Amendment because I think it is important that those who are interested should have the fullest opportunity to state clearly their objections, and the Minister should not be able to by-pass those objections simply by stating on purely technical grounds that they are not sufficiently specific. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 142, line 35, after the second ("Minister") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
The noble Earl has spoken on this and on another Amendment which is closely related to it. With great respect I think the first must be clearly a misunderstanding because in lines 37 to 41 the paragraph says: Provided the Minister shall not be required to consider…any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I am sure the noble Viscount would not wish to misunderstand me. The first part of the Amendment is to leave out lines 37 to 41 and to insert in their place the words which are printed in the Amendment. There is no repetition.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
The paragraph clearly includes the words which the noble Earl wishes to have put in. The noble Earl raised the point that the words here are not sufficiently specific. He speaks particularly of lines 37 to 41 on page 142. I am advised that they are completely specific. They call for a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds for any amendments, additions or modifications asked for… That seems to me to cover the whole thing. But I will consult with my advisers and if they are of opinion that the noble Earl's case is a good one, and that this is not sufficiently specific, I will 402 gladly put some words in. But, as I say, I am advised that they are sufficiently specific.

§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN
Possibly they may be sufficiently specific, but I think that the point of the Amendment is, that they are not sufficiently positive. The Amendment as drafted leaves it open to the Minister to object to an application because it is not specific enough. The Amendment as my noble friend has drafted it, places a definite obligation on a person putting forward an objection to put it forward in certain terms. Those terms are the same as appear in the present draft of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept the Amendment.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
The point is exactly as my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman has stated. This is not a question of words not being specific enough, but a question of the negative presentation of the case. However, if the noble Viscount will consider this matter, I will willingly withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 4.44 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 3, to leave out "inquiries to be made" and insert "in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto." The noble Viscount said: This is to make it quite clear that the inquiries should be public local inquiries. As set out in my Amendment instead of "inquiries to be made" we have specified that there must be public local inquiries. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 142, line 52, leave out ("inquiries to be made") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Addison.)

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to amend the Amendment by inserting at the end "by a competent and impartial person." The noble Earl said: I would like, first of all, to thank the noble Viscount for putting in the words "public local inquiry" which I think will result in a very great strengthening of this part of the Bill. I am most grateful to him. In my Amendment. I am endeavouring to strengthen the position perhaps a little 403 more. I am asking the noble Viscount to agree to the inclusion of the words "by a competent and impartial person." I do not think the noble Viscount would say that that would be an improper designation of the type of man who would, in fact, be appointed by the Minister to carry out such an inquiry. The Minister has the selection and it is quite clear that such a man should be appointed. I feel sure that the Amendment is in line with the noble Viscount's wish to make these inquiries as strong as they can possibly be. I beg to move.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— At end insert ("by a competent and impartial person").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I am advised that if this Amendment were accepted it would mean that it would be necessary to show beforehand that someone was a competent and impartial person, and that might result in all kinds of difficulties. I cannot, of course, imagine any Minister appointing a person who was not competent and impartial. We all know the kind of people who conduct these inquiries, and I am sure that the inquiries will be conducted by competent and impartial persons. But I am advised that the insertion of these words would put a statutory obligation on the Minister, and who in the world is going to interpret it?

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Two sorts of people hold these inquiries. The Minister may send one of his officials. He may be, and indeed he undoubtedly would be, quite competent, but, on the other hand, he is scarcely impartial in the sense that he is connected with the Ministry. I remember certain other cases which we have had in which a person was appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I am, of course, quite sure that the Minister should appoint someone competent who has nothing to do with either the Department concerned or the people objecting to the scheme. That, I think, is what is really required. The object of having this public and local inquiry—and I am very glad indeed that that is conceded—is that the matter is put forward in this way. There is a scheme and objectors can come forward and, I imagine, put their case and be questioned. 404 Supporters can come and make their case and be cross-examined. It is the other side, of course, that must be put to the proof of their objections.
The kind of inquiry that I have in mind is an inquiry of the sort that we had to deal with a matter of harbours, which resulted in that very successful amalgamation on the Clyde in 1945. That inquiry was conducted by someone who was obviously quite impartial and highly competent and the recommendations made as a result of that inquiry were accepted by everyone. If the thing is done in that way, not only is there no doubt that the inquiry is, in fact, an impartial one, but everyone is satisfied. It is, of course, as important to satisfy people who go to a court of law, that they are getting justice as it is that they should, in fact, receive justice. And that, I think, is what it is intended to ensure here.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)
I am afraid that I am one who is strongly opposed to this. I should very much resent these words being put in here —very much, indeed. If the Minister is so misguided as to appoint a person who either incompetent or not impartial, then the Minister ought to be dismissed. It would be the worst possible example to assert that these words, which are always taken for granted in this country, should be put in for guidance in the administration of any form of justice. Competence does not seem to be an issue. It is obvious that an official of the Ministry may be, and undoubtedly would be, a perfectly competent person. Then we come to the word "impartial." Of course, it is an elementary principle of our system of justice that if any Judge, even if he does not know it, owns a single share in a company whose business is being considered, the whole procedings of a court of law would be void, unless, of course, he discloses the fact of his holding to the parties. Sometimes, the unhappy man does not remember until about the second day of a hearing that he is in that respect an interested party. That principle is elementary, of course.
But I dislike very much the suggestion that because the man to be appointed is an official from a Ministry, therefore, he is in some way partial. Just think of all the cases that can be cited here. The Ministry of Labour affords a very common 405 illustration. Frequently inquiries into all sorts of matters are carried out by officials of the Ministry of Labour. The more I see of the work of these civil servants the higher is the opinion I form of it. I think it is excellent. I consider that to suggest that because a man holding an inquiry is an official he might so far forget himself as not to make an honest and impartial report is a completely wrong idea. I should very much regret the insertion of these words. Impartiality is a foundation of our system of English law, and I think it would be a very bad example to have those words inserted in any particular place.

LORD SALTOUN
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, but may I say that I seem to remember some such words actually being in several Bills, possibly before the war? if I am not mistaken I think that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Bill was one of them. I hope I am not wrong, but I seem to remember having some discussion with my noble friend Lord Alness about it.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am quite sure that was at a time before I was Lord Chancellor.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I cannot agree with the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. It is not a question of justice; it is not a court of law, but an inquiry. We forget that the Minister is personally interested, and is not in the impartial position which the Minister of Transport was in before. Formerly, with the operators on the one hand and the consumers on the other, he was in a position of impartiality. But now he is head of a very large monopoly and for that reason cannot be regarded as in quite the same position. If the noble and learned Viscount would himself accept the duty of appointing then of course I would be perfectly willing. If your Lordships will look at Clause 6 (4) you will see provision for an independent chairman. How would that appeal to the noble and learned Viscount? Does not that seem more desirable in itself? I. think that some of the new town inquiries, which I believe were not entirely fair to some of the people concerned—I know very little about the point but I believe it was felt that there was a certain amount of Ministerial pressure in this.

406

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Lord is quite wrong. The point made against the new town inquiries was that the Minister did not give evidence in chief, as it were, in support of his claim. I have never heard to this day the slightest suggestion made about either the competence or impartiality of the gentlemen who held these inquiries.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I withdraw.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
It is a rather invidious point why in these inquiries one does not want to accept that the civil servant is not completely impartial. May I say as a very old Minister the last thing I ever wanted to do was to be judge in my own case? If this was an inquiry into proposals made by me as the Minister, then frankly I should not tell any man in my office to go and do the job even though I know he would do it perfectly honestly. I would he definitely at fault and extremely unwise if I chose a subordinate of my Department to conduct an inquiry at which my proposal is being challenged. I should have thought it a very wise principle to lay down, without using the words "competent" and "impartial," that where you have an issue between a Minister and outside, and the whole object of the inquiry is to decide whether the Minister's proposal is right or what the objector says is right, the man to conduct the inquiry should be someone appointed not by the Minister's Department or by the Minister. If I were in the Minister's position, I would prefer not to appoint the man myself but much rather that the Lord Chancellor should appoint him.

§ LORD BEVERIDGE
Before this Amendment is put—

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
The Amendment has been put. We are discussing the Amendment to the Amendment.

§ LORD BEVERIDGE
I thought it had been withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN
As my name was associated with the Amendment I would like to say my views are the same as those of my noble friend Lord Swinton.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Earl has withdrawn—

407

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
The noble Lord did not withdraw the Amendment. He did withdraw his remarks about Stevenage.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I withdrew those remarks.

§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN
I should like very briefly to support the views my noble friends, the Earl of Selkirk and Viscount Swinton, have put forward. If you will look at the next Amendment but one standing in the name of the Earl of Selkirk and myself, you will see that we feel that this inquiry should be one conducted as a proper public inquiry with both sides represented. That I think adds point to our view that the Chairman should be competent and impartial and in any case should be independent. If the person appointed were an officer of the Ministry, however impartial or competent he might he, the appointment would not fail to start creating a bad impression among the public. I hope very much that this principle of an independent person may be accepted.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
As a member of the Port of London Authority, I want to ask the Government to reconsider this point, because we feel very strongly that it is not a question altogether of impartiality but that the Minister will be a party to the inquiry. I hope, therefore, the Government will see their way to accept some variation whereby some other authority could appoint this person. If the Leader of the House would agree that the inquiry should be held by some person appointed by the Lord Chancellor, I think all parties would be satisfied. Certainly the General Council of British Shipping and the Docks and Harbour Authority Association would be satisfied. But they are certainly not satisfied at present because they feel, without calling in question the partiality or otherwise of the person appointed, that if the Minister is a party he ought not to be the judge in his own affairs.

§ LORD BEVERIDGE
Since the Amendment is not withdrawn I should like to say that I agree with the Government and not with those who moved the Amendment. The whole of this procedure for making schemes works up to a special Parliamentary procedure involving very elaborate controls ultimately by a Joint Committee of both Houses and a Resolu- 408 tion of each House, so that if the inquiry when made appears to be biased, it is for Parliament to exercise its control. That seems to me better than attempting to put in words which would limit the choice of person to make the inquiry, although if the Government thought that this was a good Amendment I certainly should not object. It appears to me that to leave the full responsibility to the Joint Committee and to the Houses of Parliament who must be able to examine the Report and the person who made the Report to satisfy themselves is really a better procedure than trying to insist on the character of the person chosen to make the inquiry.

LORD GIFFORD
May I remind the Lord Chancellor of some discussion which took place in this House on the National Health Bill as to the status of the tribunal and the question of a doctor remaining in the Health Scheme or not? I think the noble and learned Viscount accepted an Amendment on the principle that the chairman of the inquiry should be a barrister or solicitor of eight years' standing in order that he should be completely competent and quite impartial. I feel that the noble and learned Viscount has had sympathy with certain cases rather similar to this.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
That was not a question of an inquiry but of judicial proceedings, and I do not think that had anything to do with this particular case.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
Replying to the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I would say that his reading of Parliamentary procedure is not correct. It is not necessary to have a Resolution of either House for this scheme to be put through. All that is necessary is for the scheme to lie for, I think twenty-eight days. It is only when an affirmative Resolution is passed that it may then be submitted, if it is a matter of general objection, to a Select Committee. Therefore, the regulations are not really more safeguarded than in the case of a normal regulation. I do not think that is a very great safeguard, if I am correct in what I am saying. I would like the noble Viscount to consider this question of independence. I do not know whether he is stating that he intends that these inquiries should be conducted by the officials. Is that the policy of the Ministry of Transport or 409 should someone outside conduct it? If the noble Viscount would say as to that, it would help.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
These inquiries must be left to the Minister in discharge of his statutory duties. I could not give any further undertaking, but I am sure, as I am advised by the Lord Chancellor, that we must adhere to our objection to the words.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My noble friend probably would wish to take this to a Division, but I am bound to say, and I say it with long experience, that I am quite certain that, if in these inquiries where the Minister is propounding a scheme and that scheme is objected to, the Minister does not appoint somebody entirely outside his own Department to conduct that inquiry, that inquiry would not give satisfaction although the man who is conducting the inquiry would certainly do his best. I think the Minister would be ill-advised to do so; I think it would load to constant appeal to Parliament by the special procedure, which is not what we want. We want these schemes to go through. It would have been perfectly easy for the Leader of the House to say on behalf of the Government that, where these inquiries are instituted, the person appointed, whether by the Minister of Transport or by somebody else, will be a person who has nothing whatever to do with the Ministry which is promoting the scheme or with the objectors to that scheme. If that is the object then I believe complete satisfaction will be given. If it is not, people will feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are labouring under an injustice, and that that is not the atmosphere in which we want to launch this Bill. I would beg the Government in the interests of the success of their Bill to make that pronouncement.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I would like to thank the noble Viscount for that. These inquiries must be local, and it is not for Parliament at all. The big municipalities are intensely interested in this Bill and I think they are entitled to a full and open inquiry on the spot.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
The Leader of the House has given that.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
Lord Beveridge said that was not so important as the special Parliamentary procedure. 410 I appreciate that. If the noble Viscount would consider this I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I am very sorry to press the Government on this point, but it is very important to me. I do hope it will not be left as it is at present. The Minister will be a party to the inquiry and I cannot conceive that there can be any objection to inserting in the Bill words to the effect that the appointment should rest with the Lord Chancellor. I have not voted against the Government on this Bill and I have sat here for three nights this week up to eleven o'clock. I do feel that we are entitled to some consideration from the Government on a point of this sort. The Amendment that I seek to insert, as the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept the words "by a competent and impartial person "—I see the Lord Chancellor's difficulty in accepting such words—is that in place thereof there should be inserted the words "by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor."

§ Amendment moved— Page 142, line 52, at end insert ("by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor").—(Lord Rochester.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I should be very reluctant to accept that Amendment. These are highly technical questions and in practice they are much better determined by some kind of person who knows his particular business. As things are it is very difficult for me to find the right people to do the multifarious duties which I have to perform. If I am to find people also with the necessary qualifications and knowledge to advise on schemes on the running of transport undertakings, heaven help me. I could not possibly undertake the work. I must go to competent and skilled people in this trade; I do not know them, and I should have to ask the Minister: "Who on earth shall we appoint here?"
Noble Lords have repeatedly been speaking as though it was the Minister who puts forward the scheme. It is not the Minister who puts forward the scheme; it is the Commission who put forward this scheme and when the Commission put forward a scheme it does not come into force until 411 the Minister has approved it and before the Minister approves it he has this inquiry. It is not the fact that the Minister is a party. He has to decide whether he shall or shall not approve the Commission's scheme. If he follows the practice of other Ministers he will appoint some highly skilled person who understands this sort of business, maybe a person in some position in his own office who will spend a large part of his life going round and hearing these cases and will understand the business. I could not undertake this task of appointing people to perform such highly technical work in regard to which I myself have no personal knowledge at all. Therefore I should say we should be quite wrong in accepting the manuscript Amendment moved by the noble Lord.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I am sorry, but I do not really feel entitled to withdraw my Amendment; I must be content with it being negatived.

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
I was just going to ask the Leader of the House whether he has anything to say on the second proposal of the noble Earl behind me as to the word "independent" which is already in the Bill in Clause 6, not quite in the same connexion. I think that word might avoid some of the difficulties that have been pointed out.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I will certainly look into the point but the Minister must be allowed to appoint a type of person competent to conduct an inquiry, and I cannot imagine his appointing anybody in whose independence, impartiality and competence he had not the fullest confidence. We should be no better off if we put the word in. We do not do it in any other case that I have heard of.

§ On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

§ On Question, original Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.9 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subparagraph (2), of paragraph 3, to leave out "result of the inquiries" and insert "report of the person by whom the inquiry was held." The noble Viscount said: These new words are proposed instead of the somewhat ambiguous words in sub-paragraph (2).

412

§ Amendment moved— Page 143, line 1, leave out ("result of the inquiries") and insert ("report of the person by whom the inquiry was held").—(Viscount Addison.)

§ LORD BEVERIDGE
May I ask whether the reference to a public local inquiry leading to a report means that the report is to be published. I notice that the Government have put down an Amendment to strengthen the inquiry, and there is an Amendment of my own later on requiring the report to be published.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I am afraid I should require notice of that question. The inquiry is public, of course—that is provided for—so that everybody who wants can hear everything that goes on. As to whether the report is published, speaking for myself, as an old Minister who has been responsible for a great many of these inquiries, I do not remember that I ever published the report of anybody who held an inquiry. The reports are in the nature of confidential documents in the Department, and may contain all kinds of observations. So far as I know, it is not the practice for these reports to be published. However, I will inquire into it. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has been a Minister, and I do not think his reports were always published.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
It entirely depended on the character of the report. The noble Viscount has just said something which filled me with alarm and despondency. What he said was that these reports are of a confidential character. There should be no obligation to publish a report of a confidential character, but that is an entirely different thing. Here what we have got is a public local inquiry on a scheme—it is true, not propounded by the Minister in person, but propounded by the Commission, whom the Minister appoints, and to whom, indeed, the Minister may give general instructions. It seems to me to be absolutely the essence of this case. The noble Viscount said that we may be quite sure that the Minister will appoint somebody who is not only competent, but of the most independent frame of mind, and the best man to make the report. What is this public local inquiry? It is right that it should be public, and it is right that it should be local. But what is it leading 413 up to? Surely, what it is leading up to is the report. Of course we must know what is in the report. If it is a wise report, it will say: "I find in favour of the Commission in this respect, and in favour of the objectors in that respect," and it will give reasons for those findings. It is a quasi-judicial report. It has then got to come up, if people object to it, and be the subject of this Parliamentary procedure. Is it really going to be suggested that we must conduct all our Parliamentary procedure without seeing the report? The answer to this must be that the report will be published.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I do not agree with the noble Viscount at all. We have both been Ministers, and we both have had considerable experience. I myself on a number of occasions have had inquiries of various kinds made—in fact, we both have. I do not remember any stipulation that the report should be published. It is of a semi-confidential nature in some respects. The Minister has to have the report, and what matters is the Minister's decision on the report. He can be challenged in Parliament, and he then has to justify himself as best he can. In order to form a correct opinion, he sends someone to make the inquiry and he has to decide accordingly, I do not know of any statutory obligation to publish all the reports of gentlemen who conduct inquiries of this kind. I well remember one case where there was a dispute on a water power scheme between Inverness and Argyll. How I was dragged into it I do not remember, but I was the Minister of Reconstruction. Apparently the two parties to the report were at such loggerheads with one another that they would not come into the room by the same door. They came in separately, by different doors, and this interesting incident was contained in the report. It did illustrate the kind of animosity that was prevailing on the spot, but it was not the kind of thing that I would have circulated in a report. I do not think it is reasonable, but I will inquire into it. It is news to me, as an old Minister, that you are compelled to publish the report of a man who is appointed to conduct an inquiry. It will certainly prejudice his report, if publication is compulsory. What matters is the decision of the Minister, and that can be challenged in Parliament. I should be very sorry to make this a statutory obligation.

414

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
Is there not a distinction between cases where a report is made on a public inquiry for the purpose of enabling the Minister to decide some particular administrative point, and such a case as this, in which the report is made for the purpose of enabling the Minister to make an order which will have the force of law, if the order survives criticism in Parliament? It really is not quite accurate for the noble Viscount to say that this report will be made simply to enable the Minister to make up his mind. I deny that. It is to enable him to make an order, which is to be subject to the criticism of Parliament. It may very well be that Parliament, when it understands the nature of the case—which can only be understood by Parliament on consideration of the terms of the report—may come to the conclusion that the Minister is wrongly exercising his discretion in the order which he may make, and accordingly the order should be quashed. I confess that I think it is very important that Parliament should not be obliged to discuss the propriety of an order of this sort, which may be considered of enormous interest in the locality where the matters are dealt with, unless the report is published. I should have thought that if this House had to consider an order of that kind, we should at once say that it was idle for us to proceed to discuss the matter without knowing the grounds on which the order was based.

§ LORD BEVERIDGE
May I say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that if he will consult what was said on this Schedule in another place he will find that the Minister took a very different view from the one which he has just expressed. In opposing Amendments to strengthen the inquiry he said: This is unnecessary, because there is tremendous special Parliamentary procedure, and I do not want to interfere with the responsibility of Parliament. I have an Amendment here requiring that the report should be published. I do hope the Government will accept that Amendment after consideration, because the vital thing is not for the Minister to decide, but for Parliament to decide on things which are, in fact, the alternative to legislation. Remember the Minister's powers given by these schemes, including the whole conditions of compensation for people expropriated. It is quite certain 415 that Parliament must control, and it is equally certain that Parliament cannot do that, except on Party lines, without knowledge. The way to get the knowledge is from the report. It has nothing whatever to do with the inquiries made by a Minister in the course of his Ministerial duties. It is the alternative to Parliament, and I am very glad that I asked this question. I regret to say that it is impossible for me to stay here and move my Amendment, but I hope one of my noble friends will move it for me and I hope the Government are prepared to consider it.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I am sorry to be obstinate, but I am really completely astonished—with the greatest respect to the experience of the noble Lord—that he should try to make it a statutory obligation that every report received by a Minister, made by a person holding an inquiry in order to enable him to be informed in his judgment, should be published. I am absolutely astonished. I am sure it is contrary to the best interests of the community. The Minister must exercise his judgment, because it is the Minister who stands responsible and he has to justify himself. He cannot pass it off on to this man who made the report—that would never do.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
I do not wish to prolong matters, but may I ask one question on this? Did not the Committee on Ministers' Powers, in their unanimous Report, recommend that all reports of this kind should be made public?

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
I have no knowledge of it, and I should be astonished if that were so. I am sure it is not so.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.23 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3, to insert: (3) The Commission shall appear at any public local inquiry by counsel, solicitor or agent in favour of the scheme and shall tender evidence, and any objector may appear at any such inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor or agent and may tender evidence. Any witnesses appearing on behalf of the Commission or any objector shall be subject to cross-examination. (4) Subsections (2) to (5) of 290 of the Local Government Act 1933 shall apply to any such public local inquiries.

416

§ The noble Earl said: This is a further Amendment in the same direction, and we very much hope that it will be more successful than the two previous Amendments. The point of this Amendment is really two-fold. The first is that in carrying out these inquiries the Commission shall be represented themselves, and that any objector shall be able to cross-examine and question any witnesses put forward by the Commission. If one wants to make the slightest comparison with the judicial system, it is obvious that the Commission must present their case and must be there to answer for it. It is only then that the inquiry officer, whoever he may be, can properly have the position placed before him; otherwise he would have to conduct the inquiry himself instead of being in a semi-judicial position, which I think we are all agreed is his rightful position. The second point is that certain subsections of the Local Government Act 1933 shall apply to any such public local inquiries. Those subsections simply provide for the production of evidence and the administering of the oath. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 143, line 3, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This Amendment falls into three parts. The first is that The Commission shall appear at any such public local inquiry by counsel, solicitor or agent in favour of the scheme. Of course they can appear. If they do not want to appear, then I should think they have a pretty bad case, but they can appear if they are so minded. More than that we cannot do. The second part is that they shall tender evidence. You cannot make a man speak—

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
You can by shifting the onus of proof.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
You can do that, but, of course, he would probably exercise his right to tender evidence. But just to say "and shall tender evidence" is really an absolutely impossible proposition. Then we come to the next part which is: and any objector may appear at any such inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor or agent and may tender evidence.' Do you really mean to say "any objector"? Is there to be no question of 417 locus standi at all? We do not let people do that in this House or in another place unless they have some locus standi to be here. Assuming the objector had a locus standi, he would obviously be entitled to appear either in person or by counsel. It goes without saying that any witness who does give evidence in chief is subject to cross-examination—of course he is. Then comes the obligation to apply Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933. Why? Why not carry on the perfectly practicable and useful method which we apply here? Clause 120 of this Bill lays down that the inquiries held under this Bill are to be subject to Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. That provides that the person holding the inquiry may require any person to attend, and he may require any person to give evidence or produce any document in his possession subject to a fine. He has power to take evidence on oath, administer oaths, and so on and so forth. That is a perfectly proper procedure, and it puts the man who is holding the inquiry in complete charge of the proceedings. He can order the proceedings as he thinks right and as he thinks proper. Further than that we cannot go.
It may be objected—as it was objected in the Stevenage case—that the scheme itself was not propounded and the objectors were therefore put at a disadvantage. I can say very little on that, because that case is still sub judice and it would be very unbecoming that I should say more. But I think it is an odd position if the objector, instead of being able to give evidence as to his own objection, has to rely upon the opposition giving evidence so that he may dig up something from cross-examination. Surely he has enough from his own substantive case to give his evidence, and then if the people propounding the scheme do not attempt to refute his evidence very likely the scheme would be knocked out. For those reasons we cannot accept this Amendment.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
The noble and learned Viscount has made some very interesting concessions. The first is that any objector with a locus standi can object. If you accept that, then I feel it should be incorporated into this clause. That is a very important concession, and if that is the view of the noble and learned Viscount, I would be very glad if that were put into the clause.

418

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This is provided for in substance by Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, which is incorporated into this Bill by Clause 120.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
The second point the noble and learned Viscount made was that witnesses may be cross-examinee. That may be covered by the same rule. I am afraid I have not looked up that Act, and I apologize for not having done so. The only other point I would like to make is that the value of this inquiry must depend very much upon the nature of the evidence which is put in front of it. If the Commission are not there, then clearly the evidence is much less valuable. For that reason I should have thought it would add greatly to the value of the evidence that the Commission should appear and state their case. However, in the circumstances I will not press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
May I mention one thing which I hope the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will look into? My recollection is that although there was a communal right for objectors to attend in such a case, and that they must be heard by the person who is holding the inquiry, it is not the fact that at common law such objector has a right to appear by solicitor or counsel. Counsel have a right of audience in the High Court, but I think I am right in saying—although everybody's memory is sometimes defective—that persons at an inquiry like this have not a right to appear by counsel, although no doubt the person holding the inquiry might be willing to hear counsel, and would probably be well advised if he did. I venture to think that if it is found on inquiry that such a right does not exist, it might be in the interests of fairness and propriety to put in just a few words to say that an objector with locus standi should be entitled to appear by counsel or by solicitor.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 143, leave out lines 7 to 12.—(Viscount Addison.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

419

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
This also is a drafting Amendment, to make the matter more clear. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 143, line 14, leave out ("persons appointed to make inquiries") and insert ("any person appointed to hold an inquiry").—(Viscount Addison.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.35 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON moved to add at the end of the Schedule: