Lords Sitting of 9 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

TRANSPORT BILL
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Disposal of Commission's existing road haulage undertaking
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the British Transport Commission (in this Act referred to as "the Commission") to dispose, as quickly as is reasonably practicable, of all the property held by them for the purposes of so much of their undertaking as is at the passing of this Act carried on through the Road Haulage Executive.
The part of the undertaking of the Commission referred to in this subsection is hereafter in this Act referred to as "the existing road haulage undertaking."
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "as quickly as is reasonably practicable," and to insert: "by the exercise of their powers under this Act." The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment on the Order Paper I hope that I may be permitted to make a few general observations. First, we on this side of the House, who are moving a very large number of Amendments, if not the majority, should like to say that, although we are not abating in one jot or tittle our objection to its principle, which we expressed on the Second Reading, we feel bound, as good Parliamentarians and good democrats, to accept the principle of the Bill. The Amendments which we have put down are, therefore, not calculated to frustrate the main purposes or principles of the Bill, even though, as I say, we are opposed to those
1044
principles. What we have tried to do is to put down Amendments which will have for their object the improvement of the machinery of the Bill, making it work more satisfactorily. We are seeking to reduce the loss in which the community may be involved as a result of these operations, and we hope that Amendments will be accepted which have for their object the leaving with the Transport Commission of a bigger share of the road haulage undertakings with a view to their being carried on with greater efficiency.
It is in that spirit that we are moving the various Amendments which are on the Paper. We shall be as brief as possible, consistent with the need for developing the ideas which we have—and, of course, having regard to the fact that discussion in another place was artificially curtailed. We shall endeavour to put our case with reason and with such force as we are capable of. We hope that in these circumstances the spokesmen of Her Majesty's Government will not meet us with a blank refusal on every Amendment we put forward, whatever may be contained in their briefs. We are to spend four days on this stage of the Bill. Four days is a long time in the life of many of us, and we hope that these four days will not be wasted but that there will be joint effort on the part of us all to improve the Bill. While I do not expect that the spokesmen of Her Majesty's Government will necessarily accept Amendments which they have no instructions to accept (and, after all, the Minister must have the last word), nevertheless I do expect and hope that where we put up a reasonable case the spokesman will be prepared to go back to the Minister and discuss it with him, with a view to his accepting the Amendment which we have put down, or at any rate the spirit of the Amendment. That is all I want to say by way of preliminary, and now I come to the actual terms of this Amendment itself.
The purpose of the Amendment is to leave out certain words in Clause 1 of the Bill—namely,
"as quickly as is reasonably practicable"
and to put in their place the words that are on the Order Paper. We on this side of the House have no objection at all, and I think it will not be contended that we have any objection, to the proposal

1045
that, if disposal takes place, it should take place as quickly as is reasonable; we quite understand that. What we do object to is the emphasis which is being placed in this Bill on speed. There are many other factors which have to be taken into consideration besides speed in disposal. One of them is getting the best possible price. Another is leaving the consumer of transport in such a position that his needs are not unduly interfered with as a result of disposal. Another is to leave the road haulage undertakings with an adequate number of vehicles to enable them to carry out their undertakings with efficiency. There are other considerations as well. But it seems to us that in putting in the first clause of this Bill, and, indeed, in the first subsection, the words "as quickly as is reasonably practicable," the Government are laying undue emphasis on the question of speed to the exclusion of other things. I observe that again in subsection (2) of this same clause there are the words:
"…to be disposed of without delay and on the best terms available…"
Again the emphasis is being placed on the question of speed; of no delay. The question of
"the best terms available"
and
"without avoidable disturbance of the transport system of the country"
seem all the time to be subsidiary to the question of speed.
I know that this Amendment was moved in another place, both in Committee and on the Report stage, and that the Government did not see their way to accept it. I think the Amendment is none the less good for that. It may be that the words which I am asking to be substituted are not entirely satisfactory—although in the eyes of noble Lords opposite they have good and respectable parentage, because those words are taken from Clause 16 of the Iron and Steel Bill, which is at present before another place. Therefore, there can be little objection to the phraseology. If some other form of words were preferable we should be happy to discuss them with representatives of Her Majesty's Government, so long as we ensure that this question of speed is not unduly emphasised and that it is kept in its right perspective as regards the other requirements that are
1046
essential when disposing of this undertaking. For these reasons I move this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will not meet it with a blank refusal but will be ready to discuss either this or some alternative form of words, which will not affect the sense of the Bill but will help those who have to interpret it hereafter, particularly the Disposal Board. They and others realise that speed is not the only, or even the main, consideration in the disposal of the undertaking. They have to take into consideration other things pari passu with speed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("dispose") to ("of") in line 9, and insert ("by the exercise of their powers under this Act").—.(Lord Silkin)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has said in his introductory remarks. We are delighted to have the assistance of noble Lords opposite in making this Bill better and more effective for the purposes for which it is designed. We will endeavour, so far as we can, to discuss fully any points, bearing in mind that noble Lords, as Lord Silkin has already said, do not advance arguments which would frustrate the purpose or principles of the Bill. On that basis, we shall all look forward to many interesting arguments on a great variety of points which will arise—and there are a substantial number. The noble Lord has raised in the first clause some rather important words. As he has said, they have been discussed fairly fully in another place, and they have also been discussed in some measure in this House. I make no objection to the fact that the noble Lord should raise them again, because I agree that they are important words. He said—and I think we are entirely at one on this—that we do not want a disorderly sale; we do not want it rushed. We quite agree with that. I think a noble Lord said on the other side—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on the Second Reading—that he did not want unduly to delay the operation of the Act. We hope to make it abundantly clear that we do not want any unnecessary or undue delay at all.
We are, then, agreed broadly in that sense within comparatively narrow limits. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked,

1047
"Are we putting undue emphasis on speed?" If I may suggest it to the noble Lord, we are not. We are saying that the sale must be carried out by means which are reasonably practicable in the framework within which it must take place, and that inside that framework, and only inside it, will the sale have to be carried out as quickly as possible. For instance, if the words had been "with all practicable speed," then I suggest, with respect, that the noble Lord's argument would have had much more weight. I suggest that the words in the Bill do, in fact, embody what we have in mind and the way in which this Bill should be approached. They do not mean a disorderly and hurried sale; they do not mean an unnecessary delay. We have to bear in mind since this is an important step forward in transport that a long transitional period would make for uncertainty. So I do not think it should be allowed to extend unduly, I do not think that there is any undue emphasis in the Bill on speed. I believe that fact may become quite clear as we discuss the Bill further.
I think, therefore, that the words in the Bill accurately represent a reasonable and proper approach to the problem which we have in mind here. I hope the noble Lord will agree that that is a reasonable approach to make for the purposes we have in this Bill, and that he will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL JOWITT: I think that is a very disappointing reply. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, stated, and it is the fact, that we do not regard the Committee stage as an appropriate time at which to challenge the principle of the Bill. We dislike the principle of this Bill very much indeed, but we do not think that now is the time to challenge it. But we do strongly object to the words
"as quickly as is reasonably practicable."
We think that the emphasis there placed at the very outset of this Bill is on quick disposal. We believe that is wrong. Broadly speaking, there are several methods of disposal. One is the quick forced sale. We are perfectly well accustomed to the way in which bankrupt stock and surplus Government stores and so on are disposed of. That is the quickest way to dispose of them. Another
1048
way is by forming a company and doing it by slow degrees, not giving the market more than it can digest. That is a slower way, and is necessarily a slower way. But the latter way seems to us to be the way in which the best price possible is likely to be obtained. Noble Lords opposite are just as concerned as we are to get the best price possible because, after all, the person whose interest is here at stake is the taxpayer, whom we all represent. All we are saying to the Government is: "Do not pre-judge this matter in this very opening clause. Do not emphasise the fact that you are to dispose as quickly as possible'."
I appeal to noble Lords, in all quarters of the House, who have a great knowledge of business: if you say, "Well, now, your primary function is to dispose as quickly as possible of these assets," is it in the least likely that the best price for those assets will be obtained? The answer, I venture to say, is, "No, it is not." After all, these are taxpayers' goods and it is vitally important to all of us that they should be disposed of at the highest possible price. But you do not get the highest possible price if you emphasise in the very opening sentence of the Bill that what matters is that the property is disposed of as quickly as possible. In what I am saying now, I am not attacking the principle of the Bill. The Government have told us that they want the Commission to dispose of its property. Very well: be it so. Let the Commission dispose of them. But do not call attention in the opening paragraph of the Bill to the fact that that must be done as quickly as possible. Why is it necessary to say that? Why not simply say: "Dispose"?
I beg the noble Earl, in the discussion which I hope we are to have on the Committee stage of this Bill, to reconsider this matter again, between now and Report stage, to see whether it would not be wiser, in the interests of every one of us, to emphasise rather—if you are going to emphasise anything in this opening sentence—that steps must be taken to get the best price. Subject to that, by all means be as speedy as you like; but every man who has any knowledge of business must know that if you start off by saying, "Get rid of them as quickly as ever you can"—that is what you are in fact saying you are likely to get the worst and not the best price. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to think again

1049
about this matter. Here, it seems to me, since we are not seeking to attack the principle of the Bill, there is ground on which we might meet. In their own interests, in the interests of everybody, in the interest of the taxpayer, we beg the Government to see whether it is really wise to emphasise in these opening words that what matters to single out for consideration is a speedy disposal instead of getting the best price possible. I very much hope that we shall get an answer at any rate a little more sympathetic than the answer which the noble Earl has just given us.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): I shall be glad to give the noble and learned Earl a further answer. It will not be more sympathetic, in the sense that it will not lead us to reconsider or to accept this Amendment. We will give, as we always have done, very careful consideration to all Amendments which are moved, but the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, must realise that giving a reasonable consideration on Committee stage does not mean that one accepts every Amendment which the Opposition care to move. Quite rightly, that was never the attitude which the noble and learned Earl adopted when his Party were in power. What we are quite prepared to do is to consider these things on their merits. We have given very careful consideration to this Amendment, and it is an important one, because it raises an important question of principle. There is here a divergence of principle. It may be said that the words do not matter very much, but I think the words do matter, and them would be a divergence of principle, and indeed an inconsistency with the broad policy structure of this Bill, if we accepted this Amendment.
The noble Lord has said that we ought not to emphasise disposing of this property as quickly as possible. But, of course, we are not saying that, any more than (if I may twist, or perhaps I should say expand, the noble Lord's words) he is suggesting that we should do it as slowly as possible. Neither of those things is what is proposed here. The words have been most carefully chosen and have been fully discussed—that is no reason why we should not discuss them here—and so the Bill says:
"as quickly as is reasonably practicable."
1050
We believe that it is of the essence of this proposal to have as quick a sale as is reasonable and that the worst thing you could have would be a long-drawn-out sale. That would be the worst thing from the point of view which several noble Lords on the opposite side stressed during the Second Reading—that we do not want to have a great deal of uncertainty and dislocation during transition.
But I also entirely disagree with the suggestion that what we are doing here is inconsistent with getting the best price. We have to take into account the general structure of the Bill and considerations such as the time when the "25-milers"are to be freed. That proposal is not to come into effect until the end of 1954, but there has been considerable pressure to free them earlier. That may be a matter for debate; I do not know. But I am quite sure that if we have a long, dilatory disposal and the sale of a great many of these assets is deferred until all the "25-milers" have come fully into the competitive field, the buyer will not get what he gets with his "A" licence—the chance of operating his "A" licence without the immediate competition of all the "25-milers."In that case not only should we get unfortunate delay, with all its consequences, but we might easily realise a considerably worse price. We have considered this matter in a businesslike way. Whatever else may be said about the Secretary of State, nobody will say that he is an unbusinesslike man. It is his view and that of the Government that these words express exactly the way that the business should be conducted and, so far from being an unbusinesslike method, we think it is the most businesslike way of doing it. I have given the noble Lord, as I always will, an absolutely frank answer about that. I should be entirely misleading him and wasting the time of the House if I were to say that we will take this question back and reconsider it. I have given a most carefully considered answer, and by that answer we must stand.
EARL JOWITT: May I make this suggestion to the noble Viscount? The words here emphasise speed, and I want to emphasise getting the best price possible. Without attempting to draft the wording now, would the noble Viscount

1051
consider between now and Report stage words of this sort: "as quickly as is reasonably practicable, having regard to the necessity of getting the highest price," or "consistent with the possibility of getting the highest price," or something of that sort, to indicate that speed does not stand out by itself and in itself as the sole desideratum? There is the other factor of getting the highest price. The words "as quickly as is reasonably practicable, having regard to the necessity of selling the goods to the best advantage," would combine the two. I am not attempting to draft the wording now, but something to that effect would seem to me to be reasonable. Would the noble Viscount tell me whether, between now and Report, he would consider some such phrase as that? It could be put in more appropriate language than, on the spur of the moment, I have been able to suggest.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. I must be equally frank with the noble and learned Earl. All these points were advanced in another place and they have been most carefully considered. I must ask the House to decide this now. I cannot hold out the least hope that on Report I shall express a different view from that which has been arrived at after careful consideration in framing the Bill, in discussions on the Bill, and again when we were considering this Amendment. It is, of course, open to the noble Lord to put an Amendment down on Report, but I am bound to say that we could not possibly accept the proposal.
LORD WINSTER: In reading the words now under discussion, I have been trying to put myself in the position of a member of the British Transport Commission. If I were in that position and were reading these words, I should most certainly think that the Government considered that speed was the essence of the matter, and that provided the Commission acted promptly, the Government would not be inclined to worry too much about what was done or how it was done. That being so, as a personal opinion I should much prefer to see the words proposed in the Amendment inserted in place of the words there now, although for my own part I should not object to seeing added after them "and with reasonable promptitude."
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: For my part, I really do not at all see the necessity for these words in the Bill. In the first place, surely they assume that the Transport Commission are going to be dilatory in carrying out their duties under the Bill. There is also the consideration of obtaining the best price possible. Another consideration seems to me to be what is to be the practical result of the sale of these vehicles. On Second Reading, I raised a point in connection with the sale by the British Transport Commission of the S.M.T. buses. I do not know to what extent they are to be sold. To-day, before the Scottish branch lines are shut down, an arrangement is made by the railway authorities—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Buses are not concerned in this section.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I beg your pardon.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am rather astonished that the noble Viscount should say that all this has been considered before and that there is not much purpose in considering it again. Surely, the whole purpose of this Committee stage is to look at the situation as it now is, after the Bill has left another place?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Forgive me, but I said that we had considered this Amendment most carefully after the Amendments had been put down.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I remember that that is what the noble Viscount said. But surely we are here to consider it again. If the noble Viscount's statement is to be the note on which this Committee stage is to proceed, there is little purpose in meeting at all. I suggest that the words which my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt has just put forward do not in any way conflict with the basic principles of the Bill. Although we do not like the Bill, we appreciate the situation, and those words do not conflict with the principle; in fact, they import into this clause sound principles of business conduct. Who, in the conduct of any business, unless it was under duress, would announce to the prospective buyers that his property was up to

1053
forced sale? These words suggest that this vast property, public property, which the Government have seen fit to sell off, is being sold off under duress, under a time limit, to a forced sale.
I am very sad to think that the noble Lord who is the Minister in charge of co-ordination, and a business man of the widest experience, is not here to discuss the Bill with us, because I feel sure that he would not take this intractable attitude to a suggestion which is made in the interests of business procedure, which has no politics in it, which in no way conflicts with the objects of the Bill, but which seeks merely to leave the Commission, who, after all, are appointed by the Government and will no doubt consist of men who are capable of securing proper advice and of judging what is a fair and proper course, free to sell these vast public assets in the best possible way and in the public interest. It seeks not to tie them as a liquidator is tied when forced hurriedly to liquidate on a forced sale. This really is not a forced sale and should not be imported into the Bill.
LORD HAWKE: I think that noble Lords opposite are being most unreasonable in this matter. The arguments advanced by the noble Viscount in regard to the twenty-live miles restriction coming to an end of 1954 are most conclusive in this matter; to say this clause imposes a time limit is really not correct. As for the words suggested by the noble Lord opposite, I must say I should not care to see them in any Act of Parliament, because the question of what is the highest price is one of opinion. No court in the land can declare what the highest price is, and therefore the insertion of those words would be an absolute invitation to every bureaucrat who has anything to do with it to delay the sale to the last possible minute, so as to have every opportunity to decide what is the highest price.
LORD SHEPHERD: I rise to raise a fresh point of view in this matter. I understand from the speech of the noble Viscount that these words contain a matter of principle. I have been sitting in my seat trying to discover what the principle is. I must confess that I am completely befogged. It would be a great advantage if we could be informed what
1054
principle is involved in these words. That brings me to the next point. What is the meaning of the words when it comes to the effective disposal of goods held by the Commission? What do they really mean in that sense? There are going to be three sets of persons involved in the sale. First, there will be the Minister; secondly, there will be the Disposal Board, and thirdly there will be the Commission. Which of those authorities is going to interpret the meaning of these words, and what is going to be the relationship established between these three sets of people in trying to decide what is the best step to be taken as quickly as is reasonably practicable? I suggest that these words are not wanted at all in this clause. They serve no useful purpose, and the powers of the Government, the Minister and the Commission would be better, if I may say so respectfully, without their being in the Bill at all. If they are not in the Bill and Parliament adopts the Bill and makes it into an Act, all the goods will have to be disposed of. The powers of the Government will not be diminished by one iota by the omission of these words. I therefore hope we may have further consideration of their continued inclusion.
3.7 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I should like to support the powerful arguments that have been adduced by my noble friends. I myself, after having considered this matter, cannot see that: the words the Government wish to include in this clause add anything but confusion to a Bill that is already overloaded with confusion. How can it be said that the words "as quickly as is reasonably practicable" help anybody? In one part of the country it may be that those who have to dispose of these assets will regard the words as a mandatory provision informing them that they must sell without any delay. In another part of the country it may be that they will regard those words as allowing them to sell in their discretion and at their pleasure. Why are the Government so stubborn in this matter? When we were in office we brought Bills before the House and we were always most reasonable, not merely because we had not the big battalions; behind us but because we had a spirit of reasonableness

1055
in us, We regarded a House of Parliament as a place where matters are discussed, not forced through by big battalions, calling up the big battalions when necessary and allowing them to recline at their leisure when they are not. That is what the Government are doing to-day. It is increasing the confusion in the Bill.
The Government are not attempting in any way even to consider the suggestion that my noble Leader has made. He has said, "Have a look at it. Bring it back to us on Report, and during that period let us put our heads together." I should have thought that in a matter of this kind that was an eminently reasonable suggestion, far more reasonable than the words in the Bill. The Government are not prepared to do anything of the kind. This is a very ominous start to this Bill. If this is the sort of frame of mind which the Government are in, I can see these proceedings being very protracted indeed.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If that is a threat to me then I am afraid that I must withdraw the offer that we would try not to sit after dinner to-night and tomorrow.
LORD OGMORE: I do not know whether the noble Viscount means that that offer was of any advantage to us. If it is necessary to sit after dinner, we will sit after dinner, and sit until midnight, if necessary, to try to get the Government to see sense about this appalling Bill. The noble Viscount cannot blackguard the House in this way.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has not been in touch with his Front Bench. We made an arrangement. I said that I was prepared to sit after dinner, but at the request of the Opposition I said that we would try to sit the first two days until seven or half-past seven. If we are to take an hour over each Amendment that offer must go overboard.
LORD OGMORE: These are very important Amendments; they are the first Amendments, and in our view they go to the root of the matter. It really is not good enough for the noble Viscount to take that attitude. If we all have to try to persuade the noble Viscount on matters of his kind, if many of us have to get up and try to use such eloquence as we possess, it is going to mean a very
1056
long process. If the noble Viscount were prepared to see the light of reason after one or two speeches from these Benches, the process would be less lengthy. That is the normal procedure in Parliamentary usage. I would ask the noble Viscount to accept the suggestion made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and consider this matter further before the Report stage. I think that, in brushing aside a reasonable suggestion made by my noble friend, he is not treating noble Lords on this side, or the House, or the country in the way in which he should.
LORD SALTOUN: The only thing I have not heard from the other side is an explanation of their reason for wishing to insert:
"by the exercise of their powers under this Act."
Those words seem to me very deleterious to the purpose of the Bill. The Commission will have to do a great many things entirely within their powers under the original Act and in other ways which do not necessarily fall to be mentioned in this Bill. We have had no word of explanation as to the reason why the noble Lords wish to put in these words.
LORD SILKIN: I thought I had given an explanation of that. If the noble Lord will do me the honour of reading my speech to-morrow morning, he will see that I did say why I asked for those words to be inserted. I confess that I am a little disappointed at the reaction of the noble Viscount to this Amendment. I can well understand there may be differences of opinion. I can even understand that there may be Amendments which the Government feel they cannot accept—and it is much better for them to be frank and to say so. But what disappointed me most was that the noble Viscount gave me the impression that this point had been considered in advance, and that it had been decided that this Amendment was not to be accepted, or even considered, whatever arguments were advanced subsequent to that consideration. If that is the attitude, what is the good of a Committee discussion at all? One hopes that by explaining one's reasons and putting forward the arguments one may be able to move the Government, in spite of the fact that they have previously arrived at a decision on the matter. I hope that it will be possible

1057
for the noble Viscount to give the Committee an assurance that matters will be reconsidered in the light of the debate which takes place on an Amendment, and not in the light of a preconceived decision, arrived at merely upon reading the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has no business to say that. Both my noble friend and I have answered to the best of our ability the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment. One would certainly not answer them any better by saying six times what one has said to the best of one's ability once.
LORD SILKIN: We are by no means satisfied with the answers that have been given. Certainly, the impression which has been left on my mind—I cannot speak for my noble friends—is that this is a predetermined decision on the part of the Government, quite regardless of any arguments that we might put forward on the matter. In those circumstances, of course, I cannot accept the invitation of the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment, although we do not propose to force a Division upon it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Road Haulage Disposal Board
2.—

(1)There shall be a body, to be called the Road Haulage Disposal Board (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Board"), with the powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by the subsequent provisions of this Act.

(2) The Board shall consist of six members all of whom shall be appointed by the Minister.

(11) There shall be paid to the members of the Board and to any officer or servant of the Board such remuneration (whether by way of salaries, fees, or allowances) as may be determined by the Minister, with the approval, in the case of the members of the Board, of the Treasury; and any such remuneration as aforesaid and any other expenses of the Board shall be defrayed out of the Transport Fund established under the subsequent provisions of this Act.
3.14 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to remove from this Bill the Disposal Board which Clause 2 seeks to set up. The reason we are moving
1058
this Amendment is that we cannot see what function the Disposal Board can possibly have that the British Transport Commission, the owners of the property which is to be sold, cannot discharge better. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of the Bill which lays upon the British Transport Commission the whole of the mechanics of selling. Clause 1 lays down that
"it shall be the duty of the British Transport Commission…to dispose, as quickly as is reasonably practicable, of all the property held by them for the purpose of so much of their undertaking as is at the passing of this Act carried on through the Road Haulage Executive."
In subsection (2) of that clause, the Commission have another responsibility placed upon them. The subsection says:
"…it shall be the duty of the Commission to carry on the existing road haulage undertaking…"
And they have to do this all the time they are organising their undertaking for sale. They have to dispose of it, under this subsection,
"without delay and on the best terms available, and without avoidable disturbance of the transport system of the country."
They have to do all that while they are organising their business for sale.
If the Committee will look at subsection (4), they will see that the Commission also have the duty, while all this is going on, while they are selling the pieces, sections, units, of their undertaking, to
"provide, continue or develop any services or facilities for the carriage of goods by road otherwise than as part of the operation of the existing road haulage undertaking."
How they are going to do that while they are selling and organising the whole of their road haulage undertaking for sale, I do not know, and I can find no real help in this Bill. This Disposal Board has no real function at all except to sit above the British Transport Commission, and be the arbiter of what they do in the disposal of those assets. The Commission cannot invite a tender without the permission of the Disposal Board. They cannot accept a tender without the permission of the Disposal Board. They have even to ask the Disposal Board whether they can invite themselves to tender for their own assets. If noble Lords feel in the mood to have a laugh, that provision is worth laughing at; it is in Clause 4 (2).
What is the position of this Disposal Board and what is the reason for its appearance in this Bill? My noble friend Lord Silkin, in opening the debate upon his earlier Amendment, outlined the position. My noble Leader has also outlined it, not only this afternoon but also on Second Reading. One thing which I think the Committee should appreciate is that the difference between us on this Bill is fundamentally political. The Government have thought fit to introduce this Bill because of a political pledge. My noble Leader, on Second Reading, said that there was no doubt that, in the main, the Government had a mandate to bring in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Silkin has said that we do not contest that principle; and that is true. We recognise the right of this Government to do what they say they will do, and to carry out that principle in this Bill. But what we contest as strongly as possible, and shall go on contesting right the way through the discussions on the Bill, is the method by which the Government propose to do it. I have just explained that the Commission have got to go through the mechanics; they have got to do all the organisation of selling their business. This Disposal Board will sit above them. I will not go now into the composition of the Board; I intend to do that later when we come to another Amendment. This Board, as I have said, will sit above the Commission. To do what? To try to arrange the prices at which the assets or the property are to be sold.
Of what are the Government afraid? I am going to suggest that what the Government are afraid of is the thing that we have been arguing about for half an hour on the first clause of this Bill. They are afraid that the British Transport Commission, who have to do the physical selling of these assets, will not do it quickly enough for the political purpose of the Government. My noble friends are quite right: the reason must be speed. But what can the Disposal Board do about it? Admittedly the Commission have to agree with the Disposal Board the method by which they intend to apply the principles of this Bill, but suppose the Commission and the Disposal Board disagree upon the price that has been offered for any parcel of these assets—and they may differ very much upon
1060
what is a reasonable price. In the event of dispute, they go to the Minister. Under the Bill the Minister is the sole arbiter and from his decision there is no appeal. The Minister—I speak in no derogatory manner—is actuated first and foremost by political motive and, as we recognise, that political motive must be to get rid of these assets as quickly as possible.
What can the Minister do? He can only tell the Commission to speed the sale of their assets. The Disposal Board have no practical function, no mechanical function. The Minister himself can have no mechanical function. In the end, he has to trust the owner of the property, the British Transport Commission, to do the job as well as they possibly can, taking into account the twin principles of getting the best price possible and selling without undue delay. I contend that the Disposal Board can have only one possible function—that is, a delaying function. But that is the very thing the Government say they do not want. By far the best thing to do would be to allow the Commission to sell their own assets. In any case, they have to parcel them and do the mechanics of the sale: so why bring in another body, the cost of which we do not know? Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Government will tell me whether or not this Disposal Board will be free and unfettered in their judgment. Or are they to receive directions from the Minister that they should sell these assets at less than the market price if an attempt to get the market price would mean undue delay? I do not know. There is nothing in the Bill, except the principles which have been clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Silkin. Will the Board be free and unfettered? Can the Minister give a direction, and then, if there is any dispute between the Commission and the Board, himself act as arbiter, from whose word on any dispute in regard to the price of sale, or anything else, there is no appeal whatsoever?
Now it is possible to see the difference between us. We say that the first consideration must be the interests of the country as a whole, of the taxpayer; after all, he is the owner of these assets. He has no protection whatsoever. All the emphasis is on speed. I hope the Government will have second thoughts on this matter. I hope they will see that they will gain nothing by setting up this

1061
Disposal Board, which cannot do anything to hurry up the process of sale. What the Minister must have here are the good will and public-spiritedness of the British Transport Commission; and if he has not these, he fails completely. The Disposal Board have neither the authority nor the organisation to sell. They can go to the Minister and say they think the Commission are dilly-dallying. And the Minister, in turn, can say to the Commission, "I think you are dilly-dallying." But what else can he do, unless he sets up an organisation? I think the setting up of the Board will lead to friction; they will be an irritant. The British Transport Commission, however, have a nation-wide organisation of depôts through which they can organise the sale of these units. I hope that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment. If he does, and if he thinks that the Commission have not enough senior men to superintend this work, I am willing to put down an Amendment at a later stage providing that, for the purpose of this operation of disposal and for as long as this disposal takes place, the British Transport Commission shall be able temporarily to augment their staff. In my view, that is the way to achieve what the Government want—speed and the best possible price. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: At the beginning we agreed that we should discuss the Amendments on their merits, but I think that anyone who listened to the noble Lord will admit that he was fairly political in his remarks. He accused us of political motives. I do not mind being accused of fulfilling a political pledge—that is a compliment rather than a criticism.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I said that I accepted it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord went on to say that the only motive of the Minister must be a political one. I think it was a pity that he took that line. Ministers have to do many things well outside the strictly political sphere, and anyone who has held that high office would agree with that view. The noble
1062
Lord underestimates the nature of the task which will fall to the Disposal Board. Very properly, he said that the Commission will be called on to do many things. We are confident that the Commission will fulfil loyally all the instructions imposed upon them by Parliament in this Bill. We have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that the Commission will do that. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not accuse me of being unreasonable in the matter of the Disposal Board, because there is a very real reason why the Board should be set up. A great many people are going to be affected by these sales—the whole of industry, the purchasers, the "C" licence holders. The Commission, with the best will in the world, must look at this from their own point of view, like every body and individual concerned. The Commission must act as watchdog of their own interests. It is their business, so far as possible, to see that the other interests have their essential needs properly looked after. On that point, anybody will see that it is a large operation, and if it were carelessly conducted in any way to somebody's particular advantage, rather than to the advantage of all, there might be a serious depression in the market and considerable disorganisation. The primary purpose of the Disposal Board, then, is to assist in keeping a balance between the, different interests which exist. That is the first purpose of the Board, and I submit that it is an important one, which cannot be carried out properly simply by leaving the task to the Commission.
There is a second purpose which the Board have to fulfil. One of the tasks of the Commission is to organise their vehicles into transport units. They have to be organised into the sort of units which will be readily purchased and which people want to buy. It is a very technical matter. It will be part of the Board's task to understand the sort of way the units should be built up, in order that they shall fetch the best price by being in the right shape as practical organisations. They have also to settle with the Commission the general lines on which they are to act, and they have got to decide whether the price is reasonable. With great respect, I say that the Commission have an enormous job to do, and I believe that it is only fair to them, in fulfilling their task, that they should have

1063
an outside body which can help them and guide them to see that they do not put the balance over too much one way or the other. I believe that the Commission would find it very difficult to fulfil their task if they did not have the assistance of the Board. I would only add that, so far as I have read this Bill, the Minister is not entitled to give directions to the Board unless they refer to him. That seems to me to be a safeguard to the Commission that they are not selling these units for "knock-down" prices, and they are not having a disorderly sale. I believe that the noble Lord would put a heavy burden on the Commission by asking them to do that without the assistance of the Board.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I missed one word the noble Earl used. He said something about ensuring that they will not be sold at "knock-down" prices. Who? Does he mean that the Commission will sell them at "knock-down" prices?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I was not suggesting that the Commission should sell them at "knock-down" prices. The matter of price is a difficult thing.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl used the expression "knock-down."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I meant to imply that they would have that assurance that they were not selling at "knock-down" prices. I suggest that the noble Lord will complicate the task of the Commission if he persists with this Amendment.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I have followed the noble Earl's explanation and the Government's attitude on this matter with the greatest care, and I thank the noble Earl for the clarity with which he has explained it. There is no question of political principle involved; we are considering purely a piece of business administration. I suggest, quite sincerely, that this is a most cumbersome and unusual piece of organisation which, when it has been tried in the past, both by Governments and by private enterprise, has proved to be a failure. Think for a moment of the commercial parallel. Here is a great commercial undertaking being carried on at the moment by the
1064
Transport Commission. The Transport Commission is composed of the ablest people who can be found for the task. To superimpose upon them a body charged with the duty of disposing of their assets, while their business is successful, and at the same time to leave them in office to continue the remainder of the undertaking, is an unheard of commercial device. What board of directors of a great commercial corporation would agree to the appointment of a liquidator to sell off their assets while they were still in office conducting the business of the Corporation? It is an unheard of proposition. I do beg the noble Earl and the noble Viscount to look at this as a piece of commercial organisation, for that is what it is.
The same expedients have been tried in Government undertakings, and have been a disastrous and scandalous failure. If I remember aright, after the First World War the vast task of disposing of the war-time surplus material was entrusted to a disposals board—which is just this principle—and, for the reasons which I have tried to indicate, it was a disastrous failure. The Coalition Government in the Second World War, of which the present Prime Minister was the head, decided long before the war was over that, when it was over, the business of conducting the sale of the surpluses arising from the war should not be conducted by a board composed in that manner, but that the duty should devolve upon the Minister of Supply. And, difficult and astonishingly onerous as that task proved to be, it was carried through without many of the difficulties and disasters which attended the operations of the Board after the First World War. I suggest that that was due not to any superiority of the persons involved but to the existence of a much better organisation. The principle of the organisation was that the persons who were in charge of the operation were also in charge of the disposal. It seems to me that this is a piece of commercial organisation where we have no right to go wrong. There is plenty of experience to guide us; there is acknowledged and accepted commercial practice. I do beg the noble Earl and the Government to think about this again, because I feel they will be embarking upon a coarse of conduct which they will bitterly regret when they find what the results are.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I found some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, very interesting. I do not think it is easy to decide what is the best way of selling this undertaking. I was a little surprised at the conclusion which the noble Lord reached, because I understood the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to say that we should entrust the whole of this to the Commission and that it is quite wrong to cumber up or embarrass the Commission by having anybody to supervise or look after them. Then the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, said, if I remember aright, that we should put the Commission in a very difficult position if we asked them to carry on part of the organisation and at the same time to act as liquidator for part of the business.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMEESTON: I could not have made myself clear.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is probably my fault.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I think the Commission should be in charge of the disposals while they are in control of the operation of the business; but it is wrong to impose another body on a board of directors, or upon the Commission, when they are responsible for the undertaking.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then the two noble Lords are more at one than I thought they were.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Entirely at one.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No doubt they will be at one in the Lobby, if not precisely on the same road till they get there. The noble Lord then said that we ought to learn by the mistakes made after the First World War, when a disposal board of this kind did not make a very good job of disposing of surpluses. Of course, he has really missed the point, because the Disposal Board here has not the job of disposing. That is left with the Commission, because the units have to be formed, as I understand it, by the Commission. They will, of course, be in close touch with the Disposal Board. They will not be on a "Dear Sir or Madam" basis; they will be in the position which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he mellows during the afternoon, will reach, in which the contact is slightly more intimate.
1066
The primary job of disposal will rest with the Commission, who are the people who have to go on conducting the business. That is different, I admit, from what is done in another Bill. We shall have to consider whether the liquidating agency or the disposal agency is the Disposal Board. It does not always follow. I know that some people take the view that it has all to be planned on exactly the same lines, but I do not think so. In this rather different case I think that probably this duality is right. I do not think it will lead to delay. I do not think that if there is a reasonable attitude on both sides, it ought to lead to any friction. But I think it is necessary to have this Board.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Why?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am going to tell the noble Lord, if I may. My own idea, when I first came to this subject, was that I rather liked the analogy of the Steel Bill, and that I was inclined to put the disposal into the hands of what I may call the board of liquidators. I think I was wrong, because I agree that so much is known by the Commission about the business and about the vehicles, that probably—in fact I might say almost certainly—provided their heart is in it, they are the best people to split it up.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Then why not let them do it?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Last time I was told that I was discourteous because I did not give any explanation. I have tried in two speeches to give the best explanation I can, and I cannot do more than that. Now I am interrupted and told to explain.
LORD WILMOT of SELMESTON: Encouraged.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: All right. I will tell the noble Lord exactly why. If the Commission did not have this Board to help them and to supervise, I believe that they would be placed politically in an impossible position. All sorts of people would say, no doubt quite unjustly, "Of course, they do not want to carry this out; they want to keep in business. The last thing in the world they really want to do is to part with the undertaking." People could say: "But look at the

1067
speeches the Opposition have made: the whole object of their Amendments is to make this business as slow as possible, and to prevent the Bill proceeding in action." I do not complain about that. That may be the function of an Opposition, but I think it would put the Commission in an impossible position. All sorts of people would be saying all the time, "Well, the Commission are not doing the work properly, and I do not think they are trying to do it. I believe that they have an arrière pensée in this in order to try to stop the thing working."
I am not saying for a moment that that is the attitude of the Commission. I believe the Commission will do their best to carry this out, but I am quite sure that they will carry it out much more effectively, and be in a much happier position, if they have these people to supervise and with whom, subject to the Minister, if there is a difference of opinion, the final word rests. It is for those reasons, which I put to the House perfectly sincerely, that I have come to the conclusion—having started rather against it—that this procedure, which is unusual. I admit, is, in the peculiar circumstances of this transaction the wisest and most practical we can devise.
LORD OGMORE: I think that explanation is about the thinnest explanation for the creation of a statutory Board that I have ever heard. However, the noble Viscount did clear up one point. There were those on these Benches who thought, from what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, that the Board would have the duty, which we believed was the duty of the Commission, of making up the lots—parcelling out the undertaking. The noble Earl certainly gave us that impression, whether he meant it or not. I am glad that the noble Viscount has now corrected any misunderstanding there might be and to know that it is the duty of the Commission to parcel the lots, while the Board has this nebulous task of seeing that the Commission does what it has to do as a statutory authority under the Bill.
It seems to me an odd suggestion that there should be a Board to see that the Commission does its work. I should have thought that was casting a slur on
1068
the Commission. If anybody is needed, why does not the Minister see that the Commission does its work? Why have a Minister? Why have a Ministry? What is the function of a Minister and a Ministry? This is only one example of a very common feature in our life, and one which I believe is a bad feature—that Ministers' advisers tend to give Ministers advice to have some sort of insulator between themselves and public criticism. I believe that the Minister should be held responsible in either House of Parliament for what he does. I do not think that he or his Ministry should get away with it by having some other Board upon whom any blame can be cast. The Minister can say, "I have this Board and I have accepted their advice," and he can hope to get away with it. I think it is bad. It is against all Parliamentary tradition that a Minister should be able to get away with his proper responsibility by casting the blame or credit, whatever it may be, upon a Board.
And what is the Board? The Board consists of a Chairman appointed by the Minister, and a Deputy Chairman who may be, I take it, anybody he pleases. Then there is one member to be appointed from persons nominated by the Commission; one after consultation with the representatives of trade and industry; one by holders of "A" and "B" licences, and one by holders of "C"licences—a very pleasant party altogether. There is no one, so far as I can see, representative of the consumers, of the public, at all. They seem all to be people nominated by those who have a vested interest: and a very pleasant little party it will be, sitting down together, considering how they can interfere with the Commission. I suggest that the only way they will interfere with the Commission is on occasions when they should not interfere at all. And if the Commission should disagree with them the Commission have the right under Clause 3 (8) to go to the Minister. He is the final arbiter, and I entirely agree with my noble friend. Lord Wilmot, when he asks: "Why is he not the arbiter, if necessary, the whole way through?"
I suggest that the only real reason for having this Board, which is a sort of "nosey-parker" Board, without any real function, is to insulate the Minister from criticism and to relieve him from the duty

1069
of exercising publicly his proper functions and his real responsibility. That is the only reason. The case which the noble Viscount has put up is fragile in the extreme. If there were a good case, he would have put it. No one is better at putting a case than the noble Viscount, and it is an indication of how poor a case there is when such an accomplished Parliamentarian and experienced speaker as the noble Viscount is not able to present a better one than he has this afternoon.
LORD SILKIN: I must say that we have just heard from the noble Viscount a most remarkable administrative doctrine. Here is a Commission which is set up by the Minister himself. It consists, in the language of the 1947 Act, of
"a chairman and not less than four nor more than eight other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Minister from among persons appearing to him to be persons who have had wide experience and shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration or in the organisation of workers…"
In other words, the Minister has the duty imposed upon him of getting men for this Commission who have had the widest possible experience in general affairs as well as specialised experience in transport. Having got that Commission, having got the best men possible, noble Lords opposite now say that, when they are given a particular task to do, they cannot be trusted to carry out that task without being biased—as the noble Earl said—in favour of the existing state of affairs. Therefore another Commission has to be set up, again by the Minister, consisting, roughly, of the same kind of people, and it has to approve what the first Commission does.
I would say, first, to the noble Viscount, that if he thinks that the Disposal Board can really prevent the Commission from going slow, if they want to, or from not putting their whole heart into the thing, if they so desire, then he is mistaken. If that is what he wants to avoid, these are quite the wrong mechanics for doing it. On the contrary, if the Commission are so minded, they can take advantage of this machinery to hold up the disposal in a manner which is far beyond what the Minister desires. Disputes could arise on every single matter. Every one of those disputes would have to go to the Minister to be settled. The
1070
Commission could, if they wished to, have interminable arguments about the whole thing, and they could, if they were irresponsible people, frustrate the intentions of the Government. I do not believe for a single moment, that the Disposal Board would be in any way a check on that happening. On the contrary, the Disposal Board would be a help to them in that object, if they so desired.
If it be the fact that it is desired, either for good reasons or for political reasons, to ensure that nobody may throw a stone at the Commission, and that they will carry out their task in a responsible way, surely some other method could have been devised. I quite understand the method of setting up an independent body with full powers to carry out the disposal. That would be understandable although, as the noble Viscount himself said, the advantage of the great intimate knowledge which the Commission have about the undertaking would be lost, and this independent body would, in any case, have to rely, to a great extent, on the knowledge and experience of the Commission. That would be an understandable and intelligible point of view. What I do not understand is this idea of having one body set up by the Minister as a watchdog over another body set up by the Minister.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The watchdog is in the interests of other people; it is not a watchdog on the Commission.
LORD SILKIN: If you like, it is a watchdog. I was not saying on whose behalf the dog was watching.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord said it was on behalf of the Minister.
LORD SILKIN: I did not necessarily mean, "on behalf of the Minister." I do not know. The noble Earl did not say on whose behalf this dog was going to watch. I think the assumption was that the Commission would be biased in favour of the Commission.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Certainly the Commission would be biased in favour of the Commission; I am sure it would.
LORD SILKIN: Does that mean, in actual practice, that they would not want to get the best possible price? On the

1071
contrary, surely in the interests of the Commission they want to get the best possible price. Does it mean that they would be biased in favour of delaying the sale? Once they know that a sale is inevitable, why should they want to delay it? I cannot understand this need for a watchdog. I cannot understand what the noble Earl or what the Government are afraid of. What is to be the function of the watchdog? It is obviously not going to be there in the interests of the Minister. In whose interests is this Disposal Board to be? Is it in the interests of the purchaser? I just fail to understand what is the task of the Disposal Board and in whose interests it is to act. I should have thought that the interest of the Commission was to do the job thoroughly; that it was in their own interests to make the best possible show. They have every inducement to get the best possible price and not to show a loss. They have every inducement to do it as quickly as possible and they have every inducement to dispose of these assets in a manner which is calculated to serve the public interest best. Therefore, I remain entirely unconvinced about the need of the Disposal Board.
The noble Viscount did in this case hold out a ray of hope. It was not a very bright light; it was rather dim; but it was a ray of hope. Apparently this is not a matter upon which Her Majesty's Government want to be dogmatic. I take it that what they are concerned with is to get the most satisfactory disposal possible, and this is merely one of the means by which it is to be done. If it can be shown that this is not the best means, I take it they would be prepared to reconsider the matter. I think the criticism which has been directed against this method from this side of the House is conclusive that this is not the best way, but that, on the contrary, it will lead to friction. In so far as the Disposal Board act as the watchdogs, as the noble Earl expects them to, they are, according to him, bound to disagree constantly with the Commission. It will lead not to speedy and efficient disposal but to delays, doubts and constant references to the Minister for decision. In those circumstances, I hope that noble Lords opposite will be prepared to reconsider this method of disposal.
3.59 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I have listened with great care to what has been said by the noble Earl and by the noble Viscount. The noble Earl, it seemed to me—I trust I am not misrepresenting him—advanced two arguments which he regarded as powerful arguments in favour of the Disposal Board. I shall have to re-read those arguments before I can give an opinion upon them, but I do find some difficulty in relating those arguments to anything which appears in the Bill regarding the duties of the Disposal Board. It seems to me a very strange thing indeed that a speech made in defence of the Bill puts forward as an argument two strong duties that the Board has to perform, but it has not been thought worth while, apparently, to mention those duties in the Bill.
As regards what was said by the noble Viscount, the point which remains in my mind is that he said that the Disposal Board would not be able to dispose of anything. In that case it seems to me a very strange name to give the Board. You call it a disposal board and say that it must not dispose of anything. The Board will be very much like the little girl who wanted to go for a swim and was told by her mother to hang her clothes on a hickory limb but not go near the water. But if the Disposal Board may not dispose of anything, there is something which it can do: it can prevent the Commission from disposing of anything. If you introduce into your machinery a Board which can dispose of nothing but can effectively prevent anybody else from disposing of something, I cannot help feeling that that constitutes a very strong argument that the Board is unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, speaking from commercial experience, made a very strong case indeed, showing beyond doubt that this Board is superfluous and has no effective duty to perform. I notice one thing about the Board and those who will serve on it: they are to draw their remuneration. I have always been averse to spending money upon providing a fifth wheel for a coach. As we shall have a Commission and a Minister, I cannot regard the Disposal Board as anything but a fifth wheel to the coach and, as such, a waste of public money.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I first say something in reply to the

1073
noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who twitted me for saying that the Minister was actuated primarily by a political motive. I hope he will not be twitting me all the way through the Bill, because on many occasions I shall say exactly the same thing. My noble Leader has said that we recognise that the Minister has a mandate in this matter, and we have no complaint to make on that score. What we object to is the method adopted. We do not object to the Minister having a political motive. The noble Earl said that the Disposal Board is wanted in order to watch the Commission. But who watches the Disposal Board? Do we want a watcher to watch the watcher? I suppose the noble Earl will say that the Minister watches the Disposal Board. Why cannot the Minister watch the Commission? The Minister has numerous experienced advisers at the Ministry of Transport. Why cannot they advise the Minister? The noble Viscount, in a burst of characteristic honesty, really made my case for me. He said that if the whole thing is left to the Commission they may be accused of not trying. Suppose the Board accuse the Commission of not trying. What can the Board do about it? They can do nothing whatever. If the Board come to the conclusion that the Commission is not trying to get rid of these assets, "as quickly as is reasonably practicable," the only thing they can do is to go to the Minister who can say to the Commission," "You are not getting on with the job quickly enough. "What else can the Minister do? He does not need a Board to advise him. The officials of the Ministry can advise him if they think the scheme is going too slowly.
Then the noble Viscount said something to the effect that the Commission could be attacked politically. It is not the Commission that can be attacked politically, it is the Minister. The Minister has a mandate to sell these assets to the road haulage folk. That was an Election pledge, about which I have no complaint. If they go to the Minister and say, "We are not getting this done quickly enough; you will be out of office before we get these vehicles," the Minister can say" I have a Board, but they do not seem to be doing much about it."
1074
What complaint can the Board make? Surely, they can never complain that the Commission are asking too low a figure for their assets. They can only go to the Minister and say, "We think the Commission are asking too high a figure." I do not want to discuss this matter at the present time, because I shall have a lot to say about it later. But that is one of the evils of the bottomless purse. If the Board want to get rid of these assets quickly, it is not in their interests to wait for the best possible price.
I say, quite frankly, that I and my noble friends who have supported me have proved conclusively that there is nothing this Board can do in the whole scheme of disposal, except to delay. As one of my noble friends said, the Commission can delay by going to the Board and making the Board go to the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said, why have a fifth wheel to the coach? It is a fifth wheel, and one with the brake permanently on. I ask the Government to agree to this Amendment. If they will not, I shall have to ask the Committee to indicate their opinion in the Lobby.
LORD GIFFORD:May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, one question? If he were going to dispose of a part of one of his businesses would he not appoint expert advisers to draw up a scheme of sale, so that he could get on with the running of the remainder of his business, and leaving himself untrammelled? Surely that is what the Disposal Board will do.
EARL. JOWITT: No. That is what we want.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Again a noble Lord has made my case. If I were disposing of a business I should go to my own accountants and my own lawyers. I should certainly not appoint an independent body, composed of the people to whom I hope to sell my business, to tell me the price at which I must sell it.
LORD TEYNHAM: Surely the reason for the appointment of a Disposal Board is to provide a much broader based committee of expert men to go into the question of disposal? A little later on the noble Lord has down an Amendment

1075
to increase the membership of the Board from six to ten. Surely that is the real reason.
LORD SILKIN: Does not the noble Lord realise that the constitution of the Disposal Board is very much the same as that of the Commission? Let him have a look at the constitution here and that under Section 1 of the Transport Act, 1947. The noble Lord will find that it includes the same type of people.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "six" and insert "ten." The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that in the discussion on the last Amendment the question of the composition of the Disposal Board was mentioned, and this Amendment, as is quite clear, is intended to introduce an element of independent, unbiased, expert opinion. It might perhaps be better if this Amendment and the next were taken together. The first Amendment seeks to increase the size of the Board in order to allow the appointment of
LORD TEYNHAM: I would say that this basis is rather broader than that in the 1947 Act.
LORD SILKIN: Except for two interested parties—the representatives of "A" and "B" licence holders, and those of the "C" licence holders.
On Question, Whether the Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Jowitt, E.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Pakenham, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Elibank, V.

Hungarton, L.

Rea, L.

Hall, V.

Kenswood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Kershaw, L.

Silkin, L.

Lawson, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Amwell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Winster, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.) [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Wise, L

Noel-Buxton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Falmouth, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Furness, V.

Gifford, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Goschen, V

Hawke, L.

Long, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Swinton, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Templewood, V.

Leconfield, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Aberdare, L

Mancroft, L.

Howe, E.

Baden-Powell, L

Remnant, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L

Saltoun, L.

Munster, E.

Burnham, L.

Sandford, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L

Savile, L.

Radnor, E.

Cherwell, L.

Teynham, L.

Rothes, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Waleran, L

Selkirk, E

Dormer, L.

Wolverton, L.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

members after consultation with an entirely impartial and expert body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants. It can hardly be held that there can be any better body to nominate experts for this purpose. The other two members it is proposed to add to the Commission are members who have not and have not had any direct or indirect interest in road transport since its nationalisation. I think the purposes of this Amendment are sufficiently obvious and the need for such a strengthening of the Disposal Board seems to me to require no further argument. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("six") and insert ("ten").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I congratulate the noble Earl on the clarity and brevity with which he moved this Amendment. I am not surprised that Lord Lucas preferred to have somebody else to move it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: want to apologise. The doors were locked. We could not get in.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry that the noble Lord was disposed of in that manner. This really is a very odd Amendment for him to father, because he spent considerable time, not an excessive amount of time, on the last Amendment, on which he divided the House, in telling us how iniquitous it was to have this Board at all and how useless and indeed mischievous it was that we had got it. Now he comes along to move an Amendment to increase its members from six to ten. I should have thought that was a little illogical. Whatever may be said about it this Board must not be too large; six is a very good number. So far as independence goes—and its composition has been carefully calculated—the chairman and the deputy chairman will be completely independent. The consumers, if I may so describe them, will have one member appointed to represent trade and industry, and another member to represent persons holding "A" and "B" licences. The "A," "B" and "C" licence-holders will all be interested in seeing that these things are sold at the highest possible prices, because the higher the prices at which the units are sold the lower will be the amount of the levy which "A," "B" and "C" licence-holders will have to pay. Of course it will—I do not know why the noble Lord opposite should think it so laughable. I am accustomed to the noble Lord being thoroughly illogical, but he surely can follow that if you get a high price there is a low levy, whereas a lower price means a higher levy. If you have "A," "B" and "C" licence-holders sitting on the Board, all of whom will have to pay levy, obviously they will be interested in getting high prices. I should have thought that that was not only logical but common sense.
Moreover, it really is not necessary to have an accountant on this job. It may be that there will be someone who will have accountancy experience, but it is not an accountant's job, because as the noble Lord has said, the bulk of the business
1078
rests with the Commission; and what this body has to decide, among other things, is whether, on the whole, the tender price which is offered for one of these units is reasonable. For these reasons, I think we shall be well-advised if, having decided to maintain this Board, which the noble Lord wanted to destroy entirely, we leave it at six members, and leave the very carefully balanced constitution which is given to it by the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: First of all, I wish to apologise to the Committee for not being in my place to move this Amendment. The reason for my absence was that we could not get in to the Chamber because the doors were locked. Perhaps I might suggest that in future the doors should not be locked, and then the noble Viscount will not be able to accuse me of being illogical—because I am not. The reason I support the Amendment—which I am grateful to my noble friend for moving—is that up to the present moment, whatever may be done at another stage of the Bill, the Committee have decided that there shall be a Disposal Board, and I now want to make it as good a Disposal Board as I can. If that is illogical to the noble Viscount, it is not illogical to me or, I imagine, to a great many other noble Lords. After all, when we lose we do not just take our bats home, and say that we will not play. We, on this side of the Chamber, have a sense of public responsibility, and now, as the decision has been taken to have a totally illogical body, in the form of the Disposal Board, we propose to try to make it as good a body as we can. The noble Viscount has told us that the chairman and deputy chairman will be independent. There is nothing in the Bill which says that. May we take it that that is a pronouncement of the Minister's policy? May we take it that the chairman of the Board and the deputy chairman will have no connection with road transport at all; will not be connected with any industrial firm which is likely to be a buyer or an operator of any road transport, because that is what they will have to be if they are to be independent?
The noble Viscount says that other members will represent the consumers. I would suggest that they represent the buyers; I think "buyers" would be a

1079
better term than "consumers." Then the noble Viscount went on to twit me for laughing. He said that of course it is in the interests of the "A" and "B" licence-holders to see that as high a price as possible is charged for these vehicles, because the higher the price the lower will be the levy. Really, that was far too much for my sense of humour. Your Lordships might be interested to know that, as the Bill stands at the present moment, the levy to be paid on a 2–3-ton vehicle is £4 14s. 6d.; on a 5-ton vehicle it is £6 15s. 0d., and on a 10-ton vehicle it is £14 17s. 6d. So, if there is no addition to the levy and the prices realised are as anticipated, that is the amount that will have to be paid per annum in levy. I want to ask the noble Viscount this. If he were an "A" licence holder, and in the market to buy one of these vehicles—let us say that they will average in value £1,000—which would he rather do: have a suppressed price of £100 to £200 less than the £1,000, or have a higher price, a market price, and pay anything from £4 10s. 0d. in levy? That shows why I laughed. And I think there was good cause for my amusement.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord left out the "C" licence holder.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am assuming that the noble Lord is an "A" licence holder.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I said "A," "B" and "C."
LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH: It is exactly the same. The joke is just as good whether you have it "A," "B" or "C" or "A," "B" and "C." We shall have an Amendment to this Bill later on which introduces the company structure. I do not deal with that matter now, because in doing so I should perhaps be transgressing the rules of order; but I would say just this. We on this side of the House wholly welcome the company structure, having regard to the difficulties of this Bill—and there are difficulties. The intricate nature of the Amendment is well illustrated by its size. Surely there is a call for some professional people to be upon the Disposal Board. As we go on, we shall see that the Disposal Board has to decide matters which would test any accountant with the best and most extensive accounting ex-
1080
perience. I do not know whether all noble Lords present have read the new clause which it is proposed to insert after Clause 4, but it is the most intricate clause I have ever known. I make no complaint about that; the very nature of the operation makes it intricate. The Disposal Board, if it remains in the Bill, will have to deal with all matters connected with the transfer of assets from the Commission to those companies, and, what is more important, with the sale of those companies to the public, the formation of those companies and matters pertaining to their operation. The chairman and the deputy-chairman, as the noble Viscount tells us, are to be independent; all the other members of this Disposal Board, with the exception of the nominee of the British Transport Commission, are to be representatives of vested interests. It is no good saying they are not. I do not know where you will find a representative of trade and industry who is not connected with some concern that runs transport—and then there are the "A," "B" and "C" licensees. I think the noble Viscount is sincere, because he made an important admission in his speech on the last Amendment. He said that he was against this Board, to start with.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: On the contrary, I started with the idea that I thought the Disposal Board, and not the Commission, were the body which ought to dispose of these assets.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon; I misunderstood him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: But I was equally sincere, all the same.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount is always sincere. If we want this body to operate, if we do not want it just as a smoke-screen, as a feather bed—perhaps I ought not to use that expression—as a mattress between the Commission and the Minister, surely there can be nothing against having some accounting experience and some independent views represented on it. I am not tied to any number, whether four or three. Nor do I mind whether this professional experience and advice on the Board is additional to, or in substitution for, the members already provided for. But surely we must do something to allay

1081
the fears of the public that this body is packed with buyers' interests. I should have thought that would have been only too evident.
The Government can lose nothing and gain every thing by accepting this Amendment. The noble Viscount has not given us one objection to doing this. Surely their opposition cannot be due entirely to stubbornness, as my noble friend Lord Ogmore suggested. Surely there must be something that emanates from this side which is worthy of being included in this Bill. Perhaps we shall find out—or perhaps it is too early to make such a complaint. I appeal to noble Lords on both sides of the House who have experience of accounting. I am not going to mention names, but I see one noble Lord on the Government side who is an eminent chartered accountant. I wonder what he thinks of this great operation of disposing of something like £100 million worth of assets, the value of which we want to see coming back in the interests of the taxpayer. What can there be against having some accounting experience on this Board, men who know the drill and the law, because company law is jealous of the responsibilities it places upon companies. Is there anything except the disinclination of the Government to accept any suggestion from the Opposition, because in logic there is no answer to this Amendment? I hope for a slightly more favourable answer from the Government than we have had.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the Disposal Board wants the best accounting device that could be got—there can be no dispute about that But I do not think the noble Lord's case was as cast iron as he made it out to be. He said that the proper way is to have a chartered accountant on the Board itself. There are two ways of looking at this matter. My own view, for what it is worth, is that when a board of directors—in this case, the Disposal Board—want expert advice from lawyers, accountants or surveyors, they should be entirely free to get the advice they want according to the circumstances of the case. As I see it, the Board may or may not include someone with legal qualifications or the qualifications of a chartered accountant, but the business of the Board is to sit as a Board, and when they want expert advice they should be
1082
entirely free and unfettered in regard to where they get it.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, were it not for the fact that the very existence of the Board is out of harmony with normal commercial practice. As it is, it arouses in the minds of many people, including many who have no political connection with those on this side of the House, suspicion of the motives for having the Board at all. Had the duty of carrying out the purposes of the Bill been put in the proper place, upon the responsible Commission, then, of course, they would have employed the appropriate expert advisers to assist them in carrying out their important public task. That would have been the ordinary, proper and understood way of doing this important piece of public business. But the Government, for reasons which they have not made clear, have chosen to impose this highly peculiar and, to many people, questionable method. They do not allow the Commission to proceed with their work, advised by the normal professional advisers; they impose upon them a politically appointed Board and set down in the Bill some of the qualifications which will be required of members of that Board.
It looks very much—though I hope it will not turn out to be so—as if it were the intention of the Government to protect the interests of the would-be buyers of these vehicles. The only people who are specified distinctly in the list are the representatives of the "A" and "B" licence holders—not the "C" licence holders, and it is the "A" and "B" licence holders who, in the main, will normally constitute the potential buyers of what the Board have to sell. To me it is an unreasonable proposal that, whoever else sits on this Disposal Board, it should be specified that representatives of the buyers must be represented. The only class of licence holders who are left out are the licence holders who are less likely to buy the vehicles. Is it to be wondered at that everybody regards this as a rather silly sort of proceeding. The Government are inventing an entirely new sort of arrangement whereby the responsible body are divested of the duty of disposing of their assets and then the Government pack this imposed body with representatives of the buyers.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD: I see that one member is to be appointed
"after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding "C" licences.…"
The noble Lord has said that only "A" and "B" lience holders are represented.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for pointing out that I have made a mistake, and I apologise for it. I ought to have known that it was not only the "A" and "B" licence holders. However, the point I am making is still there. Neither the "A" and "B" licence holders nor the "C" licence holders should be specifically represented. The point is just as strong. It now seems that all the potential buyers, whether they are likely or only less likely to be buyers, are to be represented on the Board.
LORD GIFFORD: So are the sellers, the Commission.
LORD WILMOT or SELMESTON: Yes, so are the sellers. But it is a most unusual procedure to specify that there must be a heavy representation of buyers, and unless the composition of this Board is altered it may easily turn out that a majority of persons sitting on this Disposal Board will, directly or indirectly, have an interest as purchasers in what is to be sold. I would, therefore, beg the Government, again with no political motive, to consider their good name in the conduct of public affairs, and not only see that the proper thing is done, in fact, but so to amend these clauses that everybody can see that the proper thing is going to be done.
LORD TEYNHAM: The noble Lord said that the object of the Government was to protect the interests of would-be buyers of vehicles. I wonder whether the noble Lord has overlooked Clause 2 (7). If he looks at that, he will see it says:
"A member of the Board who is in any way directly or indirectly interested…shall disclose the nature of his interest…and the member shall not take part in any deliberation or decision of the Board with respect to that transaction."
There is perfectly good cover in that respect.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am much indebted to the noble Lord, but that had not escaped my notice. The meaning of that subsection must be very
1084
limited if by "a member…indirectly interested" it means one who is not concerned with the industry. In that case, neither the "A" nor the "B" licence representatives would be able to sit on the Board. It cannot mean that. It can only mean, in the narrowest sense, that the person is not interested in his own personal capacity in the actual transaction before the Board at that particular time. That, of course, is a quite proper and normal requirement, and we are happy to believe that, in any case, no such improprieties would take place in a personal sense. What we object to is that, by definition, some members of this Board are members or representatives of the industry which will be the buyers of the vehicles. This is a closely knit industry, with a good organisation, and, in my view in the broadest public sense, it is impossible for a person who is an "A" or "B" licence holder engaged in the industry to be considered entirely independent in mind as to what is the proper price at which these things should be sold. That is why I urge the Government either to accept the Amendments, or to find some better method of ensuring that this Board will be a Board to guard the public interest, and proceed with the utmost commercial probity, and not be tainted with the taint now upon it that it is guardian of the interests of the buyers.
LORD HAWKE: The functions of this body, so far as I can read them, are to approve the type of tender the Commission send out, and then to give advice in the end that the price is a reasonable one. Obviously the body to do that must contain people with some cognisance of the industry. At the same time, I can see certain force in the noble Lord's argument. I should not approve of the noble Lord's Amendment to put on two chartered accountants.
EARL JOWITT: There seems to be some misapprehension here. The Amendment does not say "two chartered accountants" but simply that two persons shall be appointed after discussion with the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. They need not necessarily be accountants at all.
LORD HAWKE: I agree. But I think the fair inference is that, when you go to the President of the Institute of

1085
Chartered Accountants, you will get the names of two chartered accountants. I am all in favour of chartered accountants, but their proper place is as expert advisers to the Board, and not, by and large, on the Board. That is not a popular view these days, but I believe it to be a right one. But when the noble Lord comes to the question of independence, I wonder if my noble friend, between now and the Report stage, would consider whether it is possible to put in some safeguard that the Chairman, and possibly the Deputy Chairman, should be entirely independent of road haulage. I do not think that would detract from the Bill in any way, and it would evidently give certain reassurances to the noble Lords opposite on a point where I believe they have some case.
LORD SILKIN: Both the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord who has just spoken, have taken the point that if you want technical advice the best thing is for the technician to be appointed by the Board and not to be a member of the Board. As a piece of administration, I feel that that is quite sound. If the Board wanted occasional advice—provided it was occasional, and not an inherent part of the job—then I think noble Lords would be right. There are many occasions where financial considerations arise in connection with a body where it would be quite proper to consult a financier or an accountant, but it would not be right to appoint a financier or accountant to the Board. However, I would ask the noble Viscount to consider this particular case, where the very essence of the functions of the Board is financial. They are dealing with companies, with the sale of shares, with tenders and tender prices: the whole business of the Disposal Board is finance. Just as it is essential to have somebody on the Board who knows about the trade or industry of transport, so, I should have thought, was it equally essential to have somebody familiar with dealing in shares and finance, and who was accustomed to disposals of things of that kind. After all, it is not an unheard of thing for a company to appoint a chartered accountant as a director, or even as chairman. Here, where you are dealing with disposals, and the kind of job which a liquidator would do, and which is
1086
essentially a financial job, it seems to me so reasonable that I cannot understand why the Government are being difficult about it. I am sure, that it is not that they object to accountants as such.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that it is probable—but not a certainty—that either one or both of the persons suggested by the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants would be a chartered accountant. But it would still be for the Minister to decide, and if he thought that the President was merely making a job for a member of his trade union he could very well say to the President that the man would not do. The Amendment suggests that there should be consultation with, not nomination or appointment by, the President. The Minister merely has to consult the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in order to get two people who are experienced in this kind of business put on to the Board, and he has the last word. I feel that if the Government do not accept this Amendment it can be due only to sheer obstinacy.
LORD OGMORE: I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, because I think he, at least, is here with an open mind, and he will be prepared to consider the arguments—and that is a matter of great consolation to us. We were beginning to think that no noble Lord opposite had an open mind, and that they were only sitting here between Divisions. It is, as I say, of considerable interest and a great consolation to us to know that there is one noble Lord opposite with an open mind. But, looking at the faces of noble Lords opposite, I am certain that more than one of them are very dubious about this proposal. And not only on the Back Benches; I have seen a ray of light on the Front Benches as well. I am sure that several of them think that we have something in this Amendment, because although the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, charged my noble friend Lord Lucas with inconsistency, in fact he is not inconsistent at all. My noble friend, and we who support him, did not like this Board, and we said so. But as the House has agreed to a Board, we now say that we want that Board made as independent as it can be. That is the object of the Amendment—to make it

1087
independent. Why not follow the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and make all the members independent?
LORD HAWKE: I am not sure whether the noble Lord is misinterpreting me. I said that it was absolutely essential in this Board to have people in the business to advise on this matter of what is the correct price and what form of tender to put out. My only suggestion was that the Government should examine the question of having an independent chairman.
LORD OGMORE: I am not sure that the noble Lord is not being a little inconsistent here.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD OGMORE: Wait a minute. Let me continue this, or I shall withdraw what I said about an open mind. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, attacked my noble friend for having chartered accountants, or suggesting that the President of the Chartered Accountants' Institution should nominate two representatives, because he did not want anyone with a technical knowledge on the Board. He said, "If you want advice, go and pay for it and get it outside. You want broad-minded people on the Board, men with no direct technical or financial qualifications." I agree with the noble Lord, so let us have on the Board only people who have no technical qualifications, independent people who can, after all, assess as well as anybody else whether the price is right. I take it that advice, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, so rightly says, can be obtained on these technical matters from outside. On his own argument, I suggest that he has proved that the chairman and deputy chairman should be independent, and that we should have no one there who has any association at all with the Road Haulage Association.
I am fortified in this belief because I have looked through the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, who made the Government's case on Second Reading, and the only reference to this body which the noble Lord made, after having mentioned it in the beginning, was this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 586):
"…we propose…to include permissive powers in the Bill which will enable the Commission to assemble ready for sale some
1088
of the Road Haulage Executive assets in the form of companies. The extent to which these powers will be exercised will be dependent upon the consent of the Disposal Board, and in my judgment their actual use will vary from area to area"—
and these are the important words—
"according to the desires and interests of prospective purchasers."
I think those words are very ominous indeed. Here is the Government statement on Second Reading, which says that the powers will vary from area to area, according to the desires and interests of the prospective purchasers. That is an odd way to go into a sale. That is an odd mandate to give to the Commission: in every area you are to consider what are the interests and what are the desires—the desire is to get the thing cheaply, of course—of the road hauliers of that area; and you are to act in accordance therewith. Then, in order to make this mandatory position quite clear, you put the interested parties on the Board and you have one member of the Commission there who can be outvoted.
I would ask any noble Lord whose mind is the slightest bit ajar whether our proposal is not a sound one. The proposed members are all independent; they are all able to get such financial and technical advice as they need, and I suggest that that is the reasonable solution to the proposal of the Government, they being adamant on having a Board. Therefore, we suggest that the proposals we have made are those which will make the Board independent and not merely the nominee, or possibly the agent, of those who are interested parties in buying the assets.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has unwittingly misrepresented me, so I will just correct him. He has mixed up knowledge of a business and technology. The chartered accountant is a technologist, and I do not want him on the Board. I do not want the mechanic on the Board, but I do want somebody who knows about road haulage.
4.55 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: I hope that we can find some common ground on which we can meet here. It is not a point of the first substance, and I do not think my noble friend will think it worth while to divide on this Amendment. But I do suggest that here is a matter on which we ought to be able to agree. What

1089
is the position? We are going to have these vehicles sold: there is no doubt about that. The Commission remain responsible for the sale: there is no doubt about that. Owing to that unfortunate first clause, they have to sell them as speedily as possible. But we all agree that, although they have to sell them speedily, they must sell them at the best price they can. That is obviously right in the interests of the taxpayer. We have, as we think wrongly—but the Committee have decided otherwise—a Disposal Board. What is the function of the Disposal Board? It seems to me that it is going to be a kind of "ginger" group, if you like, to "ginger up" the Commission; or to help them to dispose of their property. One of their functions is set out in subsection (7) of Clause 3, where it says that the Commission
"In performing their duties"—
that is the disposal—
"…shall consult the Board and act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Board, and no invitation to tender for a transport unit shall be issued by the Commission without the approval of the Board and no tender for any transport unit shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board…"
Then, if there is friction between the Board and the Commission, the Minister has to resolve the problem.
Being all agreed that you have to get the best price possible, let us see what the constitution of this Board is. I do most humbly suggest to your Lordships that beyond all question the Board proposed under the Bill is unsatisfactory. Who is going to buy these vehicles which the Commission are going to sell? Obviously, traders who engage in transport, who will be in part, I suppose, "A" and "B" licence holders, it part "C" licence holders, and in part people engaged in trade and industry who perhaps contemplate entering the transport business for the first time. The constitution of the Board—there are to be, I think, six members—is set out in the Bill, which states who three of the members are to be. One must be a representative of trade and industry; another must be a representative of the "A" and "B" licence holders, and another must be a representative of the "C" licence holders. I maintain, as a matter of general 1090
principle, that that is absolutely unsound, absolutely wrong, and is not the way to deal with the taxpayers' property so as to get the best financial result. What is needed are some able business men who have no direct interest—which is the class to which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham referred—or potential interest. It is surely wrong to specify that on this Board there must be persons representing a potential buyer.
Whether you do it as we have tried to do it, by putting on the Board persons appointed after consultation with the President of the Chartered Accountants, or how you will, the point we want to establish is that this Board should be an absolutely independent Board. It should not be a Board which is set up partially or primarily to represent the purchasers—it should not be drawn from that source at all. Get as good a Board as you can, thoroughly competent people; but do not let them have any actual or potential interest in seeing that these things are disposed of at too low a price. That is all we ask. I am not wedded to these particular words, or concerned about whether the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants is the right man to do this job. But I say, give us an impartial Board, an absolutely impartial Board: not a Board of whom one-third of the members are designated by, and represent, potential buyers. There is a great principle at stake behind this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble and learned Earl whence he gets the proportion of one-third of potential buyers? I should have thought that the only conceivable potential buyer was the "A" or "B" licence holder. The Board have a deputy chairman who is wholly independent. I feel that it is rather remote from reality to say that the "C" licence holder is a potential buyer. We feel that when this Bill goes through there will be fewer people with "C" licences, because they will be able to get a good transport service provided.
EARL JOWITT: I got my proportion of one-third in this way. There are to be six members of the Board; one of the six is to be appointed from "A" and "B" licence holders, and one from "C" licence holders. So you get two out of six who, it seems to me, represent the potential buyer. I do not care whether you

1091
take the proportion as one-third. Take it as one-sixth, if you will. The principle is the same. I maintain that it is absolutely wrong, when you have a Disposal Board which is concerned with the disposal of Government property in the interests of the taxpayer, to have on it a proportion, whether it be one-third, or one-sixth, or one-sixtieth, of persons who represent the class of potential buyers. Let the entire Board be absolutely independent. If, as a matter of chance, it were decided, after full consideration, to appoint a man who held an "A" or "B" licence, that would be all right. But to stipulate in the Bill that one man must be a representative of "A" or "B" licence holders is another matter. This principle I am enunciating is, I believe, an absolutely right one. I believe firmly that it is important that we should be careful to see that we get the best members we can. It is essential to dispose efficiently and quickly of the vehicles, and to do that the Board must bean absolutely impartial Board.
And not only must it be an impartial Board: it must be a Board which can be seen to be an impartial Board. That is a great principle. If, when the Minister comes in due course to select his Board, he appointed someone who happens to be an "A" or "B" licence holder, I, for one, certainly should not make a song and dance about it. But to stipulate in the Bill that such a man must be appointed is, as I say, another matter.
LORD SANDHURST: I should like to know where that is stipulated. Trade associations might nominate people, but they need have no interest in the actual business.
EARL JOWITT: We have just had an argument about chartered accountants. I ventured to point out that it did not necessarily follow that the man appointed would be a chartered accountant. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that it was very likely he would be. Praying in aid Lord Hawke, I say that in this case the man appointed almost certainly would be an "A" or "B" licence holder—and good luck to him! I say that to stipulate in a Bill in which you are setting up a Disposal Board that one person on it must be representing the potential buyer is an un-
1092
sound principle. It is true that this Board have to direct and control those who do the disposing; but this is a principle which all of us ought to resist. I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill again whether, between now and the next stage, he will follow up Lord Hawke's suggestion that this Board, right the way through, should be an independent Board, able, of course, to call in assistance on matters of technology or any other sort of matter, but, nevertheless, an independent Board. Let it not be a Board having on it a particular class of persons who are likely to be biased. That is the proposal we venture to make. I think that perhaps if only the noble Lord will consider the matter he will see that we are obviously right and that we really have a point here, and will feel that he and Her Majesty's Government ought to meet us. We shall not divide on this Amendment, but we hope that our observations will be considered, and that it will not be thought that, because we are not dividing, we are not strong in our views about this matter and that, if necessary, we shall not raise it again at a later stage.
LORD GIFFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has classified us as noble Lords with open minds and noble Lords with closed minds. Perhaps after he has heard me he will classify me as a noble Lord with a split mind. I want to say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made quite a good suggestion, to the effect that the chairman and deputy chairman shall be completely independent persons. I think that that is an eminently sensible suggestion which I heartily support.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I make an appeal? The noble Earl is, I think, under some misapprehension.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Is the noble Lord withdrawing his Amendment?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Earl would like to follow me, because he was, I think, under a misapprehension about which I should like to say a word. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent anyone from buying these vehicles. A "C" licence holder is quite at liberty to buy them and he can go into the business if he likes—in fact, it is specifically laid down in this Bill, in two or three places, that the offer must be wide enough to attract new entrants.

1093
A "C" licence holder can buy new vehicles and go into the haulage business, and he can also buy vehicles for carrying on his own business. I beg the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to understand what the Bill does contain. I know it is difficult: it is not very well drafted, although I am not blaming the draftsmen for that. There are plenty of similar places in the Bill to which we shall draw attention. I would appeal to the noble Viscount. He can see what the feeling is on both sides of the House. Can he not have consultations between now and the next stage with a view to coming to some amicable arrangement? We do not want to keep on dividing your Lordships' House. After all, as my noble friends have said, the steam roller is in the garage waiting to be started up—I hope that I am not being disrespectful in calling your Lordships' Library a garage. I have never heard a stronger argument than that which we have put up this afternoon. I ask the noble Viscount to let me withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that we shall have consultations.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Would the noble Viscount be good enough to explain what he meant by saying that "C" licence holders would not be potential buyers of these vehicles? The ordinary "C" licence holder, in the course of enlarging or replacing his stores, will look to these vehicle sales as a very likely place to go to for buying vehicles. Therefore the "C" licence holder is very likely to be a potential buyer.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree that the "C" licence holder could, but it is unlikely that he would. Otherwise one important element in the sale might misfire. We have had an extensive discussion, which I think is valuable. There is one point that I must emphasise. Although I thought he was proceeding under something of a misapprehension, the noble Lord went a little far. He certainly talked about "commercial probity." I think with great respect that is going a little far.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: "Probity" is all right.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The purpose of this Board, as I tried to say on the first clause when I mentioned it, is essentially twofold: in the first place, it is to set up units which are likely to be purchased in a form which will be convenient to the buyers; and secondly, it is to form a link with people who are likely to buy. It is part of the organisation to do that in order to keep the wheels turning properly. The object of the Bill is not, as was suggested, to "ginger up" the Board—that is not the purpose of it. It has also been suggested that it is to effect the sale as quickly as possible. The Bill does not say "sell as quickly as possible"; it does not say they are to "ginger up." The noble Lord, Lord Winster, asked how it was that I drew these deductions. It is perfectly clear and simple. These men are appointed from organisations and, clearly, are to use their knowledge of those organisations to assist the sale, to get the best price, by framing the transport units in the most saleable form. They are supposed to be men of sufficient experience to be able to help in this type of work. That is one side.
On the other side, the Board have the duty of seeing that the Commission carry out this reorganisaiton
"without avoidable disturbance of the transport system of the country."
It is those two purposes which this Board has to fulfil. We get to the stage eventually where this would be an entirely independent Board. We think that noble Lords have missed the point in saying that the Board may be a fifth wheel to the coach. We want on the Board men with real knowledge of the job, who are going to help the Commission to do its task. In that respect, the Board have a useful job of work to do. In regard to the chairman and deputy chairman, what the noble Lord said in regard to independence is perfectly correct. I think I can say without any hesitation that my right honourable friend's intention is that a man of high standing will be appointed to the chair. Either the chairman or the deputy chairman will have some experience in accounts which will be equal, I hope, to anything which is likely to arise. This is not primarily a financial task, however, although naturally there is a financial element to it. It is essentially in order

1095
to get the units into shape, to get them going, and to keep them going, that this Board is being formed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (11), to leave out from "Treasury" to the end of the subsection. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. We have now decided to have a Disposal Board and we have decided on its constitution. The question now is: Who is to pay for it? It is a Board which will be paid, as it will have staff. The proposal in the Bill is that the remuneration and any other expenses of the Board shall be defrayed out of the Transport Fund. We take strong exception to the payment for this Board being made out of the Transport Fund. As I understand the discussion which has taken place up to now, there are going to be three parties to the disposals: there will be the Commission itself, which will have the primary duty of disposing of the assets; there will be the Disposal Board, which will be the watchdog and keep an eye open; and there will be the Minister, who will act in case of dispute. It is not suggested that the expenses of the Commission, which will be considerably much more. I imagine, than the expenses of the Disposal Board, should be met out of the Fund. It is not proposed that the expenses of the Minister should be met out of the Transport Fund. I fail to see why you should isolate this one body of the Disposal Board and make their expenses payable out of the Fund. It is not the normal thing in public administration.
In the normal way, if a Minister, for his own purposes or for the purpose of the more effective discharge of his duties, sets up a board, the cost of that board is carried on his Vote. In other words, it is paid for by the Exchequer in the normal way. To make this particular Board a levy on the Transport Fund is unfair to the Fund and by increasing the amount of the levy will put an unfair burden on those who will be purchasing the vehicles. Moreover, one of the purposes of the Board will be to ensure that the best possible prices are realised. Again, it is unfair to those who are going to buy that they should have to carry, in addition, the costs of this Board.
1096
I put it broadly on the point that they are only one of three different organisations concerned with the disposal; that it is not proposed to charge the cost of the others on the Transport Fund and that, in logic and in equity, there is no justification for charging the expenses of the Disposal Board on the fund. For these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out from ("Treasury") to end of line 30.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): I am afraid that until the noble Lord moved this Amendment I was not quite clear as to its purpose. For one moment I thought it was linked with the second Amendment, to do away with the Disposal Board altogether, and that this was consequential. We now find that the purpose behind the Amendment is that the noble Lord thinks that the Treasury, and not the Transport Fund, should carry the cost of the Disposal Board. If we examine the matter, we find, first of all, that the main purpose of the Transport Fund is to compensate the Commission for losses from sales, compensation to office holders and so on. Therefore the work of the Board is quite directly linked to the purposes for which the Fund is established. That being so, I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord is under a misapprehension in saying that it is unfair to those who have to pay the levy to the Fund, that the Fund should have to meet the cost of the Board. The Board are, in fact, working directly in the interest of the payers of the levy, because it is the purpose of the Board to help to arrange the best terms for the sale of vehicles and other property. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel that it would not be appropriate for him to press this Amendment.
5.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving that explanation. He has said exactly what I thought he would say. He has made complete the case that we have put forward about the Disposal Board and everything else. He has said that the Disposal Board is working in the interests of those who pay the levy, and that those who pay the levy will be the prospective buyers of the vehicles. No clearer admission of the case that we have been trying

1097
to make has yet been put forward. I am not saying that only purchasers are going to pay the levy. I thought the argument of some noble Lords was that the Disposal Board was going to have a gloriously open mind and was going to work in the interests of taxpayers as a whole. This just illustrates the point we have been trying to make and which we hope will be noted outside your Lordships' House. When the levy was first mooted, in the White Paper which was debated in your Lordships' House, there was no mention of this as a charge against the levy. The levy was for two specific purposes. It had a third purpose added within about a month, and it is now having yet another purpose added.
We are not going to divide on this Amendment. We sought information and we have got it. But before we depart from it, perhaps the noble Earl can tell us whether any estimate of the costs of the Disposal Board has been made. For instance, what is it proposed should be paid to the chairman? What is it proposed to pay to the deputy chairman? Surely some estimate has been made. Are they to be paid £1,000, or £10,000? What is going to be paid to the other members? Surely you do not just say that the levy must pay the cost of the Disposal Board without making some estimate of the cost. I am not an authority on these matters, but I notice no mention was made in the financial memorandum that the expenses of the Disposal Board were to be paid out of the levy. Very likely it is wrapped up in the host of things mentioned in the "miscellaneous" section. If the Disposal Board is going to be an impartial body, and is going to operate in a way which will ensure that the best possible price is obtained and that the goods are disposed of on a decent basis so that the taxpayer's interest is preserved, then the taxpayer should pay because it is his sure shield. The noble Earl has said that it is not a sure shield but that it is working in the interests of those who pay the levy. I quite agree therefore, on that narrow basis, that I have not got a very good argument and that the taxpayer should not pay the costs of the Board. There I will leave the matter.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I want to ask only one question which seems to be relevant to the situation. Is this levy a tax or is it not a tax? If it is
1098
a tax, then it will have to come into the Budget, and the Estimate for this expenditure will have to form part of the Estimates for the year. I gather that it is not the intention of the Government, in imposing this levy, to make it a tax. If that is so, it seems to me a very wrong principle, because you are appointing this Board and the other place will have no right to any control of the expenditure which is involved.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will answer that at once. This is not a. tax. It is not at all unique. It is collected through the machinery by which the tax is collected, because it is based on the weight of the vehicle, and so on. I am speaking now from memory, but I think there is a later Amendment on which this point arises. There are a good many precedents for this levy, for which both Parties share either praise or blame—such things as the marketing boards and the white fish industry. England and Scotland are both concerned. Noble Lords on both sides of the House have been "up to the neck in it." However improper and impure it may have been, it was done in the case of marketing boards and fish levies, and I am sure I could give the noble Lord a few other highly reputable precedents to which we have both subscribed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Sales of transport units.
3.—(1) For the purpose of disposing of the property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, the Commission shall from time to time, by public notice invite tenders for the purchase, on specified conditions, of—

(a) one or more specified motor vehicles; and

(b) such other property, if any, as may be specified,

and the specified conditions may include conditions whereby, as between the purchaser and the Commission, the purchaser takes over such rights and obligations of the Commission, whether under contract or otherwise, as may be specified, being rights and obligations connected with the subject matter of the purchase.
(3) In determining what are to be the transport units for which persons are invited to tender as aforesaid, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their

1099
resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision but subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section, no transport unit shall, without the approval of the Minister, include more than fifty motor vehicles or motor vehicles the aggregate weight of which unladen exceeds two hundred tons.
Subject as aforesaid, the transport units shall be determined with a view to securing that the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking fetches in the aggregate the best possible price.

(6) In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted and which refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.

(7) In performing their duties under this section the Commission shall consult the Board and act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Board, and no invitation to tender for a transport unit shall be issued by the Commission without the approval of the Board and no tender for any transport unit shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board; and the Board shall not give their approval to the acceptance of any such tender unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value to the purchaser of the property and rights which he will obtain by the purchase, including the rights provided for by Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.

EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "as between the purchaser and the Commission". The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I should, perhaps, say at least one sentence in explanation. I am informed that the words proposed to be left out are quite unnecessary, as in law the conditions of taking over can be enforced only as between the purchaser and the Commission. Therefore the words concerned are redundant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("as between the purchaser and the Commission")—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) In cases where at the date of the passing of this Act there is an agreement between the Road Haulage Executive on be-
1100
half of the Commission and a trader in relation to a vehicle or vehicles operated by the Road Haulage Executive under contract, the said specified conditions shall include a condition whereby the purchaser as successor to the said Executive shall take over all the rights and obligations of the said Executive under the said agreement."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a class of vehicle which is sometimes lost sight of. When we consider the question of road haulage vehicles being disposed of by the Commission, most of us think of the scarlet vehicles with "Road Haulage Executive, Acton Depôt"or something like that written on them. There are some 4,500 vehicles belonging to the Road Haulage Executive, masquerading under all kinds of colours and of all kinds of shapes, which operate on contract for large firms such as Whitbread's, the I.C.I., the Imperial Tobacco Co., J. Lyons & Co., and others. These were mentioned on Second Reading by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, when he said that these people knew where they could get good service and chose the Road Haulage Executive. Of course, the answer is that prior to the 1947Act these vehicles were operated on behalf of these companies by private road haulage organisations, and they were taken over by the Road Haulage Executive because that body was the only one that could operate vehicles outside the twenty-five mile limit. So these people had no choice, unless they changed over to "C" licences; they had to use vehicles operated by the Road Haulage Executive.
The Amendment which I and other noble Lords have put down seeks to make sure that these contracts, a number of which have been in existence for many years, at first under private enterprise and then, after the 1947 Act, taken over by the Road Haulage Executive, should now be carried on by the buyer. Where these units are sold by the Commission, the buyer should be bound to continue the contract. In this way the interests of the user would be protected and disruption avoided. There is coming up at a later stage what I may call an "Amendment in reverse," which Lord Sandhurst is moving and which has a bearing on this matter. It is to provide that where a certain firm had a contract with the Commission, the Commission shall keep out of this particular trade. I thought I would just mention it, as the

1101
Amendments are linked up in some way. We feel that to ensure that these contracts are continued, this Amendment is desirable and necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 46, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Gifford.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am glad the noble Lord has raised this matter, because it is desirable that the position should be clarified. Of course, it is very desirable that where good service is being given, it should be continued. I suppose that in 99 cases out of 100 there would be no difficulty about that; because assuming that this is a contract which is mutually satisfactory, both to the trader and the haulier, then, whoever buys the units to which this business would normally attach, the haulier will be only too glad to carry on the business. He does not want to buy a business with no good will and no traffic offering. Therefore, this is one of those things which is certainly likely to solve itself.
But it would be impossible to provide for this compulsorily in this Bill, and I will tell the noble Lord exactly why. If you buy a business, or you buy the whole of the shares of a company, you take the thing as a going concern. You buy, of course, subject to all outstanding contracts. You become responsible both for the benefit and for the liability of outstanding contracts. But that is not the position here, because what is going to be sold is not a company which is a going concern, even where a new company is created under a clause that comes later; what will be sold is units of transport containing so many lorries and other property, suitably attached to them. But on that sale no contractual right or liability can pass. Obviously, if we are to impose an obligation, it must be a two-way obligation. If you take over the liability of a contract you must also have the right to take over the benefits under the contract. But that would not be done here, because there is no way in which an obligation could be imposed upon I.C.I., or any of the traders concerned, to carry on with the new firm; and, indeed, it would not be right to impose one. They must have a chance of looking round and seeing who can best do the business. Obviously, it would be quite wrong to impose a unilateral obligation on the buyer
1102
which could not attach to the firm which sent its goods in this way.
I think when I have said that I really have disposed of the matter, but I would say this also. There may be some very exceptional cases where it would be right to put into the conditions of sale, as part of the sale of the unit, something that would assume that the trader would wish to goon sending his goods in this way. In a case like that, for mutual convenience it would be possible to put into the conditions of sale of that particular unit that whoever bought it should take over, subject to this undertaking. I hope I shall not be thought to be saying something contentious if I say this: the fact that you have got on the Disposal Board a representative of traders and a representative of "C" licence holders may be rather convenient, because they are the kind of people who would know whether it was a reasonable case in which to make these exceptional conditions attaching to the sale of the unit. I hope I have said enough to show the noble Lord we are fully alive to the importance of ensuring that traders shall have good service available to them, but it really would be impossible to impose a unilateral obligation on a purchaser in the way in which he has, unintentionally I am sure, proposed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very glad the noble Viscount has said what he has. What the noble Lord who moved this Amendment is seeking to do is to upset all the contracts of "contract hire." What he is seeking to do is this: if the contract hire agreement is split—I will use the name of a firm mentioned by my noble friend—he seeks to force Messrs. J. Lyons & Co., who now have a contract hire agreement with the Road Haulage Executive, to accept anybody who buys the unit that is now serving them, whether they want him or not. As the noble Viscount has said, that he cannot do. Messrs. Lyons & Co. may say, "We do not like the new people. We have had good service, and we shall want to put our business with somebody else in future." You cannot unilaterally do this, and I am very glad the noble Viscount has stated the case so clearly, because we on this side of the House support him in what he has said.
LORD HAWKE: I note, with great pleasure, the open minds noble Lords

1103
opposite have, and the cheers with which they greet the way my noble friend has turned this Amendment down. In some ways, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble Leader, have stated the case as regards the hiring company; but if the law is such that in no way can a contract be sold with the vehicles, it is a pity from the point of view of disposal of the assets at the best possible price. One can well imagine that a fleet hired to some reputable firm on a long contract, and sold as a fleet with that contract, may have a much higher price than that same fleet sold at large with no contract attached to it. However, if that is the law, there it is. There is, of course, a side-wind on these matters, too, and that is, that sometimes the hiring company has an option to buy. I am not quite sure whether in all cases the option will be considered as an asset to the hiring company or an asset to the hirer. But there it is. Of course, if it is an asset to the hirer, there again is a valuable consideration which could be turned into money to lessen the loss of the Disposal Board. I hope that on further examination, it will be found that the provision in Clause 3 by which
"the specified conditions may include conditions whereby…the purchaser takes over such rights and obligations of the Commission…"
will in practice enable the Commission and the Disposal Board to capitalise on some of these contracts. At the same time, I have been told that this particular Amendment is not a very practical one. An alternative one has been suggested, which possibly my noble friend may put down at the Report stage.
EARL JOWITT: I am glad to hear what the acting Leader of the House has had to say on this Amendment. It is a most revolutionary proposal. Under the law of England, as I understand it, where you have a contract with a man you have a right to expect service under that contract from that man. If you have a contract with A, then, broadly speaking, he cannot transfer the matter to B, or say that you will have to put up with the services of D. Indeed, if a man had a contract with a surgeon to perform an operation, it would be very hard luck indeed if he had to put up with anyone else that surgeon liked to send along. So, although I have no doubt that in
1104
ninety-nine cases out of a hundred this thing would adjust itself, it does seem to me that it would be a most monstrous position, if it were possible to make Messrs. Lyons—I think that was the name—given carry on with someone they do not want to carry on with. They have a contract with the road haulage people, and they are satisfied, so far as I know, with the service given. If vehicles of the road haulage people are bought by a Mr. Jones, or a Mr. Smith, or a Mr. Robinson, Messrs. Lyons have a perfect right to say, "We do not like Mr. Jones." or: "We do not like Mr. Smith," or: "We do not like Mr. Robinson." And they can say that they do not want to carry on under their terms of contract with that purchaser. It may be arbitrary or it may not be arbitrary, but they have a perfect right to say that. This is still a free country. It would be a monstrous proposition to say, "You must carry on with this contract with the person who has bought these vehicles." Of course, it is possible to do anything by Act of Parliament. It would be possible to put in a clause to that effect, but I think that your Lordships would be very hesitant to accept such a position, and I am very glad to hear what the noble Viscount has said. The noble Viscount has stated what I think is the law on the matter and what I also think is the common sense of it.
LORD GIFFORD: I quite see the force of what the noble Viscount, the Deputy Leader of the House, has said on this point. The object of this Amendment was to prevent a trader being let down by, say, having twenty vehicles for the use of which he has contracted bought by a private operator, and that operator then saying, "I do not want to keep this contract at all; I bought the vehicles but I do not intend to use them for your benefit." That would mean that the trader would have to get completely new vehicles, and have to go to great expense in such matters as repainting and other things. Though I agree that the wording of this Amendment is open to grave objection, I should like, between now and the Report stage, to see whether we cannot find words which would protect the trader who wished his contract to be carried on by the buyer. It is possible that the wording of the preceding paragraph in Clause 3 may be sufficient, but I doubt it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord, will, of course, look at that. I suggest to him, however, that the only practical way of effecting what he wants—certainly it is the only practical way I can see—is this. The noble Lord is assuming a case where a particular trader (Messrs. Lyons have been mentioned) wants to have his contract carried on. In those circumstances, it is quite open to him to go and make representations to the Commission. He can go to the Commission and say, "If you are selling this unit"—and may I interpolate here that I am certain that the buyer would want to take the contract on?—"I should like you to make it a condition of sale that it carries this obligation with it"—the trader, of course, giving at the same time an undertaking that he will continue the contract with the buyer. It would certainly have to be mutual. That sort of thing can be done without any Amendment. I think that would be a possible way of doing what the noble Lord desires.
LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Viscount for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that the Board may specify a minimum price."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment brings us back to a subject which we have already discussed at some length—namely, the financing of the sale of the Commission's vehicles. This Amendment proceeds on the same idea as that expressed by noble Lords opposite—namely, that this disposal of vehicles should proceed in an orderly manner with as little loss as possible to the Commission and, therefore, to the public. To that extent, then, thought-reading is not necessary. But this Amendment tackles the matter from a rather different angle. Here we are faced with the problem of privately-owned vehicles which were taken over under the Act of 1947 at a high value. Now the values are lower, and the loss has to be borne somewhere. The answer to that, in the Bill, is the transport levy. That is necessary, but I am sure that we shall all agree that it must be resorted to as little as possible.
1106
We want the levy to come to an end as early as possible, and the charges under the levy to be as few as possible.
At the same time, one of the major objects of the Bill, as we all realise, is to release a proper proportion of vehicles to private enterprise at the earliest possible opportunity. We have to balance two separate things, If the Board hang on for too high a price, or hang on for too long, they fail to do what they are supposed to do under Clause 1—namely, to dispose of the vehicles as quickly as is reasonably practicable. If, on the other hand, the Disposal Board sell too carelessly—and we have been given many reasons this afternoon why they might—they will not be acting in the interests of the taxpayer. So it is necessary to hold the balance. The object of this Amendment is to find out whether the Commission are going to lay down any policy, or whether the Minister is going to lay down any policy for them, in such a way that a minimum price will be specified; whether, in other words, anything more precise is going to be laid down than the terms of the Bill, which are to the effect that the best possible price is to be realised. I wonder, for example, whether there is any intention of naming a minimum price, and relating that price to the book value of the vehicle, whatever it may be. All these vehicles will certainly have a book value in the books of the Transport Commission or the Road Haulage Executive. If that book value be reached. I imagine that there will be no loss. We put down this Amendment in order to explore this matter, because we feel that information on this point would reassure the industry in general and would also reassure those people in charge of the vehicles which are to be disposed of. Anything that can be done to give confidence in that direction will be welcome. For that reason I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I appreciate that the noble Viscount has put down this Amendment in order to elicit information. I do not suppose that it is an Amendment which he would wish to press, for reasons which I will suggest to him in a moment, and which he probably has in mind. If any sort of Amendment

1107
were needed I think this would be the wrong place. What we are dealing with is the words of the sub-paragraph to subsection (3). It reads as follows:
"Subject as aforesaid, the transport units shall be determined with a view to securing that the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking fetches in the aggregate the best possible price."
If we were to put in the Amendment there it would mean that it would be possible to specify a minimum price on the aggregate. I do not think that would make sense. What the noble Viscount wants to know, quite reasonably, is whether the Commission are going to specify and publish a reserve price whenever they sell a unit. They would certainly have power so to do, but I think it would be unwise to compel them to do anything of the sort.
The noble Viscount has probably been more fortunate than I have, but if he has been among those of us who, to keep going in disinterested service, have had to realise some of our family possessions, or put up at Christie's a picture or an objet ďart or objet de vertu, no doubt he has had in his mind and on Christie's books a reserve figure; and if that figure is not reached, the article in question is withdrawn from the sale. But the last thing in the world he is going to do is to publish the reserve figure in Christie's catalogue, because what he hopes is that two or three dealers, and perhaps also a private citizen or two, will be greatly attracted by the item and come to bid against one another. If he put in a reserve price of £500 or £50,000 (£50,000, probably, in his case, and £500 in mine) as a reserve below which he would not sell, the dealers would all get together and arrange that one of them would take this at the reserve price and then they would have a little cutting of the cake after the enterprise was over. Whereas I imagine that the Commission would have in their minds a price they think they ought to get and a sort of minimum reserve. I am sure the last thing in the world they would do would be to disclose it. I think the wisest thing we can do is to leave them alone and not lay down for them how they should assess the price. After all, they are not going to publish any price (I see we are getting more and more into agreement on this); they are going to invite tenders.
1108
and although they may have all sorts of ideas and intentions, the last thing in the world they should do is to disclose these to the public at large.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought that we should not have to wait long before the noble Viscount's commercial instinct came to the top; it has certainly come to the top now. When I read this Amendment, I was rather attracted to it and had thought of making a speech in favour of it. Then the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said in his speech that the minimum price would likely be the book price. Heaven forbid! As a prudent business man, I have my assets written down as low as my friend the Inspector of Taxes will allow them to be. If I were to sell the assets of my business at what they stand in the books, I should not get a very high price. After all, book value is the hallmark of prudence. While I started off by being sympathetic, I hope that the noble Viscount will not take his Amendment to a Division, because I should have to vote against it.
LORD WINSTER: The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is right in what he said about reserve prices at auctions. Reserve prices are never published. What attracts many people to auctions is the chance of picking up a bargain, and if reserve prices were published in the catalogue, such people would not be likely to attend. As regards this Amendment, proposing that a minimum price should be fixed, it certainly is the case that minimum prices have a strong tendency to become maximum prices, and in that event articles tend to be sold at knock-down prices. Is not this matter provided for in subsection (7), where the Board are specifically forbidden to
"…give their approval to the acceptance of any such tender unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value to the purchaser of the property and rights which he will obtain by the purchase"?
Surely that covers the matter? So long as the Board are specifically forbidden in that way to accept a price which they regard as inequitable for the property which they are selling, there is no need to mention a minimum price.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am grateful to my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House for what he has told us on

1109
the matter which forms the subject of the Amendment. Perhaps I have not had so much experience as he has had in selling pictures—perhaps because I have fewer of them to sell: I do not know. I should like to say something in regard to what has been said. In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will see in Hansard to-morrow, I did not suggest that the reserve price should be the book price. I suggested that it should be related to the book price, which is not the same thing. In the same way, I should like to say to my noble friend that the wording of the Amendment is "may specify a minimum price" and not "will announce a minimum price," which, I think, takes care of another argument that has been used.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought that the word "specify" implied that it was to be known.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN. Perhaps I should have worded the Amendment differently. Had I meant it to be announced, I should have put that down. However, I think what we have been told about the policy is sufficient to satisfy my noble friends and me, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) contains one of many instructions that are being given to the Commission in dealing with disposal. The Commission are required to sell
"as quickly as is reasonably practicable…without delay and on the best terms available, and without avoidable disturbance of the transport system of the country,"
and having
"regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering a road haulage undertaking have a reasonable opportunity of doing so."
This is one more. Subsection (6) says:
"In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted and which refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands."
My objection to subsection (6) is twofold. First of all, there are a multiplicity of instructions to the Commission, some of which are conflicting, and it is difficult for
1110
the Commission to know what they are doing. For instance, the instruction that they are to have regard to persons wishing to re-enter a road haulage undertaking is not consistent with the instruction here that they are to have regard to the desirability of not allowing an undertaking to be concentrated in too few hands. So the Commission are in some difficulty as to what they are doing.
My second objection to subsection (6) is that it far too vague. What are "too few hands"? How are the Commission to decide whether the undertaking is being concentrated in "too few hands"? Who is to be the judge? If the question arises of disposing of a unit to somebody who has already been in the business before, are the Commission not to dispose of it to that individual or concern because that might be concentrating it in "too few hands"? Apart from being inconsistent, it seems to me to be much too vague to enable the Commission to act on it. Further, what are the Commission to do if they get a tender from a concern which they would regard as coming within the terms of subsection (6), but which is higher than one which does not come within that subsection? Is this a direction to the Commission to accept the lower tender, rather than the higher? If it is not, it ought to say so in terms. As the subsection stands, the Commission are able to accept a lower tender, rather than the highest one. Lastly, is this really a desirable subsection at all, apart from being vague in its terms? Many of the sections of road haulage must, of necessity, be carried out by large undertakings. In order to be really efficient long-distance haulage must be run by large undertakings; otherwise there is great danger of not having an organisation which will bring back loaded vehicles. It is of the essence of getting the maximum use of vehicles that the undertaking should be a large and not a small one. Therefore, this is not in the public interest.
One knows the history of this provision, of course. It was forced on the Government in another place by a number of rebels: it was a concession offered to them, which presumably, was intended to mean nothing, but was to give them some satisfaction. But it really will not do to have in a Bill a provision which means

1111
nothing, or which is so vague as to give rise to a great deal of dispute and which, in so far as it does mean anything, might well have the effect of not enabling the Commission to get the best possible price. If it does mean that they are to make a sacrifice in order to prevent this concentration in too few hands, then it is certainly undesirable. I hope that, despite the fact that the Government found it necessary to give this concession in another place, they will have second thoughts about it, and either take away the subsection or, at least, amend it in such a way that it makes sense and lays down something definite on which the Commission can act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (6)—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT LONG: I have been somewhat perturbed, listening to the debate on this Committee stage this afternoon, by Members of your Lordships' House talking about units. The noble Lord who has just sat down has perturbed me rather more by endeavouring to make his point that when the Disposal Board sell their lorries they should be sold to larger units, especially those engaged in long-distance haulage. I believe that there are 50,000 "A" and "B" operators on the road today, of which, I would venture to tell your Lordships, 95 per cent. own not more than seven vehicles. I do not believe that there are more than 5 per cent. of what Members of your Lordships' House have been discussing this afternoon as units. My plea on this Amendment is for that 95 per cent. of small operators who own seven vehicles. Clause 3 (1) (a) refers to invitations for tenders for
"one or more specified motor vehicles."
The plea I put forward to the Minister on this Amendment is this. What can he do, and what will he do, through the Disposal Board or the Commission, to ensure that this vast number of small operators have a square deal and get the number of vehicles they need to increase their fleets? From my own experience in this industry, I am sure it is wrong to assume that there are large fleets being run in this country to-day. Surely, the large fleets were nationalised in 1947—I could name two or three of them. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that
1112
it is to the small man we must look today. I would appeal to the Minister to ensure, to the best of his ability, through the Disposal Board and the Commission, that, provided a fair price is given for these vehicles, the small operators should have a fair crack of the whip as against those who can afford to have large fleets. Let us remember that it is the small operator, with his fleet of five lorries and two or three drivers, to whom we owe so much for the wonderful work done during the last war.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. Does he mean by that that, even if the small man's tender is lower than the other offer, it should nevertheless be accepted?
VISCOUNT LONG: No; I did not say that. I thought I made it clear that I feel that they should get a fair crack of the whip; that, provided the price per vehicle offered by the small operator was a fair one—obviously, you could put in a very big price for a large number of vehicles—he should have a fair crack of the whip.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sure many noble Lords will have great sympathy with the point of view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Long. But this subsection does not guarantee that at all. It is one of the most extraordinary subsections that any of us have seen. Who decides this very important point of political principle? What is "too few hands?" Who determines it? Presumably, the Commission determine it. We have been complaining that the Commission are being bereft of the functions which they properly ought to perform. But it is not the business of a Transport Commission or a Disposal Board to determine this most important question of political philosophy. What is "too few hands?" I think this is an impossible clause and lays upon the Commission an impossible decision. Here the case for thinking again is unanswerable, because it is in the interests of good legislation, common sense and practical administration that the Commission should not be asked to determine a matter of this kind. Their views may be completely at variance with the views of other persons, and I beg the Government not to put into an Act of Parliament a clause of this character.
EARL JOWITT: I wish to call your Lordships' attention to a fact which has been lost sight of and which I think the noble Viscount, Lord Long, failed to appreciate. We are now considering Clause 3 of the Bill and we have reached subsection (6). Subsection (3)—and of course we can have a discussion on that subsection on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill—says this:
"In determining what are to be the transport units for which persons are invited to tender as aforesaid, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale.…"
That is the precise point the noble Viscount was making, and I agree with him. Now the problem is to consider whether, in addition to that subsection, which we have passed, we shall have this one; and it really is no good, if I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, to make a speech which would have been apposite and germane if we had been fighting subsection (3).
VISCOUNT LONG: May I interrupt the noble and learned Earl? I had every intention of speaking on the Motion that the clause stand part, but in order to save time I thought it germane to raise the point when I did. I apologise to your Lordships if I have contravened the regulations.
EARL JOWITT: There is no question of the noble Viscount contravening anything. He was perfectly entitled to make the speech at the time he did. But I venture to call his attention to the fact that the point he is making is already provided for by subsection (3) which takes particular care of the small man. It is not as though subsection (6) was in a clause which did not contain subsection (3). We have in the clause subsection (3) which is looking after the small man, and it is in that context that we come to consider subsection (6). I venture to say that there has never been a parallel to this subsection (6). It is quite impossible for the Transport Commission to say what it is. As my noble friend Lord Wilmot said just now, this is a matter of political philosophy. The question whether the transport industry is getting into too few hands or not is a matter for Her Majesty's Government to
1114
consider; it is not a question for a Transport Commission. How on earth can a Transport Commission, who are supposed to have no political views at all, decide whether or not this business is or is not getting into too few hands? It is not a question of protecting the small man—that we have done.
I venture to ask if there has ever been in any legislation any parallel—because I do not know of one—to a clause like this. How can we impose upon a business body, who have a particular job of work to do, the duty to consider whether or not it is desirable to avoid ownership getting into too few hands if we do not give them any definition of what too few hands are? It must be a matter of political judgment, and the persons to take political decisions are the Government of the day who in due course will have to account to the electorate for the decision they have taken. So far as the small man is concerned, he is protected under subsection (3), but this subsection (6) is odious, meaningless and absolutely impossible to carry out, and I support my noble friend Lord Silkin in saying that it should go out of the Bill. Let the matter, by all means, be present to the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers; but it is nothing whatever to do with the Transport Commission, when they have no yardstick to guide them. I hope we shall get support, not only from this side of the House, but from all sides, on this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: When the noble Viscount, Lord Long, was speaking I am sure that the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench must have thought:
"…save, oh! save me from the Candid Friend,"
because in his speech the noble Viscount blew sky high a good deal of the propaganda which has been carried on in connection with this Bill: that the Road Haulage Executive were creating a vast octopus and gobbling up every private concern. What did the noble Viscount tell us? He said that there are still some 60,000 "A" and "B" licences operated by private operators.
VISCOUNT LONG: I said 50,000 and, of course, they are restricted to a twenty-five miles radius.
LORD BURDEN: They are not all restricted to twenty-five miles, and there are those 60,000 "A" and "B" licences.

1115
What is the noble Viscount, Lord Long, asking? An earlier subsection provides, if required, for those who were in the industry to have an opportunity of going back again into it by acquiring some of the vehicles. There were over 3,000 undertakings acquired by the Road Haulage Executive up to the end of 1950. The noble Lord is pleading that those who already have "A" and "B" licences should have an opportunity of acquiring more vehicles, and he is really negativing this very clause. I suggest that, taking into account any valid interpretation that can be put upon it, this is a purely political issue and in no way a business issue. I ask the Government to accept the Amendment and to have this subsection deleted.
LORD WINSTER: There is, of course, great sympathy with what the noble Viscount said about the small man. Naturally everyone feels that. I support this Amendment because I think subsection (6) throws a completely unworkable responsibility upon the Commission. We have been talking about auctions this afternoon. Not all auctions are held at Christies; many are held in the country, and I have seen it frequently happen in the country that a wealthy man will go to an auction and bid up to far past the real value because he has the intention of getting the lot. What can an auctioneer do? He cannot say: "The poor men are not getting a fair crack of the whip this afternoon, and I cannot take any further bids from you." His object is to get the best possible price he can for his client. Surely the duty of the Commission is to get the best price they can for the taxpayer by the disposal of these properties. As subsection (6) stands, the Commission is not to be guided by this consideration at all, and the small man may be given a very handsome present at the expense of the taxpayer, although a larger price could be obtained for the property.
Take one other instance. The clause says:
"In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted…"
Suppose there is only one tender and that it comes from a big operator. A big operator has, of course, a tendency to "gobble the lot." Is the Commission then to ring up" No sale" and say:" No; you have already got plenty and, there-
1116
fore, we will not sell this property"? The fact is that this clause, as at present drafted, would throw an impossible onus upon the Commission, who would find themselves quite unable to settle many of the problems which would confront them.
EARL DE LA WARR: In putting this Amendment before your Lordships' House, noble Lords opposite have put some arguments and asked a great number of questions. Might I ask them one question? If one large finance house in this country were to buy up the whole of the transport system and thereby establish a monopoly over the whole country, or if a large firm were to buy up the whole transport system of a perhaps rather specialised separate area, thereby establishing a complete monopoly in that area, are we to lay it down beforehand that, in no circumstances, shall the Commission have regard to such a question?
LORD BURDEN: May I point out that two-thirds of the vehicles are privately operated to-day? If the whole lot under the nationalised road haulage system went, it would be only one-third of the total operating.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord is really confusing the question of size with the question of monopoly. You can be comparatively small and have a monopoly, and you can be very large and not have a monopoly. I am dealing with the question of monopoly. That is where, perhaps, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is speaking under a slight misapprehension. He said that this subject was dealt with in subsection (3). It is true that the particular aspect of the subject mentioned is dealt with in subsection (3), but the question of monopoly, with which this clause deals, is not dealt with at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me a specific question. He said, "Supposing the view was taken that the highest tender was likely to result in the concentration of the transport industry in too few hands, would it then be possible to sell to a lower tender?" I should say definitely that if, in certain circumstances, the Transport Commission, having regard to the question to which by this clause they are instructed to have regard, considered it to be in the public interest—after all, noble Lords on that side of the House are not always concerned with

1117
money—they might not, in the public interest, sell to a body which in their view would constitute a monopoly.
EARL JOWITT: Is the noble Earl really saying that it is for the Transport Commission to determine what the public interest is? Surely that is a political issue for Her Majesty's Government to determine
EARL DE LA WARR: If a body which has been appointed by the Minister is instructed to have regard to certain questions, it is certainly entitled to have regard to those questions.
EARL JOWITT: Certainly.
EARL DE LA WARR: Do let us be quite clear what this clause says. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, spoke as though this were a definite instruction, in all circumstances, not to sell to a large concern. If the noble Lord will do us the kindness of reading the clause, he will find that the only instruction that is given is that the Commission shall have regard to certain considerations. They are not given any definite instructions as to what they are to do.
LORD WINSTER: I do not see how the Commission could have regard to this instruction except, in certain cases, by selling property at a lower price than they could obtain for it.
EARL DE LA WARR: "Have regard to" means that they should take into consideration; and then, having taken certain matters into consideration, they take their decision and act either one way or the other. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has suggested that this provision about having regard to the danger of transport in certain areas getting into too few hands is really putting the clock back; that it is desirable that a great deal of our transport should be handled on a large scale. Nobody is disputing that in the least. If there were an instruction in this clause against businesses being allowed to go into few hands, then I should certainly agree with the noble Lord. Bat all we say is that the Commission "shall have regard to" the desirability of avoiding transport getting into too few hands. As against what your Lordships have said on this, I myself feel that my arguments are right. There is no question that your Lordships feel very strongly on this subject, and I think it
1118
would be only right if, without committing myself at all, I said that we were prepared to consider this matter and discuss it with your Lordships between now and Report. So, if the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw this Amendment, I will certainly represent to the Minister strongly your Lordships' views.
EARL JOWITT: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkinwill accept that offer and close this discussion now. May I say to the noble Earl, with the greatest respect, that he did not at all appreciate my argument? May I put it again so that, if it is going to be considered, the point may be considered? The proposition—if the noble Lord will give me his attention for a moment—is simply this. If you are going to have regard to the question whether transport is getting into too few hands, that is, and must be, a political decision, a decision for the Government and not a decision for the Transport Commission. If it is said that this matter is to be referred to the Minister, then, of course, the Minister is perfectly entitled to take that or any other matter into his consideration; but we say that constitutionally it is utterly wrong to impose upon a body like the Transport Commission a political decision and to tell them that they are to have regard to something undefinable like this. That is completely wrong. That is the point. What I expect to hear from the noble Earl is how he can possibly say that it is for the Transport Commission to come to that decision. It seems to me quite obviously to be a matter for Her Majesty's Government to decide. As I have now made that point quite plainly, so that I am certain the noble Earl understands it, he will most certainly have to meet this objection on the next round of this Bill, unless this provision goes. In my humble submission to your Lordships—and there are noble Lords both in and out of the House who feel the same way—this clause is utterly unworkable in practice and is wrongly conceived in principle.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble and learned Earl for clarifying what he feels. May I repeat, in order to be perfectly clear, that the noble Earl is not concerned that regard should be had to this particular consideration: what he is concerned about is that we should ask

1119
the Commission, and not the Minister, to have regard.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Yes.
LORD SILKIN: I think perhaps it would be advisable not to enter into discussions with any commitments on either side. I certainly should not wish to limit my argument in any way. On that understanding, I am perfectly happy to accept the noble Earl's offer and withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (7) to leave out "value to the purchaser of the property and rights which he will obtain by the purchase" and to insert:
"current value comprised in the said transport unit".
The noble Lord said: We now come back to our discussion upon what should be the guiding principle in assessing the value of the units of property which are now to be sold. In this section of the Bill we are dealing with units. A unit can be anything from one to fifty vehicles, or over fifty vehicles with the permission of the Minister; it can have attached to it properties which are specified in Clause 3 (1) (b) as "such other property, if any, as may be specified." We seek to omit from subsection (7) the words "value to the purchaser of the property and rights which he will obtain by the purchase." I will not go over the argument we had as to whether or not the formation of the Disposal Board was a proper thing to do, but the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made a very important statement on it. He said that the appointment of representatives of the "A" and "B" licence holders to sit on the Disposal Board would be made by way of nomination from the Association. So two representatives on the Disposal Board are to be nominated by the Road Haulage Association, the representatives of the purchasers, and now, when the units are sold, we have an injunction given to the Board, that:
"the Board shall not give their approval to the acceptance of any such tender unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value to the purchaser,"
1120
and so on. I submit that that is indefensible. There is a market value, there is a current value, and there is a value which may be ascertained in some other way.
It is significant that when we come to the new clause to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, or his deputy, which deals with the company structure as opposed to the unit structure, a different and a very acceptable principle is enunciated—the only principle that the Committee can really rest upon. I would just refer the Committee to subsection (5) of the new clause, after Clause 4, where these words appear:
"No tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking and the rights conferred by the subsequent provisions of this section."
The operative words there are: "having regard to the value of the company's undertaking"—a very different injunction from the one made in this clause, although the opening words are exactly the same:
"no tender for any transport unit shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board; and the Board shall not give their approval to the acceptance of any such tender unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one.…"
It does not there say "having regard to the value of the unit," or "having regard to the market value or the current value," but "having regard to the value to the purchaser of the property and rights…"Either one or the other must be wrong. Why, when we are giving an instruction to the Board in respect of the sale of shares in a company that is formed for sale, do we have a different principle from the principle we lay down when we give an instruction in regard to the formation of a unit for sale? The only difference is that one may be clothed in a limited liability structure and the other may not. Why do we have two different criteria?
By our Amendment we seek to put in instead the words: "current value comprised in the said transport unit." Although the Amendment stands in my name, quite frankly I am not certain that it is complete. It might perhaps have

1121
gone on to include the words "and of the rights which the purchaser will obtain by the purchase." Whilst I am not committed to the words, I ask the Committee to commit themselves to the principle. The value to the purchaser is only one value. This is where we differ. Suppose the Commission and the Board disagree. The matter then goes to the Minister. He is the final arbiter and from his decision there is no appeal. The Minister says: "But the Act says that you must have regard to the purchaser." The purchaser is a small man; he may be this, that or the other; he can be anything. But the property belongs to the taxpayer. There is a current value and a market value, and I suggest that that is the only possible criterion which can be contained in any instruction to the Board: that it is not to accept any tender, whether for units or for shares, that does not bear relation to the value either of the company's undertaking, as is set out in the new clause after Clause 4, or the current value in this particular case. I think I have said enough. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Amend rent moved—
Page 6, line 19, leave out ("value to the purchaser of the property and rights which he will obtain by the purchase") and insert ("current value comprised in the said transport unit")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD BURDEN: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend, for just one simple reason: that it gives a yardstick, so to speak—namely, the current value—by which to measure the justice or otherwise of a transaction. May I point out to the Committee the few words in this particular subsection preceding the words suggested by the Amendment? The subsection says:
"no tender shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board."
It is on the question of refusal that I want to concentrate attention for a few moments. Let us assume that the Commission thinks that the price offered is not reasonable, and wants to refuse it. That refusal has to go to the Board. The Board takes a different view. The Commission still stands its ground and says the price offered is ridiculous. It can then go to the Minister and the Minister can then give his decision, notwithstanding what the Commission thinks or what the Board thinks, In other words the
1122
Minister will have the right under this subsection and the following subsection to force on to the Commission a price which, in the opinion of the Commission, is unfair, unreasonable, and ridiculous. I am not saying he would do it; I say only that this clause gives him the opportunity to do it. Therefore, I venture to suggest that the words moved by my noble friend will give a yardstick with which no one can quarrel. It will be something to which one can appeal on either side. Therefore I hope noble Lords opposite will accept this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: This is another example of the care which the Government are taking of the potential purchasers. All through the Bill, as we noticed on previous Amendments, they have tried to safeguard the interests of the road hauliers in every possible way. Now we have not only directions, as we saw in the last Amendment which we discussed, as to how the parcels shall be made up; we now have the fact that the actual sale price is to be governed, not by the value of the goods on the market, not by the value of the goods to the vendor, as is usual, but by the value of the goods, which is to be assessed in some fashion not disclosed, to the purchaser. I never recollect in any document or any Bill such tenderness for purchasers on the part of those who are responsible for the sellers. I have already pointed out to your Lordships the curious phrase used by Lord Leathers on the Second Reading, when he informed us that the powers of the Commission were to be used in accordance with the desires and interests of the prospective purchasers in the various areas. I must say that the Government have carried out their views in every possible respect. They have now ensured not only that the desires and interests are protected but that the actual price which the purchasers see fit to pay will be the price at which the goods are sold.
It comes, I think, from this fact. Transport, as we have always said, should be considered as a whole; it should be considered in the national interest. If it is necessary, in the national interest, in the transport interest, to have large blocks or large units, then those large blocks or units should be established in a particular area. The Government decided

1123
to break away from this plan, this integration of transport, and to adopt the system of disintegration of transport, allowing it to be sold in penny or shilling packets, plain or coloured. Then they got "cold feet." They said: "Now we have landed ourselves in a pretty queer mess. If we are going to allow anybody to come in and buy at such prices as they can get in the open market, we may have all sorts of curious results. We may be left with a lot of transport on our hands." Now, to sales by auction and the pure free enterprise system, they are trying to add this. They are trying to break the existing system by some sort of rationalised system of transport, which is an obvious desirability in this field. You can have either one system or the other. Obviously, we should have preferred the system that we have started in this country—that is, integration of transport—or you can have a free enterprise system of transport. If you are going to sell transport by public auction, you have opted for the second. But you cannot have a mixture of both. You cannot try to sell transport undertakings by auction, and try to prevent or clog the operations of those who are sellers by some vaguely worded directions which inform them they must have regard to some rather vaguely worded desirable results. As my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, it is impossible. Once the Government depart from the integrated system of transport which we have introduced in this country it is impossible for them to try to achieve that result by public auction.
At this stage we come to this fact: that the Government, having decided to break up the transport system, must stand the consequences. In other words, it must be put up to the highest bidder. Once you get away from that, where do you land? My noble friend Lord Winster has already pointed out that fact in a very forceful speech. He challenged the other side; we have had no reply. He asked, "What happens if a wealthy undertaking comes along and says 'I will give you such-and-such an amount.'? Are you to say, 'No, we will not accept that.' "? That question has never been answered. The same argument, in essence, applies in this particular clause. The Commission are asked. I suggest, to accept an entirely illusory basis, one which they
1124
cannot possibly have regard to; that is to say the value to the purchaser. How does anyone but the purchaser know what is the value to the purchaser? The purchaser, for example, may be an undertaking doing a certain class of business, and it may be of enormous importance to that particular purchaser to extend his business in a certain way. For that purpose, it is possibly of far more value to him to get a certain unit or a certain fleet or a certain area than it is to another person. All you can do is to put the vehicles up in the open market and let all these people bid for them.
The Government realise that that would have unfortunate results. Of course it would: we always told them it would. It is no good their turning round and having now a halfway system which is going to have neither the benefits we had nor the benefits of free enterprise. If the Government depart from the principle of the highest bidder, it is going to put the Commission into an impossible situation. It means asking them to be the deciding factor in a whole series of sales, when the very words that the Government use are almost incapable, as my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt so brilliantly brought out on a previous clause, of legal definition. The Government have been incapable of legally defining them in this Bill. I would ask the Government to accept this Amendment, because I foresee, if this goes on, if the various pitfalls already disclosed are to be added to, that they will get no one to consent to selling under these absurd conditions. I would not have the responsibility of selling valuable assets, assets on which the money of the taxpayers has been spent—I would not for one moment consent to have the responsibility of disposing of those assets on the vague grounds, on the contradictory grounds, on the illusory grounds, which the Government have seen fit to include in this Bill.
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must say that the more I hear noble Lords opposite speaking, the more convinced I am that this must be a very good Bill. And I will tell your Lordships why. It seems that the only way they can criticise it is by misquoting it. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, for instance, says that the Minister may force a price. He cannot.
LORD BURDEN: I never said anything of the kind.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I wrote the words down: "The right of the Minister to force a price."
LORD BURDEN: I stated that if a price is refused by the Transport Commission and the matter goes to the Board, and the Board says that it is a proper price, and the Transport Commission stands its ground, then, later on, by the next subsection, it is provided that there may be an appeal to the Minister, who can then decide one way or the other as to whether the price is right or not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is precisely right, but that is not forcing a price, which was what the noble Lord suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in what, if I may say so, seemed to me an extremely rhetorical address, ranging as wide almost as a Second Reading speech, spoke of public auction. But there is no reference at all in the Bill to public auction. I do not know why noble Lords have got quite so excited about this Amendment. If I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, we consider that his Amendment is too vague. That is our criticism. If he can convince us that these are sounder principles on which to proceed there would be no difficulty in adopting his procedure. Lord Ogmore said that it was a very peculiar form of words. He rather paraphrased the passage in which reference is made to
"the value to the purchaser of the property and rights"
They are purchasing certain rights which inure to the person—in other words "A" licences. So it is more than simply the value of chattels as they stand. That is the reason why this wording—which I agree is slightly unusual—is used.
LORD OGMORE: It does not matter whether I paraphrased it or not. One does not do so often, but one sometimes assumes that when the Government have put a Bill before us they understand what one means when one refers to a particular sentence. I was referring to the passage which we propose by the Amendment to leave out. The same objection applies to "rights" as to "property," and to a greater extent, because it is even harder to assess whether rights have a particular value to a particular person than whether
1126
property has, because rights are intangible.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not clear as to the point which the noble Lord is seeking to make. I certainly did not attempt to paraphrase anything which the noble Lord said. I was merely pointing out why this particular wording is used, wording which, as I say, is a little unusual. We think the wording is more precise for what it is intended to do. What the Bill says is:
"the value to the purchaser of the property."
The property is put out to tender, and those who tender the highest will, in fact, give the highest price. Those who feel that it has the greatest value to them personally to have these particular rights, this particular unit with the rights that pertain to it, will naturally make the highest bid. We think that that is the best way in which it can be done. There are other arguments which may be put forward. Take the words "current value." What does the noble Lord mean by "current value" of a transport unit? At present there are no transport units for sale, and so no one can know what the current value is.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Earl would like me to intervene now, in order to answer that. A transport unit will be made up of tangible and definable articles. It may comprise one lorry, or any number up to fifty. That lorry or those lorries have a current and easily ascertainable value. It may be far higher than the value to the purchaser. There may be buildings, petrol pumps, or other property, all of tangible and easily ascertainable current value. As to the "A" licences and other property I am not very much interested. I am interested in the value of property that is tangible in the unit. Ascertainment of this sort is made every day of the week.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid that I differ fundamentally from the noble Lord, and I appeal for support to any noble Lord who has commercial experience. He says that it is current value of the article used as chattels. But he has no knowledge of the value of a transport unit as made up with "A" licences, because there are none on the market and there have been none on the market since 1947. I would go so far as

1127
to ask what does the noble Lord mean by "current value"? Does he mean current value in the hands of the Commission? I say, with great respect, that it should be a better price than would, perhaps, be the current value in their hands. I ask noble Lords whether, in the circumstances, they think the words in the Bill are better and that they would ensure a better price. We think they are more precise in what it is intended to convey than "current value" which strikes me as being rather uncertain. If the noble Lord feels there is a fundamental issue here I should be glad to hear it, for, frankly, after listening carefully, I have not heard of any fundamental issue yet. He has suggested that there is a complete difference between the two things. I really cannot see it. I would ask the noble Lord to think again and to consider carefully whether he really thinks that that is so.
6.58 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before the noble Earl leaves this matter, I should like to ask him one question. If, as he says, it is a matter of great difficulty to ascertain the current value of what is for sale, how is he going to ascertain what this clause says is to be ascertained? Mark you, this is an instruction to the Board, that they shall not give their approval to the acceptance of a tender
"unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value to the purchaser."
How can the Board know what is the value to the purchaser? It depends on who the purchaser is and what he is going to do with what he buys. I suggest that there may be widely different values as between different purchasers. Some articles may have a widely different value, in the hands of one purchaser, as against their value in the hands of another purchaser. There is absolutely no way in which the Board can ascertain the value of property and rights in the hands of each individual purchaser. I suggest that this is a most important point of principle—the most important principle with which Parliament can be concerned; that is, the framing of legislation which is reasonably understandable by those who have to be guided by it and work to it. Nobody can understand this. My noble friend was right when he said that no
1128
business man would accept the responsibility in a fiduciary capacity of anyone's property, let alone public property, with the condition that he must not accept an offer unless he was satisfied as to the value in the hands of the purchaser.
Let us think of the sales of different classes of property that are taking place every day. The seller will have regard to all sorts of considerations. He will have regard to what he wants to get, what he hopes to get, to the market conditions surrounding him and to the future trends of trade. One thing he cannot know is the future value to the purchaser. I suggest that it will not do for the noble Earl to leave this clause in this way without some more satisfactory explanation than that. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, what the Government mean by this clause. I gather that what they mean is that the Commission are to accept the highest offer. If they mean that, why do they not say so, instead of putting, it in this vague and obscure manner which is certainly misleading and which nobody reading this clause would ever guess? It seems to me there might be a variety of values, depending on who was the purchaser, and that the Commission have complete discretion to accept a reasonable offer, depending on who the purchaser may be, and that it may be reasonable to accept a low offer, having regard to the particular purchaser, as against a higher offer, again having regard to the purchaser. I am sure the Government do not intend that. But if they do not, they ought to look at this clause again.
The noble Earl made play about using the words "current value." While I agree with him that they may be vague, too, and that "current value" ought to be defined, that does not make this clause a good one—it only makes the Amendment not good. It might be the best thing to get rid of the words "having regard to the value to the purchaser" and put nothing in their place, leaving to the Commission the obligation to get a reasonable price. Or it might be better still to put in that they are to get the best price. But trying to suggest an improvement on one's feet is not always a profitable undertaking. Every noble Lord who has spoken agrees that, as it stands, this clause is much too vague to give the results which the Government intend. The last thing it would

1129
do is to ensure that the Commission get the best price. Therefore, I ask the Government to look at this again. Let us have a talk about it, to see whether we cannot together form something which carries out the declared intention of the Government, with which we agree.
EARL JOWITT: May I add a word or two? I have never seen this form of words before. I do not believe that any Act of Parliament has ever had this phrase before. I do not want to be pessimistic about this matter, but I am rather afraid that we may have rings in this market. We have known it before in many spheres of life. We may have various dealers getting together and having a fictitious auction and afterwards sharing the results. This happens, as we all know. One of the functions the Board have here to consider is whether a price is a reasonable price. I think it is perfectly right that they should have that power, and that they should refuse an unreasonable price. Now comes my problem. Suppose a price of a mere £100 is offered for a nice-looking lorry. If there were simply the words "reasonable price," the Board would say they did not consider that a reasonable price, and they would not take it. But suppose that the man who made that offer was enabled to say this, "I carry on business in the north of Scotland, in the Highlands, where there are very bad roads and not much traffic offering. It is very difficult for me to make a living and to me this lorry is worth very little. For my business this is a perfectly reasonable price, this £100." Are the Board to take this into consideration? Because that is the effect of the words in the clause, as I understand them.
"Current price" or "the best available price" may or may not be the right phrase to adopt, but surely the principle is that the Commission should accept the best tender, subject always to this: that if we think, as I am afraid is only too probable, that someone is operating to prevent the tenders from being what we think they ought to be, they should be able to hold back and say that the price is not reasonable. Surely, in considering whether or not a price is reasonable, the Commission ought not to have regard to the particular vicissitudes of the person who makes an offer. Surely that is wrong. Here we have a form of words which, so far as I know, has never found its way into an Act of
1130
Parliament before. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will tell me if I am wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): I cannot say; presumably the noble and learned Earl is right.
EARL JOWITT: I have never come across such a form of words before. I really do not see, in such a case as I have put, how the Government would work it. A competent business man is able to look at a lorry and say whether or not a price offered is reasonable. There can be competent experts who can have regard to the intangibles, add their value to the price of the lorry, and say whether the result is a reasonable price. But how on earth can one have regard to the peculiar conditions of the particular business of a purchaser?
Our interests are the same here. We are not disputing the fact that the principle of the Bill is to put the lorries up for sale. Virtually, they are the taxpayers' property and we all want to realise the best price. There is no great problem of politics here. I think the Bill here contains an inane lot of words. I think that noble Lords should take them back and between now and Report stage find a form of words which will overcome this difficulty. I do not know the answer, but I should be most interested if the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, would tell us what would be the answer on this form of words to the sort of case I have put, to the man who says that it is true his price is a low one, but that he has a small business in a backward part of the country and cannot afford to pay as much as other people could.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Unfortunately, I have not heard the whole of this debate, because I had to go out of the Chamber on a very urgent matter, but I have heard a great deal of it. It seems to me to be much ado about not very much—I will not say "about nothing." I am not sure that if the clause had said: "a purchaser" instead of "the purchaser," anybody would have bothered about it at all. What the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, says, is certainly wrong. It is not the case that anybody can look at a lorry and say what is the right price, and that therefore we ought to get the same price whether it is in the north of Scotland or in London. What the noble Earl has lost sight of entirely is that in

1131
the first instance the lorries will be sold in units. These units are scattered all over the country. I do not see why the poor Scot should not have a transport service. The noble Earl said that we did not want to interrupt the transport service. But there would be a complete interruption if we took all the lorries out of Scotland and sold them in London because we thought we could get a better price in London. These things are going to be sold as units, and the Commission have got to get the best price they can for the units.
LORD SILKIN: Put that in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly not the current price.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The best price.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. If this is a question of substituting for the words here the words which are suggested, I would much rather divide. I say here and now that there is not the faintest prospect that we shall accept the words "current value comprised in the said transport unit." It might provide a holiday for lawyers, but nobody else would know what the current value was. I am prepared to consider whether we should simply have the word "reasonable," with nothing else—I am rather attracted to that. I have to see that some trap has not been set for me inadvertently—I should not like to fall into a trap. That I am prepared to consider. But I am not prepared to invite another interminable debate upon these words. The undertaking which I am prepared to give is that I will look at it with my advisers and see whether the cutting out of all the words is a possibility, leaving it as "reasonable." I am not certain that that is right. I know what I mean about this, and I hope it is what the Bill is intended to mean: that, looking at it in all the circumstances of the case on the tender made for this unit, is the price reasonable? What I certainly do not want is a lawsuit about it. The Commission and the Board, if they differ and cannot accommodate their differences, can go to the Minister; but it must be their view, and if they say it is reasonable, then it is reasonable. On that understanding, which is for a very limited review, I am prepared to have another look at it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. As I said in the first place, I am not tied to these words. There is one comment I should like to make. I am sorry the noble Earl had to say that if I had had five minutes' experience in business I should never have suggested this Amendment. I have not got the grey hairs I have for nothing. I have been in business all my life, and I have never known anything come on to the market that did not immediately have two values: one the buyer's value, and the other the seller's value. I do not argue that "current" is the right word. I am prepared to accept the noble Viscount's offer. We both know what we want, and I do not think there is anything between us at all. Let us discuss this point. That will perhaps be the best way to arrive at what we mean. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Transfer of transport units to companies under control of Commission]:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is a purely formal Amendment. If your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 99 in the Marshalled List, you will see that the words of this subsection are to be reproduced at a later stage in the Bill. The object is to make them apply to this clause, to, I think, the new clause after Clause 4, and also, it may be, to somewhere else. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (1)—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The next Amendment is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("(whether incorporated under subsection (1) of this section or not)").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The next Amendment is No. 15, to page 7, line 21.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think we have now arrived at the stage of the arrangement we made. I do not think we shall get through this Amendment by half-past seven.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought the arrangement was that we should dispose of No. 15, which is quite different from Nos. 16, l7 and 18. I agree that Nos. 16 to 22 all go together. But No. 15 is a short, separate point, and I understood we agreed to dispose of it.
LORD SILKIN: I thought the arrangement was that we should not begin a controversial Amendment after seven o'clock.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is No. 15 controversial'?
LORD SILKIN: It is not, if you will give it to us.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is difficult to conduct the business of the House if, when arrangements are made through the usual channels, they are not kept to. I accepted an arrangement trade by my Chief Whip with the Chief Whip of the Opposition, and it is difficult to carry out the business when I am told it is not to be carried out.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am quite prepared to carry on with this Amendment. I must confess that this is the first I have heard of this matter. If the noble Viscount would like me to go on, I am perfectly willing to do so.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is difficult to know how to proceed. I was told that this Amendment would not be treated as controversial, but if I am now told that it is to be treated as controversial I am prepared to move the adjournment. I must say that we have not made half the progress that I anticipated we should make, and, therefore, it will obviously be necessary to sit late to-morrow—we shall sit through dinner, of course, and see what progress we make. If we can get up by ten o'clock, having made reasonable progress, we may do so. Otherwise, we must go on until we have made such progress. I do not want to prevent the fullest discussion of the Bill, but, on the other hand, we must have that discussion in the four days we have agreed upon. I am sorry, but I must warn the Committee that we shall have to sit through dinner to-morrow.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is perfectly true that I was approached about this Amendment and the point in the Marshalled List of Amendments to which we should go this evening. I thought that, all things
1134
being well, that would be the point we should arrive at, and I conveyed it to my noble Leader. It map be true that the full import of that did not travel around amongst all my noble friends, and if I am at fault, I regret it. But I would appeal to the noble Viscount not to rush too much to-morrow night. It is perfectly true that we have taken sonic time on the very important clauses which have been before us to-night. I beg of the noble Viscount not to attempt to put the House on a tight rope over this business. If he will permit things to run smoothly, we shall get the Bill through in the time we formerly desired.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord, who is always most helpful in these matters and always does his best to work not only to the letter but to the spirit of any agreement into which he enters. On the other hand, we agreed that we would try to exercise a self-denying ordinance. I am not apportioning blame—noble Lords must make whatever speeches they like—but we have not made progress, or at least adequate progress, to-day.
LORD OGMORE: We have.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Going on at this rate it will take us all our time to get through the Amendments. There are now 130 Amendments, if you count the A's and the B's. It may be that if we make good progress to-morrow we can avoid sitting late on Thursday night. That would all be very agreeable, but I think we must all come prepared to sit to-morrow night.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope the noble Viscount is not suggesting that my noble friends have been wasting time. I do not think anyone can say that the substance of their speeches has been trivial. Everything they have raised has been of great importance, and I think if it were to be taken for granted that something of the nature of a closure is to be worked in this House it would be very bad for all Parties. I wish to remind the noble Viscount that we ourselves have had experience of long Committee stages, and we may need to have those experiences in the future. But I do beg of him to treat us a little kindly in the matter, because we believe that what we are doing is in the public interest.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not in the least complaining of the noble Lord doing things which he considers in the public, interest. I did not say that time was wasted. I said that more time was employed than had been anticipated, and that a great deal of time has been consumed on comparatively few Amendments. So far as putting on the closure is concerned, I am doing exactly the opposite. We entered into an agreement that we would complete the Committee Stage in four days, and it was anticipated that we should be able to do that if we sat until seven or half-past seven on the first two days and, if necessary, sat after dinner on the second two days. To say that we may have to sit after dinner on three days, in order that noble Lords on all sides of the House may consume as much time as they think it in the public interest to consume, is exactly the opposite of proposing a closure. On the contrary, it is proposing that a larger amount of time should be employed. Let us employ the English language with reasonable accuracy, whether it be basic English or the Queen's English.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount should remember that following Thursday there is another day, Friday.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I am not prepared to ask the House to sit on Friday. The general convenience of the House most certainly would be that we should take whatever time is required on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I must remind the noble Lord that it was our understanding—repeated again quite firmly by the Leader of the Opposition—that we would complete this Bill in four days.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the noble Viscount should let us start to-morrow and see how we get on. Up to the present the debate has been singularly good-humoured, and I think we can go on in a good humour. We do not want to have any sword or guillotine hanging over our heads.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Noble Lords opposite have not a sword or guillotine hanging over their heads. I hope that I am in a good humour. I trust that I have not shown ill-humour, but I am going to ask the House to honour the agreement which was entered into. We will see how we get on to-morrow, but
1136
I thought it only right to warn the House that I think we shall have to sit late to-morrow. We shall see how we progress, but I think we shall have to sit late to-morrow and then have a little reward by rising earlier than we expected on Thursday. We will see how we get on, but it was my duty to warn the House. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, that the House do now resume.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.