§ 5.55 p.m.
LORD SEMPILLMy Lords, I beg to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely, to call attention to the importance of making known the productive efficiency of nationalised industries, and to ask that a Report on the productivity of British Railways be issued as a White Paper at an early date so that this House may have the advantage of this vital information prior to the Committee stage of the Transport Bill.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I must confess here that I am at something of a loss to understand just what the noble Lord has in mind. I think I can say with approval from all sides of the House that if there is one aspect of nationalised industries on which we all agree it is that the statistical information provided is very good. The National Coal Board have weekly reports of output, absenteeism and shifts, apart from other reports which come out in a wider field. The same general remark can be made in regard to the gas and electricity undertakings, both centrally and in regard to the Boards. With regard to transport, we have, first, the weekly statistical summary, with which no doubt the noble Lord is familiar; we have the annual report and the financial statement. I am not quite clear just what fresh information the noble Lord requires. I suspect that he is probably approaching this as an engineer, and is anxious to find some reliable objective index which would indicate the efficiency of these industries, particularly in the nationalised railways.
Of course, it is possible to show an index in regard to cost per unit; it is possible to show an index in regard to output per man; or it is possible to show an index in relation to consumption of raw materials. But what I do not think the noble Lord will ever show is a unit of productive efficiency, because even the world of science, which delights in units, has never invented that one. I doubt very much whether it is possible to show an objective unit of productive efficiency. I thought the noble Lord would say something in introducing this matter and indicate exactly what he has in mind. All I can say again is that if he cares to 1041 communicate with the Commission, if he has some special point in mind, I am sure they will listen carefully to the point he wishes to emphasise. I can assure him that both the Commission and the Government are most anxious that the highest possible measure of efficiency should be achieved in this sphere, which is of great importance. As the noble Lord knows, we shall be in Committee on the Transport Bill next week, and I hope that in the course of that time he may explain more precisely what he has in mind.
§ 6.0 p.m.
LORD SEMPILLMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and say that all that has been said with regard to the first Question—namely, that Her Majesty's Government have in view the promotion of a higher standard of efficiency, is most satisfactory. I would apologise to your Lordships for the fact 1042 that I did not make these points in the Second Reading debate, for the sole reason that I was one of the last to put my name down, and for the convenience of the noble Viscount, the Deputy Leader of your Lordships' House, who had an important engagement elsewhere, I stepped out of the debate. It is for that reason that I have put down these two Questions to-day.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMay I interrupt the noble Lord? I must point out that this is an unstarred Question. The noble Lord is entitled to ask the Question, but he has not the right of reply.
LORD SEMPILLI beg your Lordships' pardon. I will take steps to raise the matter on another occasion.
§ House adjourned at two minutes past six o'clock.