Lords Sitting of 10 March 1953

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

CITY OF LONDON (CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT) BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House a Question. In view of the slight discussion which we had last night, I should like to know how far he would like the House to proceed to-day with the Committee stage of the Transport Bill.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, by this evening we shall have got to "half term," so to speak, and the reasonable thing, I suppose, having regard to the agreed term, would be that we should try to complete half the Amendments. That would take us to the end of Clause 15. I think that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could guide me a little in this matter. I should like to apportion the time in the way which is most convenient. If he thinks we should take less time over what I may call the second half of the Amendments, that is, from number 65 to the end—that is to number 122 (though there are, in fact, more than that because there are some sub-Amendments)—I should be content with getting to the end of, say, Clause 14. But I am not quite sure how much time the Opposition would wish to occupy over how much of the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the Deputy Leader for his statement. I would point out, however, that the most contentious parts of this Bill are in the earlier clauses, and it was almost certain that we should spend more time upon those than upon the Amendments that come later in the Bill. I think,
1140
therefore, that when we have passed Clauses 14, 15 and 16, it ought to be well within our capacity to complete the Committee stage of the Bill by the end of the agreed period. But, of course,
"The best-laid schemes o' mice and men
"Gang aft a-gley."
However, we will do our best. On the other hand, the Opposition are very keen that proper attention should be given to Clauses 14 and 15, because they deal with the railway issues. They also deal with issues which relate to Scotland, and it is probable that we shall spend a good deal of time in discussing them. Therefore, what I have said about the remaining Amendments to the Bill stands—subject to the qualification that we may spend a good deal of time on the railway clauses. I therefore suggest, for the consideration of the Deputy Leader of the House, that we go to the end of Clause 13 to-day and we start to-morrow completely afresh with the railway clauses. That, I think, would meet our convenience and, from the public point of view, might be admirable.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, were here, he would raise this point. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that the railway clauses of this Bill ought to be started afresh and taken separately. In Clause 15 there is a vital Amendment affecting Scotland down in the name of my noble friends Lord Bilsland and Lord Fairfax of Cameron. The noble Lord said just now that the earlier clauses which are to be discussed are the contentious ones but whether or not this Amendment proves to be contentious, it is certainly one which Scotland hopes will be given great consideration. Therefore, I hope the noble Viscount will agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said and will stop to-day at Clause 13.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, what the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has just said makes me a little anxious, because he apparently wishes to be lengthy and contentious over the second half of the Bill, whereas the Leader of the Opposition was hoping that we could be relatively short over the second half of the Bill. I agree that Clauses 14 and 15 are important clauses and on the general understanding that we get on as far as we can to-day and take Clauses 14 and 15

1141
to-morrow, so that we may get far enough on to make it quite sure that we can complete the Bill in decent time on Thursday. I should be quite ready to fall in with the general view of the House—if it is the general wish all round—that we should finish Clause 13 to-day and start Clause 14 to-morrow. We must remember that we have to pass the Royal Titles Bill, which is more than a formality. I do not propose to make a very long speech on it, but I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will speak, and also, presumably the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party. At any rate, it will take a little time and we must take that into account. But I think the general feeling of the House is that it would be a good thing to make up our minds to adjourn to-night when we get to the end of Clause 13.

RADIO SETS FOR TROOPS IN KOREA
2.44 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that forty radio sets were bought for the 1st Battalion Durham Light Infantry, now serving in Korea, for which £800 was paid from the Mayor of Durham's Fund; that twenty-five of these radio sets are now held by the Korean Customs in Pusan who refuse to let them through the Customs; and that the men of the Battalion are disturbed as the result of this action; and whether they will make representations to the Korean authorities with a view to the release of these wireless sets, so much needed by the men, which have been paid for by the people of Durham.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Minister in Korea has raised this matter with the Korean authorities and I am hopeful, from what I have heard of it, that a satisfactory settlement will shortly be reached. I should like to add that the fault does not appear to lie with the authorities of the Republic of Korea who are being helpful in this matter. I should also like to add that Her Majesty's Government deeply regret that the men concerned have not
1142
been able to enjoy the gift which was made to them very generously by the people of Durham, but I understand that the difficulties which have arisen are connected with the method of shipment. The House and the noble Lord can be assured that Her Majesty's Minister in Korea is aware of this position and will, if necessary, apply pressure. I should prefer to say no more at the moment pending further information.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his answer and say that the people of the County of Durham will be pleased to hear that there is some prospect of these radios being delivered. I am glad to know that the Government have some understanding of the invidious position in which the men of the Durham Light Infantry have been placed as compared with troops in other parts of the same area. We look forward to a satisfactory conclusion to this regrettable matter.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I appreciate the noble Lord's answer. I can assure him I will keep him closely in touch with future developments, and I hope that a satisfactory solution will be quickly arrived at.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.46 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order), the Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.
Clause 4:
Transfer of transport units to companies under control of Commission

(2) Where either—

(a) an invitation to tender for the purchase of specified property has been issued under the last preceding section; or

(b) the Board have approved the issue by the Commission of such an invitation; or

(c) the Board have informed the Commission that they would be prepared to approve the issue of such an invitation,

the Commission may, if the Minister gives his consent, make over to any company under their direct or indirect control (whether incorporated under subsection (1) of this section or not) all the property and connected rights and obligations, if any, which the purchaser would have obtained under a purchase resulting from the invitation, and in that event subsections (4) and (5) of the last preceding section, the next following section and the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as

1143
if the transaction had been a purchase in pursuance of the invitation and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the transaction had been such a purchase, and, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said provisions of this Act to transport units, to purchasers of transport units and to additional vehicles shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to give or refuse his consent under this subsection in any case and on any ground, the Minister shall so exercise his powers under this subsection as to secure that—

(i) the total weight unladen of the motor vehicles made over to companies there under does not exceed six-fifths of the total weight unladen of the motor vehicles owned on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, by the bodies corporate which, on that day, came, by virtue of Part II of the Transport Act, 1947, under the direct or indirect control of the Commission; and

(ii) the vehicles so made over make up, or would, if all were made over to the same company, make up, a fleet of vehicles comparable, as respects the size, nature and quality of the vehicles comprised therein, to a fleet made up of the vehicles so owned.

(3) The annual statement to be prepared by the Commission under section ninety-four of the Transport Act. 1947, shall, as respects any period during which any company to which property has been made over under this section remains under the direct or indirect control of the Commission, include information as to the principal activities of the company and be so framed as to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each such activity, and the Minister and the Treasury shall exercise their powers under the said section ninety-four accordingly.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), to leave out all words beginning "without prejudice" down to and including "ground." The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment standing in my name, may I open with the comment that it does not yet seem to have dawned upon Her Majesty's Government that by far the quickest method of getting this Bill through your Lordships' House is for them to accept some of the Amendments of Her Majesty's Opposition. That would curtail the discussion considerably.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It would be quicker if we withdrew the Bill altogether, would it not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That would suit us admirably. If the noble Viscount is prepared to move that, I will resume my seat. However, I now
1144
provide Her Majesty's Government with the opportunity of showing an example by accepting this Amendment. We have arrived at Clause 4 which, in the view of some of us, is at least not the most unimportant clause in this Bill. This is the clause which sets out the transfer of transport units to companies which shall remain under the control of the Commission. The Bill attempts to state in precise terms, with mathematical accuracy, to decimal figures, just how many units and how many vehicles the British Transport Commission shall have to carry on road haulage. That is a part of the principle of the Bill because, although the Bill seeks to denationalise long-distance road haulage for hire and reward, it retains the principle that the British Transport Commission, limited to some extent by the number of vehicles at its disposal, can engage in and carry on road haulage of all descriptions. After the careful consideration which another place has given to this Bill and the careful consideration which I know your Lordships will give to this Bill and to this clause, when Parliament has expressed its wish and put it in an Act of Parliament, there appears right in the middle of this clause, in subsection (2), the most—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble Lord a question? Actually, the first Amendment standing in his name is a very narrow one. We shall then deal with Amendments Nos. 16–22 on the Marshalled List which go into the whole question of how many vehicles there ought to be. I was rather hoping that the noble Lord would confine the discussion on this particular Amendment to what is the only thing that is in order on the limited point. I was going to suggest to the Committee that, if it is convenient to the Committee, we should then have a general discussion on Amendments Nos. 16–22. There are also some counter-proposals on these matters by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and others which can be deployed. When these have been explained, I should be in a position, subject to what I heard in the debate, to state the view of the Government. But it would be convenient if we could dispose of this very limited Amendment first and then get on to the major points.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad to hear the noble Viscount say that. That helps me. I was just coming to that point, but my preamble was necessary because we on this side of the House view this Amendment very seriously. If I may carry on with what I was saying, in the middle of this clause one finds these words:
"Provided that, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to give or refuse his consent under this subsection in any case and on any ground, the Minister shall so exercise his, powers under this subsection to secure that…"—
and so on. If I read this aright (I am tempted now to think that I may be wrong it means that after Parliament has expressed its desire, the Minister "in any case and on any ground" can say to the Commission, "You are not going to have any vehicles at all." That is the simple point. I cannot read these words in any other way. May I ask the Committee to follow them again? At line 21 these words appear:
"Provided that, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to give or refuse his consent under this subsection in any case and on any ground.…"
So the Minister, after Parliament has expressed its wish, "in any case and on any ground" can say to the British Transport Commission, "I now veto the whole lot. You cannot engage in road haulage at all." is that what this means? If it does not mean that, what does it mean? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out from ("that") to ("ground") in line 23.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has emphasised that the Government should concede points where we can; but we have a duty to try and present to the country a Statute which is a workable proposition. That is our task, and I hope we shall have the noble Lord's assistance in that matter. We read the Bill in this way: that in regard to any property which the Commission wish to retain, they have to get the Minister's consent. The noble Lord has not commented on that. The application comes from the Commission. They say, "We want to retain this transport unit," and the Minister gives his consent. These words are included to avoid any question that the Minister's consent is limited
1146
simply to provisos (i) and (ii), and that he can refuse it on other grounds—we discussed this point yesterday. There may be special grounds: for instance, if the Commission wanted to create a monopoly in one part of the country, the Minister might say, "That is the wrong sort of structure." That is the sort of thing we have in mind. Accordingly, to make it abundantly clear these words have been put in. If we took them out we should not in any way alter the meaning or the power of the consent which the Minister has. All that they do is to make abundantly clear the fact that the Minister has freedom to give his consent on any ground which he thinks right.
The noble Lord has asked whether the Minister could so exercise his powers that the Commission might have no road haulage business at all. I will not be dogmatic about it, but I am inclined to the view that he has not that power. If the noble Lord puts that forward seriously as a possible consideration, we will look at the words again to see whether they do bear that interpretation. That is certainly not the intention. Provisos (i) and (ii) would hardly have been included if there had been any intention that they should not be put into operation. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. These words are intended to be no more than a clarification of the power of consent which the Minister is given at the beginning of the clause.
LORD SILKIN: If that is the intention of this proviso, then it could have been expressed in a more simple way, so that there need be no ambiguity at all. We do not for a moment suggest that it is the intention of this Minister to flout the Act, and that a certain number of vehicles, having been decided upon, he should immediately say, "Oh no, we will use this proviso to give them nothing." What my noble friend intended to convey was that it was possible for a Minister to do that if he was so minded. One always says that one trusts implicitly the present Minister, but that it is his successors that one fears. I have no doubt at all that the present Minister would not deam of departing from the spirit of this Bill. But this proviso really does bear the construction that my noble friend fears. We think it is possible for a Minister, not necessarily to say, "You will get no vehicles at all," but, without giving

1147
any reasons why, to say, "We do not think you ought to have the number stipulated in the Act." If, therefore, the noble Earl is willing to look at this matter again, and, while giving the Minister every freedom to do what he says he ought to be able to do, will introduce wording which will not go beyond that, I think my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: This passage confirms my belief that this is an extraordinarily clumsy Bill. I am sure a Bill is bad if, at every turn, one has to introduce clauses and phrases which are a clarification of the Bill. Surely the Bill should be so worded that no clarification of its provisions is necessary. In this case I should have thought that the particular words which are the subject of the Amendment are completely unnecessary and that the Minister should be given a blanket power, such as it seems to me he is really given in Clause 3, subsection (8), to approve or disapprove of any of the proceedings of the Commission or of the Disposal Board. I am quite sure that the sort of words which are introduced in this proviso, and which are the subject of the Amendment, are proof of the clumsiness of the Bill, because at every turn it needs clarification. Surely it would be simpler to give an absolutely clear definition of what are and what are not the Minister's powers, and to leave it at that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, in many ways if I had to do the drafting I would adopt the view of the noble Lord; but if I have to have a Bill so drafted that the lawyers can construe it in the way in which Parliament intends it to be construed, I would rather have it drawn by the Parliamentary draftsmen than by the noble Lord below the gangway.
LORD WINSTER: It is a very profitable way for the lawyers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It would be if the noble Lord's drafting were used. Here the intention is quite clear. We do not in the least intend that the Minister should have power to override whatever Parliament is going to lay down—six-fifths, or whatever it may be. The proviso says that he can "refuse his consent under this subsection," but I suppose he could
1148
not refuse consent under the subsection if the subsection provides that something is to happen. I will ask the lawyers to have a look at this proviso, to make sure that it is drafted in the form which they think is right for the purposes of the Bill. If they think it ought to be amended, I will put down something on Report; otherwise I would ask the Committee to leave it as it stands. I think we should be right to leave the matter to our experienced draftsmen.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount and to the noble Earl for what they have said. Perhaps the noble Viscount will inform us of the result of his deliberations with the draftsmen. In view of the undertaking which has been given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of three further Amendments in subsection (2), the first of which was, in the proviso, to leave out "(i)". The noble Lord said: If I may have the permission of the Lord Chairman, and the consent of your Lordships, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 21; they all hang together.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And Amendment No. 22?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was going to speak about Amendment 22 separately. But if the noble Viscount would like me to do so, I will deal with it now. I think, however, that perhaps it would be better if I speak about it later, and confine myself now to Amendments 16, 17 and 21. In the debate on Second Reading, I rather humorously said that we should enter into this game of thinking of numbers in which the Government have indulged. I said that in considering the number of vehicles with which the Commission shall be allowed to start off their life in this fiercely competitive field of road haulage which this Bill defines, we should think of a number that had more regard to what, in our opinion, is the national interest. We say that it is in the national interest that the basic services at present being provided should be maintained. We say that adequate provision must be made to enable the Commission to fulfil what is their duty, and what they have been told in this

1149
Bill they must carry out—that is, to sell their undertaking; and to do so with as little disturbance as possible to the transport system of the country. If that is the sincere wish of the Government—and I do not doubt it for one moment, for it would be calamitous for the transport system of this country in this year of Grace to be torn asunder—we maintain that the Transport Commission must be given sufficient tools with which to do the job.
I would reiterate what has already been said by a number of my noble friends and by myself, that we do not challenge the principle of this Bill at all. But the principle of this Bill contains, if I may use the expression, a "sub-principle": that the road haulage side of the British Transport Commission shall engage in all forms of road haulage. The quarrel between us is not on that. The issue is as to how many vehicles the Commission shall be allowed to do it with. I would also say this. One of the principles of the Bill, which I am not going to contest, is that it shall break the monopoly of the Commission, held since January 1, 1948, of long-distance road haulage for hire or reward. They have had no monopoly of long-distance road haulage, because we have "C" licence holders, but for long-distance road haulage for hire or reward, there is that monopoly. It is the intention of the Government to break it, and the Government can do it very easily—I understand they intend to do it on January 1, 1955—by doing away with the twenty-five mile radius. Incidentally, the Government could do it on the day the Bill becomes law, if they wished to. They could—if I may use the expression—"bust" the monopoly over-night and open the floodgates, allowing all "A" licence holders full freedom. That is a way they could act, but this Bill does not do that. Eventually, as I say, the monopoly will be broken.
In these Amendments there are two figures. First, there is the figure of the number of vehicles owned by the transport companies, the road haulage companies whose share capital was wholly owned by the railways before January 1, 1948—the acquisition of these was contained in Part II of the Act of 1947. In round figures, the number amounts to about 4,000 vehicles. Actually, I believe it is 3,900 and some odd ones, but 4,000
1150
is good enough as a round figure. It is the proposal of the Government, in this Bill, to take that 4,000 and increase it by, I think, six-fifths,
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord goes further, may I interrupt him in the interests of elucidation? We are dealing in weights here; the noble Lord, I think, is dealing in numbers of vehicles. We shall get into a most appalling muddle if we start talking about vehicles and weights, because they do not correspond. Let us stick to one measure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: While that may be convenient for the noble Lord, it will not be convenient for noble Lords in other parts of the House. If we go into the unladen weights of vehicles, we shall get into a mass of technicalities, which I suggest, with the greatest possible respect, it would be beyond even the capacity of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to digest. I am sure that they would be beyond me, and I have been mixed up with this business all my life. It is far easier to talk to your Lordships about numbers of vehicles, than to deal with weights. You do not transport weights about the country, and weights do not do anything; it is the number of vehicles that matters—I am talking about the number of vehicles belonging to the road haulage companies that were wholly owned by the railways. That is what is dealt with in Clause 4 of this Bill at the present time.
LORD SANDHURST: Would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him, but I must admit that I am completely at sea? I cannot see a relationship between weights and numbers, and I believe that I was in this business before ever the noble Lord was.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry but I do not know the weights. I do not know the weights of the 4,000 vehicles belonging to the companies which used to be wholly owned by the railways. I do not know what they add up to and I do not think anyone else does. I do not think that that figure has ever been arrived at.
LORD SANDHURST: May I suggest that we should legislate on something which we know—and that is the unladen weights?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord. I am afraid, will have to criticise my presentation of this case after I have presented it, as will be his right. But I am dealing with the number of vehicles. That is what the country understands, and it is on that that the whole of the criticism by the critics of this Bill—at least by all of the critics of this Clause of the Bill—has been based. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce have based their criticism upon it. Even the Daily Telegraph, of which, I expect, the noble Lord is a most ardent reader, has dealt with the matter on that basis.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There is precious little difference in the weights, in any event.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I proceed, and leave weights to those noble Lords who wish to deal with them. These 4,000 vehicles were owned indirectly by the railway companies. We say that these numbers, even if multiplied by five-fourths or six-fifths, or any figure that has been mentioned, are insufficient. What we seek to do by this Amendment is to increase that number by adding the number of vehicles acquired under Part I of the 1947 Act. These are the vehicles of the road haulage companies voluntarily acquired by the Commission when we started nationalisation. These amount to 12,000, which were owned by 450–500 different companies, organised in groups such as Hay's Wharf, Carter Paterson and their subsidiary companies, Pickford's and their subsidiaries, under Part II of the Act; and Boots-Tillotson, Hanson and Houldsworth, the British Industries group, Macnamara's and many others whose names are familiar, under Part I. It was on the basis of these companies that the organisation of the Road Haulage Executive was built up. I wonder whether the noble Lords to whom I am addressing a serious argument would listen with at least a reasonable amount of courtesy.
LORD HAWKE: We are trying to reconcile the figures of the number and unladen weight.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Lord might do that when I have finished speaking. I am trying to address to your Lordships, who
1152
I know are interested, a serious argument. I have got to the point of saying that it was on the basis of these companies that the whole organisation of the British Load Services was built. It was by taking over these companies that practically the whole of the property which is in this Bill as "other property" was acquired by the British Transport Commission. On Second Reading I said that, roughly speaking, the total assets of the Commission were valued at about £100 million. There were 40,000 vehicles, valued at £40 million, and £60 million of other property which in the main came over with these vehicles.
What are these services which have been built up by the Commission? First of all, we have the organisation of parcels and smalls, built up out of Carter Paterson, Boots-Tillotson and Hanson and Houldsworth, and other groups which were amalgamated, until to-day this service operates 3,750 vehicles and carries a million consignments a week, of one package or half-a-dozen. This is one of the organisations which has been so much commended by all sections of industry, though it was the one organisation which was the subject of criticism by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on Second Reading. The noble Viscount brought forward a fortuitous letter which the Minister had received about one firm whose parcels had gone astray—out of one million consignments a week. When my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Government to give the complaints about British Road Services, the noble Viscount happened to have a letter written to the Minister. Why the letter of complaint was not sent to the British Transport Commission is "wropt in mystery". I should have thought that the Commission would have been the proper people to whom to send it. But it was sent to the Minister, and on it the noble Viscount made his case of how inefficient this organisation is. I do not want to labour this point, because I see the noble Earl, Lord De la Warr, sitting there, and I remember about three years ago posting a letter which had only to go four miles.
EARL DE LA WARR: That had nothing to do with me three years ago. Would the noble Lord address his remarks to his noble friend Lord Listowel?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, I am addressing the noble Earl. This letter had to go only four miles and in six months it came back again—but I did not stand up in your Lordships' House and say that I had a good reason for denationalising the Post Office. I suppose the noble Earl will agree with me that even under his efficient organisation, letters and parcels do go astray, and that sometimes we do have to sit at the telephone for about five minutes to get a trunk call. These things are no condemnation of the Post Office. One little swallow fails to make the noble Viscount's summer.
The second service organised by the Commission is the specialised traffics division, which has 3,500 vehicles and carries meat, bulk liquids, and indivisible loads and was built up on the Pickford's organisation. This service has all the time been subject to the stress of competition, because these specialised traffics were exempt from nationalisation under the 1947 Act. Then there is the contract "A" service, which operates 3,000 vehicles, serving such organisations as Lyons, Cadbury, Rowntree, and I.C.I. and other big concerns. Last of all, there is the trunk haulage service, of about 6,500 vehicles, operating 750 trunk routes running with time-table regularity. We maintain that in the national interest we must keep these four services intact.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has just come into the Chamber. As Treasurer of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, he holds a responsible position in that organisation. I have here a statement of policy by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. This is what it says:
"The vital interests of users could be seriously impaired if the existing network of services, both local and national, were disbanded or disrupted; continuity of adequate service to industry and commerce was imperative."
Further on the statement says:
"Users maintain that under present political circumstances it would not be possible to make this important change and at the same time ensure any reasonable period of stable development for the road haulage industry. Moreover, the administrative difficulties involved and the functional defects likely to occur in such an upheaval are ill-suited to the economic needs of the hour,"
I quoted in your Lordships' House what the Central Transport Consultative
1154
Committee said of the dire effects of disrupting these basic services. The Times, in a leading article, said that this is going back into the past. The Daily Telegraph criticised the action of the Government with the words that it has neither sense nor logic—those are free quotations. This Amendment indicates what we consider necessary. The Government have a different idea: they say approximately 4,800 vehicles. What is the reason? I grant noble Lords opposite that they want to break this monopoly. When the monopoly is broken, when the 25-mile-radius is done away with, what will happen? There are at the present time 50,000 "A" licence vehicles being operated in this country. The Commission have 40,000, and if you take away my 16,000, that leaves 24,000. The 24,000, plus 50,000, makes 74,000. I should have thought that 74,000 "A" licence vehicles plying for hire and reward in this country, without any restriction whatever, would have been sufficient competition against the 16,000 of the British Transport Commission to satisfy even the most rapacious appetite for competition.
That is our case. What is there against it? There can be no argument in logic; there can be no argument in industrial common sense. If the British Transport Commission are so inept as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and other noble Lords would have us believe, what are they afraid of? With 16,000 vehicles, 74,000 vehicles will "eat" it in no time. What are the Government afraid of? Is not the real truth that the Commission's long-distance road haulage service, and all these basic services, that I have just enumerated, are far too efficient? Is it not the case that if you weaken them, write down and cripple them, and tie their hands behind their backs, they will be far easier prey for competition? Are the Government afraid of competition from the Commission? Are they afraid of the competition of 16,000 vehicles against74,000 vehicles? Or do they think that a fair ratio of competition is 4,300 vehicles against 80,000 vehicles? I think I have said enough to justify this Amendment. We regard it as very important. I should like to address a few words, quite sincerely, to the Deputy Leader of the House. I feel certain that here is a basis for discussion. After all views have been stated—including the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who will in a moment

1155
move a most interesting Amendment—if the Deputy Leader of the House in charge of the Bill will enter into discussions with us on this vital principle, I am perfectly willing not to move the other Amendments of a similar nature which I have down on the Marshalled List. That is our case, and we view it most seriously. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("(i)")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.24 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I must confess that I have had some difficulty in following the noble Lord, because he seems to have covered such a wide field and said a great deal that has nothing to do with the Amendments on the Order Paper. This clause refers to the total unladen weight of motor vehicles which can be transferred to companies under the control of the Commission. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asks, I think, for one and a half times—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has the wrong Amendment. It is a little confusing.
LORD TEYNHAM: No. 19 comes into this, does it not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it does not. I asked the permission of the Committee to discuss Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 21. No. 17 keeps in this Bill proviso (i) as it stands, which is the 4,000 vehicles. Then we seek to delete proviso (ii), and have there the words in Amendment No. 21. Is that clear to the noble Lord?
LORD TEYNHAM: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like to make it clear to the Committee that when I come to speak I shall deal with the whole of these Amendments. It is quite impossible for the Committee to come to a conclusion unless they see what are the alternatives before them, and how much the Transport Commission would get if they took alternative "A," "B" or "C" or "A," "B" plus "C." We must take them all together.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of what has been said by the Deputy Leader of the House, perhaps the noble Lord will not object if I continue with this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No.
LORD TEYNHAM: The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asks that one and a half times the total unladen weight of motor vehicles owned on January 1, 1948, should be transferred. That is what the Amendment means, and to agree to it would, in fact, defeat the object of the Bill. I have set down a compromise Amendment which is that for six-fifths shall be substituted five-fourths. That will, of course, mean an increase. With regard to the next Amendment, which deals with the total number of vehicles that can be retained by the Commission, I have set down an Amendment which would allow them to retain thirteen-tenths of the total unladen weight of the vehicles mentioned in the Amendment. Of the increase of vehicles proposed in the Amendment, I will give a few more details. Paragraph (a) covers motor vehicles and trailers specially constructed for the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads—that is, loads such as big electricity transformers, ships' propellers, large boilers, large girders, and so on, things which are too big or too heavy to be carried on ordinary vehicles. Then we come to paragraph (b), which covers other special motor vehicles, but not trailers, constructed for special purposes such as tank wagons, insulated vans, timber wagons, et cetera. Then we come to the last one, paragraph (c), which deals with all other motor vehicles, mainly ordinary load carriers.
With regard to the question of unladen weight, about which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested we should not do anything, let me give the noble Lord some figures. The motor vehicles owned by the companies concerned as at January 1, 1948, were as follows: the total fleet, the number of vehicles, was 3,899; the unladen weight in tons was 13,723. I will now give the categories: Category "A," heavy haulage, 164 motor vehicles, of a total unladen weight of 1,884 tons; other specials, 1,257, with an unladen weight of 3,806 tons; ordinary load carriers, 2,478, with an unladen weight of 8,033 tons. The motor vehicles which could be retained by the Commission under the proposed Amendment are as follows: the total fleet, the number of vehicles, would be 4,875, and the maximum unladen weight would be 17,200 tons, which is a considerable

1157
increase. Then we go to the categories: heavy haulage, number of vehicles, 210, with a maximum unladen weight of 2,500 tons; other specials 1,630, with a maximum unladen weight of 5,000tons, and ordinary load carriers 3,320 with an unladen weight of 10,500 tons. I do not want to weary the House with these figures, and I do not propose to give any more. They show, however, that a considerable increase will be made if this Amendment is accepted. And we certainly know all about the question of unladen weight. I do not think I need say any more on this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: In amplification of my noble friend's remarks, I should like to say that the second part of our Amendment, wherein we talk about thirteen-tenths, is to provide a latitude. In effect, it means that within the three categories, 5 per cent. up or down can be taken in any one category. The figures my noble friend just read out are in fact the maximum that could be contained in any one of those grades. The total would be, as he said, 17,200, against which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is asking for a figure which I calculate to be 20,500. That is one and a half times 13,723, and there does not appear to be a great deal of—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not asking for anything of the kind. It is not fair to say that. I have not mentioned Amendment No. 18. All I am asking for is 16,000 vehicles, and that number is contained in the original proviso (i) of the clause plus my new proviso (ii), the one providing for 4,000 and one other for 12,000. I am not asking for anything else. I have not moved the Amendment to which the noble Lord refers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I shall not speak at quite such great length as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, yet I think I shall be able to cover all the issues which have been raised. This is an important clause and these are important Amendments because, under this clause in the form in which we have it, we shall decide the number of vehicles which the Transport Commission are to retain. Weight, of course, is taken into account in a way which is set out quite simply in the clause.
1158
I think we all want to arrive at a fair solution, but we must arrive at a solution which is consistent with the purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, as he always says, "Little as we like this Bill, we accept its principle," but then he proceeds to move Amendment after Amendment which he says the Government are quite unreasonable in not accepting but which, while paying lip service to the principle of the Bill, would so alter it as entirely to change its purpose. Let us be clear what the purpose of the Bill is. The main purpose of this Bill is to denationalise road haulage. The noble Lord said that we ought to maintain basic services. Of course we mean to maintain basic services, and we hope, believe and are confident that when this Bill goes through, not only shall we maintain basic services—indeed, all transport services—but, by introducing a wholesome element of competition, we shall give the public a better service than they had before. But maintaining basic services, and indeed improving them, does not mean that you leave all those basic services in the hands of the Commission. What I think the majority of your Lordships would wish to do in this clause is to be consistent with the main principle and purpose of the Bill of denationalising road haulage and getting rid of the monopoly of the Road Haulage Executive, but, at the same time, giving the Transport Commission a fair chance to operate within the field of road transport as did the old railways.
I would ask your Lordships to remember this—because we shall come to a fair decision about the numbers only if we survey the whole field and see exactly what this Bill proposes to leave to the Commission. First of all, be it remembered that the Transport Commission is being left with all the railway collection and delivery vans which are operated by the Railway Executive. Now that is not just a few vehicles; that is no fewer than 14,000 vehicles. Therefore, observe that the Transport Commission start, as I may put it, 14,000 up. Then observe how we have progressed, and I think rightly progressed. I know that some of my noble friends think we have perhaps given away too much. I do not think so, but we certainly have given a great deal. The original White Paper, your Lordships will

1159
remember, left with the Transport Commission nothing except the railway collection and delivery vehicles. Then came the original Bill. That sought to give to the Transport Commission the exact number—calculated in relation to unladen weight—that the Railway Commission acquired when they took over the holdings of the old railway companies on nationalisation.
This Bill goes still further and it gives to the Transport Commission the 14,000 railway delivery vans, the 1948 number of vehicles—that is, the status quo at the time of nationalisation—plus one-fifth. We thought that one-fifth was a reasonable estimate of, if I may so put it, the way the Transport Commission would have bred if they had not been just a monopoly acquiring these things—a reasonable estimate of their own natural offspring. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes increases which, quite frankly, would wreck the purpose of the Bill. I will leave out the horses for the moment, but, apart from that, he proposes a very large increase in the total—I think about 50 per cent.—which would leave all the specialised heavy services with the Commission and greatly increase the total.
I must take into account the horse business, because Lord Lucas has an Amendment on it, and presumably it is a proposal we are to take into account. The Amendment says that where you have a one-horse vehicle, you are to have a two-ton lorry. Actually, on the wording of the Amendment it would be three tons for every horse, because a certain number of these vehicles have been disposed of—some are still with them—and what we have to consider is the number which were disposed of and have since been replaced. I am bound to say that I am sure the noble Lord does not conduct his own exchange and mart in the motor business on that basis. One horse vehicle for a nice three-ton lorry!—I think it is very good business. I should have thought that if we were to take an equivalent of this kind. "One horse, one-horse power" would perhaps be a more reasonable basis to take. Then the noble Lord brings in the argument about the vehicles which the Transport Commission acquired "voluntarily" from companies. I remember a cartoon in Punch a long time ago about compelling a man to
1160
volunteer. These companies certainly would not have sold if they had not been under the shadow and the menace of compulsory purchase.
The noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Hawke, have put forward a more modest idea. As I listened to it I found theirs a more convincing case. They proposed that—I am summing it up as briefly as possible—instead of giving one-fifth extra we should give one-fourth extra and that we should allow, which I think is a very reasonable proposition, a wider latitude as between the different classes of vehicles in the manner that Lord Hawke has explained. I do not think the Commission do too badly under the Bill as it stands. But I do think that the proposal about increased latitude in classes is reasonable. A tribute has been so often paid by both sides to this Government on its sweet reasonableness, for which it has now become notable, and for the liberal spirit which moves it, that I am willing, in that spirit, to concede one-fourth: to increase the one-fifth to one-fourth. That will more than meet this horse trade claim on any reasonable basis, and I must say I think it gives the Commission a pretty good deal and a very good start.
The position is not static. The Commission are not limited to the number of vehicles we give them under this clause. The Commission or their operating companies will be able to apply to the licensing authority for new or additional facilities. There will be no fear or favour. All will be equal before the law—and I am sure that that will appeal to the former Lord Chancellor. All will have equal chances, and whoever the licensing authority think can do the job best will get the licence. In fact, all will have an equal chance in the race and the Commission certainly will not start handicapped. On the other hand, if we were to take Lord Lucas's series of Amendments, so far from starting unhand capped and on equal terms with their competitors in the race, they would start more than halfway down the course—more than halfway to the winning post. That would really not be consistent with the Bill, or fair play, or common sense. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships, on full consideration, to accept the additions which are proposed in the Amendments standing in the name of Lord Teynham and

1161
others, and to modify the Bill in favour of the Commission to that extent.
LORD OGMORE: I think we are in some difficulty here. My noble friend Lord Lucas discussed his three Amendments, and the noble Viscount who has just replied has been dealing with a number of Amendments which have not been moved at all. In fact, some of them are alternative proposals to the Amendments that we have moved.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I want to do, and thought I was doing, what is convenient to the House.
LORD OGMORE: I do not know whether voices have been collected by anybody, but we on this side assumed that in fact the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, would move their Amendments and then they could be discussed when they were before the House; the House would then know exactly what it was doing.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: At the beginning of the debate I suggested to the House—and not a soul in the House dissented—that we should take separately Amendment No. 15, which deals with a small subsidiary point, and then have a general discussion on Amendments Nos. 16 to 21. Of course, every single Amendment can be moved and voted upon.
LORD OGMORE: That is exactly what I am pointing out. That is my point. I think what has just been happening is confusing to the House. The arguments which my noble friend was adducing on his three Amendments have not been controverted by the noble Viscount in form; he has been speaking on other Amendments which in fact had not been moved. I suggest it would be better to discuss them when they are moved. This is a very complicated matter, and it is confusing to noble Lords to have several Amendments discussed at the same time before one is out of the way. Furthermore, whatever may be said about Lord Teynham's Amendment, the fact remains that the noble Viscount in his remarks was dealing with Amendments which have not been moved by my noble friend, and which in a sense are alternative.
So far as my noble friend's Amendments are concerned, I should like briefly
1162
to sum up what I think is his position. Under the Act of 1947, Part II, the Commission took on all the railway-owned vehicles amounting in number to 4,000; and under Part I they took over vehicles owned by 450 to 500 companies in 200 groups, amounting to 12,000. My noble friend's three Amendments, which we hoped were going to be discussed, amount to this. We think that the companies to be formed under this clause should take over these 16,000 vehicles. We think they should be taken over because they are of such a nature that they can more easily be run in large units and by the sort of companies that will be formed under this clause. We feel that if they are split up into a large number of units, the work that they are intended to do will not be done properly and may not be done at all. In other words, it is a pity to break up the vehicles formerly owned by the railways and the vehicles which were taken over from the large companies in these 200 groups. The noble Viscount's argument is that, in fact, in addition to the 4,000 vehicles which the railways are to operate there are 10,000 others; and he makes the figure net 4,000 but 14,000.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No there are 14,000 vehicles which are in the railways collection and delivery van section. Those are entirely separate.
LORD OGMORE: That is my point. The 10,000 other vehicles making up the 14,000 vehicles have never been included in this Bill because they are used for local delivery—the sort of delivery that years ago used to be done with vans drawn by the huge railway horses that many of us remember. So the difference between our proposals—if we ignore the 10,000 vehicles which are used for local haulage by the railways—and the Government's proposals (I am ignoring Lord Teynham's proposals) is that we want the companies to have the opportunity to acquire 16,000 vehicles. The Government want them to have the opportunity to acquire 4,000. To use the expression invented by the Prime Minister, that is the "crunch" of this argument. That is why we say that our Amendment would improve the Bill and would enable the companies to operate transport of the type, and give the service, which the country has in the last few years learned to expect and the traders have enjoyed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have only one more word to say before I ask your Lordships to pass an opinion on this matter. I must say that I think the noble Viscount has treated the House rather unfairly; he has certainly treated the Opposition very unfairly because, when I opened my remarks, I gave precise details; I asked the permission of the Lord Chairman and I outlined precisely the Amendment I was moving. I said that, if the noble Viscount would even meet us and consider this, I would not move the other Amendments. The noble Viscount then misleads your Lordships by adding all my Amendments together—some were alternatives, the last two were alternatives—and speaking against a case which I never said existed. I do not think that is the right way to treat the Opposition. My noble friend, Lord Ogmore, has put it in precise terms. The noble Viscount then seeks to cloud the issue by bringing in the local delivery vans that are owned by the Railway Executive. In this Bill we are dealing only with the vehicles that are owned by the Road Haulage Executive, not those that are owned by the Railway Executive. As my noble friend has said, they are the local deliveries. That is how the noble Viscount got his 14,000. These 10,000 have never come into the picture at all. Therefore, as the noble Viscount has not wished to meet us on this, as he shows no sign of any compromise as between our figure of 16,000—which is not an increase to 50 per cent., as the noble Viscount said—and the 74,000 which will be the number of the Commission's competitors, I must ask your Lordships to divide. We will take our protest into the Lobbies.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I should point out that Amendment No. 16 is not a very convenient one
upon which to divide, because it really concerns a matter of printing. As figures at the beginning of the subparagraph are not, technically, a part of the Bill, it would not be convenient to divide on this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then we will divide on Amendment No. 17.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 17 were carried, Amendment No. 16 would go in as a matter of printing. Perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment and have the Division on No. 17.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that is convenient. That would still preserve the Amendments standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Teynham and Lord Hawke?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It will preserve all the subsequent Amendments.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With the permission of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, after ("exceed") insert ("the sum of the following weights, that is to say—
(i)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Whether the Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Morrison, L.

Jowitt, E.

Faringdon, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Greenhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hall, V.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Hungarton, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L

Inman, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Kenswood, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Lawson, L.

Winster, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Chorley, L.

Mathers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Devonport, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Goschen, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Long, V.

Freyberg, L.

Willingdon, M.

Monsell, V.

Gifford, L.

Ridley, V.

Hacking, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Swinton, V.

Hampton, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Templewood, V.

Hankey, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hawke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Annaly, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Baden-Powell, L.

Lloyd, L.

Howe, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mancroft, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brand, L.

Monkswell, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Radnor, E.

Broughshane, L.

Palmer, L.

Rothes, E.

Burnham, L.

Rea, L.

Selborne, E.

Carrington, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cherwell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cranworth, L.

Savile, L.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teviot, L.

Allenby, V.

Dormer, L.

Teynham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Webb-Johnson, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in proviso (i) of subsection (2), to leave out "six fifths of" and insert "one and a half times." The noble Lord said: I should not have moved this Amendment, had Her Majesty's Government been accommodating on the last Amendment; I made it perfectly clear that I would not move this Amendment had my last one received a better fate. This is only an alternative Amendment to the last, for which I did not have the good fortune to win the Government's support. The Amendment is another attempt to knock some sense of reality into this clause. Its effect is to increase

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Mathers, L.

Chorley, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Hall, V.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stansgate, V.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Hungarton, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Kenswood, L.

Winster, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan)

Kershaw, L.

Wise, L.

[Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Linlithgow, M.

Allenby, V.

Carrington, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cranworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Devonport, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V.

Dormer, L.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Fortescue, E [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Howe, E.

Swinton, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Freyberg, L.

Rothes, E.

Annaly, L.

Gifford, L.

Selborne, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Broughshane, L.

Llewellin, L.

to 5,848 the number of vehicles which the Road Haulage Executive or the British Transport Commission can run on general road haulage, not on delivering parcels for railway companies. That is a modest increase, and it is a better figure than the one in the Bill at the present time; it has already been half proposed and half discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, leave out ("six-fifths of") and insert ("one and a half times").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).
On Question, Whether the Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20;
Not-Contents, 48.

Lloyd, L.

Rockley, L.

Teynham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Saltonun, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Monkswell, L

Sandhurst, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Palmer, L.

Salvile, L.

Wolverton, L.

Remnant, L.

Teviot, L.

LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in proviso (i) of subsection (2), to leave out "six-fifths" and insert "five-fourths." The noble Lord said: In view of the intimation by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the Government will accept my compromise Amendment, no further remarks are necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, leave out ("six-fifths") and insert ("five-fourths").—;Lord Teynham.
4.15 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) to delete proviso (ii) and to insert:
"(ii) without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this proviso, the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over which belong to each of the three following categories, that is to say:—

(a) vehicles (whether motor vehicles or trailers) specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads;

(b) motor vehicles (of whatever character) which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be regarded as special vehicles constructed for special purposes other than the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads;

(c) other motor vehicles,

does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively."
The noble Lord said: The same remarks apply to his Amendment. No further discussion is necessary as I understand the Government is prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 33 to 37, and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We do not oppose this Amendment but I should like to ask a question upon it. It seems as if it puts us in rather a straitjacket. What it really says is that you cannot increase the number of vehicles in one of these categories unless you decrease the number of vehicles in another. That is going to be administratively almost impossible. From practical experience, I say it will not work. May
1168
I just put this case? Suppose you have a certain number of specialised tractors, and it is desired to increase the number of tractors—and at the present time this is open to the whole wide world. If you want to increase the tonnage in that particular division, is it necessary to decrease it in one of the others? That is as I understand it.
LORD HAWKE: Are you speaking of the present or the future?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of the future. The words in the Amendment are:
"does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively."
Does that mean that that proportion has to be maintained, or is that the proportion they start off with; and if they want it increased as a result of their business, can they apply to the licensing authorities for permission?
LORD TEYNHAM: That is in fact the case.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before I accepted this Amendment I ascertained that it is not only administratively quite possible but extremely acceptable to the Transport Commission.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say something with regard to the recent Division? A substantial number of Members of your Lordships' House were enjoying their afternoon cup of tea when the loudspeaker informed them that there was a Division. We thereupon, being devoted Members of your Lordships' House, rose and made our way here, only to find the doors closed. I understand that something had gone wrong with the arrangements. I do not want to put the House to the trouble of going through the Division again, but I hope that some means will be found whereby we shall not be placed in similar circumstances another time.
LORD STRABOLGI: I wish to support my noble friend's remarks.
VISCOUNT SWINTON:I am extremely sorry. I think there must have been a failure of the electricity system, but the failure was equally disadvantageous to both sides. The Party of the noble Lord opposite went down ten, but we went down twenty.
LORD SHEPHERD: The question I want to put is this. Is there any means by which we can make our presence in the House known through the OFFICIAL REPORT?
LORD STRABOLGI: May I support what my noble friend has said, and put it even more strongly? I was much closer to the Chamber than the tea room, and the bells did not ring. I made it my business to find out if that was the case, and it is confirmed that there were no Division bells. The loudspeaker does not give sufficient warning for noble Lords. There were some fifteen Peers in the Prince's Chamber, who could not get in here and who, in the ordinary course of events, would have voted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am told that there is a Protest Book. I am bound to say this is "a new one on me," for I did not know of it before, but apparently there does exist such a volume somewhere. No doubt it can be produced in the appropriate place, and anyone desiring to register a protest can do so. Otherwise, I do not think there is anything that can be done. There is a procedure, I think, both here and in another place, whereby if a Member's vote or a noble Lord's vote has been wrongly recorded—that is to say if he has been recorded as voting one way whereas, in fact, he voted another—it can be set right. But failure through no fault of our own to record our votes can be dealt with only in the way I have suggested. All possible steps, I understand, are being taken to see that in future all bells ring in all places where they should.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would it not have been a terrible thing if the Government had been defeated on this?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I may add to what I have just said that Mere will be a messenger service which will go round to all the appropriate places to let noble Lords know that a Division is to take place.
LORD MATHERS: Is there not another way in which noble Lords can indicate how they would have voted? Would it not be appropriate for each one of us who has been cheated out of his vote by this unfortunate circumstance to rise in this Chamber and express his views? He certainly would be put on record then.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That would not expedite business.
4.23 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice that he would move in subsection (2) to delete proviso (ii) and to insert:
"(ii) the total weight unladen of the motor vehicles owned, immediately before the date of their acquisition by the Commission, by the road haulage undertakings acquired by the Commission by agreement under the powers conferred by Part I of the Transport Act, 1947."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is the one which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, wanted to discuss when it had not been moved, and in connection with which he added a number of horses and vehicles to my original Amendment. The only reason I propose to move this Amendment now is in order that I may ask the noble Viscount a question. As I understand it, the Government are increasing the number of vehicles from the number of vehicles belonging to the wholly-owned companies by five-fourths, to take care of two things. The first thing was the natural growth, and the other was the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: On a point of Order: I think there is some misunderstanding here. Amendment 21 is an Amendment which I do not think it is intended to move. Amendment 22, I think, is the one to which the noble Lord is referring.
LORD LUCAS: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for pointing out the mistake. I must have misheard the noble Lord Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Then Amendment 21 is not moved. The next Amendment is Amendment 22.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to add to the proviso:
"For the purpose of this proviso, such horse-drawn vehicles owned on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, by the bodies corporate referred to therein as have since been replaced shall be deemed to have been motor vehicles each with an unladen weight of two tons."
The noble Lord said: Will your Lordships kindly take what I have already said as applying to this Amendment, as I do not wish to repeat it all? I understand that the Government are increasing the number of vehicles by five-fourths—which, of course, is a more reasonable figure—to take care of two things. The first is the natural growth in the number of vehicles, owing to the expansion of trade in the country, which would have taken place whether or not nationalisation had been introduced. In that course, what the Government wish to do is to put back the British Transport Commission to the position that they can own vehicles only for the purpose of general haulage, as opposed to parcel delivery by the railways—we are dealing now only with general haulage—so that they are put back to the pre-nationalisation position as at January 1, 1948. They then owned, to be precise, 3,899 vehicles. I have, as your Lordships know, been using the figure 4,000. This increase, as I say, is to take care of any natural increase due to the expansion of trade from 1948 to date. It is also made in order to take care of the conversion of horse-drawn vehicles of which, before nationalisation, the railway companies owned somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000. So this increase is partly to allow for the conversion to mechanical vehicles.
I am going to suggest to the noble Viscount that five-fourths is rather a low figure, when we take into consideration these two factors. I think that five-fourths would have been a fair increase if the natural expansion of trade had been the only factor which the Government had to take into consideration, but when you realise that the number of conversions from horse-drawn vehicles—and I am speaking now of vehicles—was close on 3,000, I think perhaps the Committee will agree that the increase should be more than to five-fourths. I do not mind if the noble Viscount deals in horses. I
1172
have never been in the horse-dealing business myself, and I do not know anything about it. I am therefore at some disadvantage as compared with the noble Viscount in this connection. I have been in the respectable trade of vehicles, and I always think in numbers of vehicles. My life's experience has taught me to have nothing to do with horses, and I think that anyone who follows that rule is better off in many ways. I wish to ask the noble Viscount whether he will reconsider this figure and discuss it with his advisers to see if it would not be fairer to alter this five-fourths to ensure that the question of horse-drawn vehicles which have been converted to mechanical transport is properly covered. That is the only point I wish to raise upon this Amendment, which I do not propose to press to a Division. I merely ask the noble Viscount for that explanation. I hope that he will be able to give it to me. As I say, this is one of the Amendments which I did not intend to move, but I now do so formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We thought that giving this extra difference was a pretty fair settlement. We had already allowed, of course, under the one-fifth, for what I might call the natural breeding of the Commission if it had remained a normal animal—or if the railways had. It is not easy to equate horses and motor cars: the horse has a very limited radius, whereas the motor car has a very large one. On the whole, we thought that the difference between one-fifth and one-quarter was a pretty fair equivalent, and the Committee have assented to that. I certainly cannot hold out any hope that we could go further than that. Of course, if I consulted the Commission, naturally the Commission would say: "Oh, yes, let us have some more." You might as well say to a dog, "Would you like another bun?"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Another bone!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Bone or bun, it does not matter; my dog eats both. But I do not think that would be a very good way of deciding it. I am prepared to consider this between now and the

1173
Report stage, and to see whether the Ministry, who really are the people to decide, consider that anything extra should be given. I do not hold out any hope that they would, because they have engaged in all the mathematical and hypothetical calculations which they think proper; and unless they tell me that on reconsideration they think an extra pourboire (if I may change the metaphor) may be given, I do not propose to put anything down.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It always seems to me a pity that when the noble Viscount gives a concession, he gives it almost grudgingly, with the proviso that nothing is likely to be done, although he does not mind taking it back for reconsideration.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have not given any concession.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount said he was prepared to discuss this matter further with the Commission.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not say anything of the sort. I said I thought that would be a very foolish thing to do, because the Commission would naturally say, "Let us have as much as we can get." I said that I would discuss this with the Ministry.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Surely, if the Commission can make a case, the noble Viscount will listen to it. That is all I am asking. It does not appear to me to be an unreasonable request. In the hope—a faint one, but yet a hope—that something will be done, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.32 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This subsection deals with the companies which will be formed by the Commission for the purpose of running all their road haulage activities, as set out in subsection (1). The Commission are to launch separate companies into this competitive world—that is the object of the Bill. Monopoly goes and they are all in together: every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost! It will be competition, bitter competition as we knew it in the 'thirties. I would
1174
ask why, in this competitive world, the Government subject the companies to be set up by the Commission to provisions that cannot possibly affect any of their competitors? The Government say that the companies owned by the Commission have to disclose every scrap of information about their affairs, just as if they were still a State-owned monopoly. Why are the Government not satisfied with the provisions of the Companies Act, under which the competitors of these companies operate and which lay down the precise information that is to be provided by a limited company?
The provisions of the 1947 Act, from which this subsection has been borrowed, dealt with the British Transport Commission, a monopoly. Right through this Bill there is one law for the nationally owned company and another for their private enterprise competitors. I do not know why. In his speeches in another place, the Minister said that there would be "a fair field and no favour," and "Let the best man win!" Why do the Government want to hobble at the starting gate the publicly owned companies? Perhaps the noble Earl will have a satisfactory answer, but on every possible connotation in the Bill, the nationally owned concerns are placed at a disadvantage in this wonderful field of free enterprise into which they are to be thrown. This subsection uses the words:
"any company to which property has been made over under this section remains under the direct or indirect control of the Commission."
Would the noble Earl tell me what is meant by "indirect control of the Commission"? I can only assume that it means subsidiary companies. It cannot mean those companies in which at some future date, if the Government have their way, the British Transport Commission will have a minority shareholding, because that is no control at all, and this would be an impossible thing to impose upon a company in which the Commission had a minority shareholding. That is what I want to ask, and that is why I put down this Amendment. I may say that, from my experience up to date, I do not expect any concession from the Government on this point. We have long since abandoned hope of that. All I do is make it publicly known that this "free field and no favour" is a myth. The

1175
Government do not intend that the nationally owned companies shall have any kind of decent competitive start, and this is one of the many shackles placed upon them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): I am staggered because the noble Lord has moved this Amendment at all. Our approach to this question is totally different from that of the noble Lord. He used the phrase "subject these companies to this handicap." I should have thought that to place the obligation on these separate companies, although they may be working under the shelter of one Commission, of having separate accounts and of making separate reports on their activities was the first condition of efficiency. Any noble Lord who has his own business knows that the first thing a business man usually does is to divide up his concern into separate units and cost them separately, to see that every section is pulling its weight. The noble Lord complains of publication; but it is public money with which we are dealing here. Is it seriously suggested that these companies should not make their principal activities public? The Bill refers to:
"Principal activities…and…financial and operating results."
There is no reference there to particulars of individual contracts, or anything in the nature of a trade secret, or any advantage. There is nothing in this that goes further, or, indeed, in some ways, as far as, what is obligatory on all public companies under the Companies Act. I said that I was surprised that the noble Lord moved this Amendment, and I venture to hope that he may feel justified in withdrawing it. It is certainly not an Amendment that I should have thought noble Lords opposite who deal with large sums of public money would for a moment want to press.
LORD SILKIN: I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl has not really directed his mind to the case that has been made. Of course, we recognise that public money is involved, and therefore, the public are entitled to know how it is spent. There can be no possible objection to that—indeed, the Companies Act
1176
provides in the case of companies that a good deal of information—and particularly public companies—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Not private companies.
LORD SILKIN: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: These may be private companies.
LORD SILKIN: But in certain cases even private companies have to make their accounts public. However, I am not making that point. I am conceding that the public are entitled to know in the case of these companies, in a broad way, how they are getting on, what are the financial results, and so on. But this subsection goes much further than that. It is because it goes so much further, and requires these companies to give information which may be injurious to their business, and which may give an advantage to their competitors, that we should like the Government to look at it again. I am not quite so pessimistic as my noble friend Lord Lucas. I believe that if we can make a reasonable case, even noble Lords opposite will be prepared to listen and reconsider the matter.
I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to what is required of these companies. I personally should take no objection to their publishing the general financial results of their operations. But what they are asked to do is to provide information
"as to the principal activities of the company."
That means, I take it, to provide them in some detail, about each of the activities. It is a flexible term, but at any rate it does break up the work of the company. The subsection goes on to say that the annual statement shall
"be so framed as to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each such activity."
That is something that a public company would never be asked to do. It seems to me unreasonable that a company which is competing with others should be asked to give detailed accounts of each of its operations—the "financial and operating results." I am not quite sure what the operating results are, but if they are different from financial results then the meaning is much wider than I had imagined. At any rate, it is much more than a public company is required

1177
to do—the noble Earl shakes his head, but I can assure him that it is so; and, with great respect, I speak with some knowledge of these matters—and it is much more than the competitors of the various undertakings are required to do. It may be giving to these competitors information which will enable them to compete more favourably with the companies.
Let me give an example of what I have in mind—and I hope that it is a fair example. These companies may be undertaking operations along different routes, and it may suit their purpose deliberately not to make a profit on some routes, in order to attract traffic in the beginning, and to recoup themselves on other routes. That would not be an unheard of thing in the operations of a company of this kind, or indeed, of any other company. Under this subsection they would be required to give the operating results of each of these different types of activity. Surely, that would be putting them at a disadvantage as against their competitors. If that is not the intention, then this clause wants looking at again. If it is the intention, then it seems to me to be entirely wrong. I feel that this clause needs careful study, to make quite sure that, in the new circumstances in which the companies will now be operating, they are not required to give any information which would be of benefit to their competitors and disadvantageous to themselves. It is from that angle that I hope the Government will look at this matter again.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: What the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said has made the case of noble Lords opposite a good deal clearer than it was before he spoke. I do not think there can be any doubt that any company, whether controlled by public or by private enterprise, should publish their accounts, as indeed, they are required to do by the Companies Act. But what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is dealing with is much more in point—namely, the question of how far they should publish the results and the operating stastistics of their work, and in what detail. While the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was speaking I had a quick look at the section of the Transport Act, 1947, to which this clause refers. I notice there that the intention of that section, so far
1178
as I can understand it from a quick look, is that under the new arangements of the 1947 Act the same information shall be given to the public as the railways were required to give under the Railways Act. Unless I am wrong, it has always been the practice of the railways to give a considerable amount of information in regard to operating statistics. As I understand this clause of the Bill, it means that the same sort of information should be given as was envisaged under the Transport Act, 1947, should be laid before the Minister by the Corporation. I should like to come to another point made by the noble Lord, as to the undesirability of dealing with principal activities.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Viscount leaves that point, I am sure he will bear in mind that it is one thing to give this information when you have a monopoly, but it is quite another thing when you are one of a large number of concerns, all competing for the same limited amount of trade.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I was hoping to come to that point in a few moments. As I was saying, we come to the question of dealing with the principal activities. I think the noble Lord will agree that this clause does not in terms specify the detail in which these principal activities are to be described—in fact, it uses the phrase "as far as may be." I understand that phrase to mean that the Minister or the Commission will use their discretion in exactly the sense that the noble Lord opposite meant. But, surely, in these days it is becoming more and more the habit in company practice for chairmen of important companies to go into considerable detail with their shareholders as to what the principal activities of the companies are. Anybody who picks up the annual report of an important company, issued, say, this year, and compares it with one issued ten or twelve years ago, as in fact I was doing a few days ago for another purpose, will notice how the practice has altered, to disclosing information of a company's activities as opposed to the bare bones of a statutory report. I suggest that that is the right policy to follow, and should be followed in this case.
Now we come to the question about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is exercised, of how far we are going to

1179
jeopardise the fortunes of the Commission-controlled companies by requiring them to disclose over-much information of their operational statistics. I think that the wording of this clause is sufficient to prevent their having to disclose anything which, in ordinary business practice, would not be disclosed. I suggest that this transport, whether it is run by the Commission or whether it is run by privately-owned companies, is run in the interest of the public, and competition which is going to be caused by the publication of statistics can do nothing but good in that it will certainly result in producing from both types of company better services and lower costs. For that reason, it seems to me that competition is a thing to be encouraged. If a nationalised company can show that their operating statistics are better than those of the privately-owned companies, all well and good. The public, who are the owners, will be pleased about it, and the privately-owned companies will try to get down to those figures. If the reverse is true, then the case is altered, and let us hope that the Commission's companies will start to get down to the same figures as the privately-owned companies. That would be the type of healthy and friendly co-operation between private enterprise and nationally-owned companies which is part of the background of this Bill.
LORD WINSTER: The noble Earl said that he was staggered by the temerity of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in moving this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I did not use the word.
LORD WINSTER: I think those were the words used. I can only say that I have never regarded the noble Earl as a man to be staggered so easily. I shall have to revise my opinion of the state of his nerves, because, as the noble Viscount just said, it has been shown quite clearly that there are points of real substance in this Amendment. I make any comments on this Bill in no sense of hostility to the Bill. The principle is accepted, and one is only concerned now in trying to make it the most satisfactory Bill possible. What I find curious about the Bill is that in many of the clauses the Government appear to me to be standing upon two feet. This is a Bill to remove an industry from national ownership to
1180
private enterprise, but now and again I feel that the Government have one foot on the shore and another foot in the boat, and are rather hesitating between private ownership and nationalisation. We have already a clause in the Bill which strikes at a fundamental principle of private enterprise, which is that the Commission need not accept the best price they can get for their assets. Here again in this clause there seems to be an attack upon another fundamental principle of private enterprise, and when these things occur in this way I cannot help feeling that here and there in the Bill the Government have introduced a clause or phrase which is aimed at minimising the opposition which the Bill will encounter. That is the point that I should like to have cleared up.
In transferring an industry from national ownership to private enterprise, why are these concesssions to the principle of nationalisation made from time to time, and things introduced into the Bill which are contrary to the principles upon which private enterprise is supposed to run? I understand nationalisation and I understand private enterprise, but I am perfectly certain that to try to work upon a compromise between the two cannot lead to a satisfactory result for any industry.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think if the noble Lord has read the Bill he will realise that this was actually a compromise measure and that a considerable amount of public transport is still to be left under public ownership. All this clause does is to lay down that that portion which is left under public ownership shall be subject to normal Ministerial and Parliamentary control.
I cannot help feeling that this has been a very useful discussion, because I freely admit that when we began it was not completely clear what noble Lords wanted. I should have thought that, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, the words in this clause did not in fact lay these companies open to the danger of being compelled to publish facts and figures about their activities that would endanger their power of competition. After all, these Acts of Parliament are ultimately subject to interpretation and to administration by reasonable people. The report which is ultimately handed

1181
over by the Commission will be judged by the Minister, and I cannot imagine any Minister demanding facts and figures that would in fact damage the working of the company. Therefore, I am afraid I am not convinced at all that there is anything in this clause which need be altered. But at the same time, the purpose of a Committee stage is for discussion and consideration, and I gladly say that I will look at these words. I ant not at all committing myself, but I will certainly look at them and see if it is possible, by any stretch of the imagination, that they can be interpreted in such a way as to do the harm which the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Lucas, fear.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I apologise to the House for not making myself clear in my original speech. I made perhaps two mistakes. I tried to be brief and I thought that noble Lords who had read this Bill would also have been acquainted with the provisions of the 1947 Act. Obviously noble Lords have not read the 1947 Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, admitted that he had just looked at it.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I refreshed my memory.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: A subtle difference. I studied it, and I came to the conclusion that there had been far too hasty a lifting of the provisions of the 1947 Act in this regard. That had been done in order to take care of the malpractices of monopolies, and provisions had been put into this Bill without sufficient thought being given to the fact that the monopoly would be wide open. If I may, I will reply to one point. The British public are not going to be interested in the costs of the operations of these companies; they are going to be interested in one thing—their charges. That is what affects them, and not the costs. We do not object to every scrap of information being disclosed, except that information which would be of benefit to competitors and which would put these companies in an inferior position. The noble Earl says he will look at this point. I thank the noble Earl for proving me wrong. He is more conciliatory than I thought, and with that
1182
happy thought, and buoyed up with greater optimism than I had before, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
5.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares.
".—

(1) If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three, they may make over that property, together with any such rights or obligations of theirs as in their opinion can conveniently be made over therewith, to a company under their control in the shares of which no other person than they themselves have any beneficial interest, with a view to the subsequent sale of the shares of the company:

Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board.

(2) Where any property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section it shall be made over at a price equal to the net value thereof as shown in the books of the Commission (but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over thereof so far as not already taken into account), increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the Commission made over therewith, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any liabilities of the Commission made over therewith.

In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to values shown in the books of the Commission are references to the values so shown after making, of the Commission, in keeping their books for any ear falling wholly or partly after the passing of this Act, depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by them for the years falling before the passing of this Act, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure.

(3) Where the Commission have made over any property to a company under subsection (1) of this section, they shall proceed to the sale of all the shares thereof as soon as is reasonably practicable, and to that end shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, by public notice invite tenders for the purchase (in one parcel) of all those shares, on conditions specified in the notice or ascertainable in a manner specified in the notice:

1183

Provided that—

(a) no invitation to tender under this section shall be issued without the approval of the Board; and

(b) if it appears to the Commission that the sale of the shares by tender would be inappropriate and would be unlikely to secure the best possible price for the shares, they may, with the approval of the Board, sell the shares (in one parcel) otherwise than by tender.

(4) In determining whether any tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or 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.

(5) 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.

(6) If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board under this section, the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board.

(7) Where property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section, section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall have effect as if—

(a) the company were and at all times since the passing of this Act (or since its incorporation, whichever is the later) had been a subsidiary company of the Commission and the Commission were and at all times since the passing of this Act had been the holding company thereof;

(b) the Commission, in every application made for a licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, being an application made before the making over of the property, had signified to the licensing authority their desire that the provisions of the said section twelve should have effect as respects the company;

(c) the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twelve to Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, included a reference to section fifty-nine of the Transport Act 1947, subsections (1) to (5) of section six of this Act and Part II of the First Schedule to this Act:

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.

(8) Where the shares of a company are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof
1184
under this section, Part I of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if the company had, at the time of the transfer of the shares, purchased as or as part of a transport unit all the vehicles owned by it on that date which were then authorised vehicles under an A licence granted to the Commission under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act or were specified in a then pending application for such a licence as vehicles intended to be authorised there under and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the vehicles had been so purchased; and, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said Part I to transport units and to purchasers of transport units shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that—

(a) the total number of trailers specified by virtue of paragraph 2 of the said Part I in applications for special A licences shall not exceed the number of trailers made over under subsection (1) of this section by the Commission to the company;

(b) in paragraph 4 of the said Part I, the reference to the Commission shall be deemed to be a reference to the company and the reference to the publication of the public notice inviting tenders shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the transfer of the shares.

(9) The Commission, in making over vehicles to a company under subsection (1) of this section, may, by notice to the company, designate certain of those vehicles as additional vehicles, and in that event—

(a) any application by the Commission for an A licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act and any licence granted in pursuance of any such application shall lapse so far as it relates to any motor vehicles so designated, but without prejudice to the substitution of any such vehicle for another vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the said Part II;

(b) the Commission shall give all such notices and make all such applications as are necessary to secure that no such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, is included in an A licence so granted, otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution as aforesaid and that any such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, which has been included in such an A licence otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution is removed there from;

(c) any such vehicles, being trailers, shall be left out of account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection.

(10) Any property made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed for the purposes of section five of this Act to have been disposed of as or as Fart of a transport unit, but if, after any property has been so made over to a company but before the shares of the company have been transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any property of the company (whether part of such property or not) is transferred to the Commission, the property

1185
so transferred to the Commission shall be deemed for all the purposes of this Act to become property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and shall be dealt with accordingly.

(11) A company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section—

(a) may dispose of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business; and

(b) may, with the approval of the Board, dispose of any of its property to the Commission,

but, save as aforesaid, may not dispose of any of its property:

Provided that this subsection stall have effect in relation to a company, only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.

(12) Until the shares of any company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any person employed by the company shall be deemed for the purposes of section ninety-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to terms and conditions of employment of staff), to be employed by the Commission and to be under the direct control of the Commission themselves.

(13) Where a company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section has disposed of all its property, this section shall cease to apply to it unless and until further property is transferred to it under the said subsection (1)."

The noble Earl said: This is an important Amendment which I have the honour to move on behalf of my noble friend. May I say, by the way, that we are very glad that the general principles contained in this new clause have been very well received by noble Lords on both sides? The only apology I have to make is for the fact that this clause is so long and complicated. I feel that, in fairness, I should say that the clause was tabled immediately after the Second Reading, in order to give everyone who so desired the opportunity of seeing it; and we also circulated among, at all events, some people, an explanatory memorandum to make the clause as easy as possible to understand. This clause is part of a scheme which runs through the Bill. There are six minor Amendments and one fairly major Amendment to Clause 12, with which I will deal later; and there is a reinstatement of a subsection which my noble friend moved to delete from Clause 4 and which now appears as Amendment No. 99. The reinstatement in Clause 24 gives the Commission general powers to create
1186
companies, whether under this clause or under Clause 4, which we have just been discussing.
I should like to examine this new clause and explain it as carefully as I can within a few moments. There are three stages: first, the creating of the companies; secondly, the position of the companies when created; and thirdly, the sale. These are reflected in the different subsections of this clause which I think will be readily understood. The companies must be created with the permission of the Board. Again, the initiative in the first place lies with the Commission. That is without prejudice to the consideration in Clause 3—that is to say, with regard to rights and obligations. The price which is paid over to the company will be the net value, which is the value on the books of the Commission. And they can be—and this is important—unlimited in size. That is the formation of the companies as such. When these companies are formed, the Commission will be very much in the position of a holding company. They will have to obtain licences for companies operating and they will be able to do so in their own name or the name of the company; and they will have six months to do so. For the purposes of section 95 of the 1947 Act, the staff remains employees of the Commission. There is no alteration at this stage at all.
The company itself is free to carry on business; in fact, it is essentially a going concern. It may sell its own property in the ordinary organisation of its business. It can sell to the Commission—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Back to the Commission?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Back to the Commission—provided that it has the permission of the Disposal Board. But in certain other respects, apart from the employment position and licences, the holding company is still in control. When the sale takes place it must be in one parcel. That does not necessarily mean that cash must pass on that date. The sale can be either by tender or by agreement, or in such other way as the Board may indicate; and the Board must indicate that the price is reasonable. The whole of this scheme is permissive—that is to say, in the first place, the proposals must come from the Commission and

1187
be approved by the Disposal Board; otherwise there will be no companies formed. In the second place, this is no change of policy: it merely creates an opportunity for persons to operate. There is no change in policy or principle but it will allow people to operate on a very much larger scale by means of the company structure. The sale, of course, will proceed as quickly as is reasonably practicable and at the best price. The object of this new clause is to create an organisation which can carry on a service and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, emphasised earlier to-day, to keep the present service going. The object of this structure is to enable an organisation to be built up so that the service can be taken straight over, without any cessation of operation. I shall be glad to answer to the best of my ability any questions which noble Lords may ask. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.8 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am going to congratulate the noble Earl on the lucid way in which he has explained a very technical Amendment—if I may say so, a rather technical Amendment made worse by some very involved drafting. He has put the purpose of the Amendment very clearly. I desire also to offer my congratulations to the Minister. I say this with great sincerity. The Minister has shown himself, all through the progress of this Bill from its birth in another place, to have a very receptive mind. He has done well considering the handicaps under which he started.
This is the first appearance of an entirely new principle which some of us have always wanted. It was my intention, on behalf of noble Lords associated with me on this side of the House—an intention of which I gave due notice during the Second Reading—to put an Amendment down to ensure that there would be a sufficient number of companies formed to take care of the absorption of the major part of the other property assets—in other words, the assets of the Commission other than vehicles. I repeat, about £40 million worth of these assets are in vehicles, and
1188
about £60 million worth are in other property. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his Second Reading speech, maintained the same point—that there is only one way in which you can sell the bulk of these other assets: by hiving them off into companies, not selling them as chattels. The only way you will get rid of the buildings and depôts is by organising limited liability structures and wrapping them round the kernel of a transport business.
When I saw this Amendment—it was put down, as the noble Lord has rightly said, with all due speed by the Government; it was most considerate of them to do it immediately after Second Reading—I thought this was a principle, introduced in this House, with which we on this side could be satisfied. Our desire was that there should be sufficient of these companies formed to take care of the bulk of other assets, because the only real value of these other assets is in the operation of a transport company. If you sell them on the market as chattels you might as well throw them on the scrap-heap. You must sell them as a going concern, with all the accounting, all the stores and with all the other paraphernalia of a company. It is only in that way that you will recoup anything of the goodwill figure that we all hope to see come back.
Now I note in the noble Earl's speech a doubt. I want him, if he will be good enough, to give us this information quite frankly, because his answer will guide us as to whether or not on Report stage we return to this point with another Amendment. If I may put it in the vernacular, which I know the noble Earl will not misunderstand, I thought he was rather trying to "play this down." He appeared to be trying to say: "Do not think that this is going to be a major part. Do not think that this is going to do very much. We are not departing from any principle." I do not think we need depart from any principle that he has enunciated. We need not depart from any principle which affects the small man coming back into the industry. But I beg the noble Earl to realise that this is the only way of avoiding the heavy loss that I estimated on Second Reading would amount to £50 million, if these assets were disposed of at public auction, without reserve. I do not think there should be much of a

1189
loss, but if the disposal is prosecuted in a businesslike manner, the loss that is eventually made can be amortised in the accounts of the British Transport Commission, as it could be in the accounts of any other business. If the losses are large, they will have recourse to the levy—and I shall have something to say about the levy later on.
I want the noble Earl to assure us that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, by adopting the method of the limited company structure, to form sufficient companies to absorb a major proportion of those assets of the British Transport Commission which must be sold by the company structure method, if anything like a reasonable price is to be realised. If the noble Earl will give us that assurance we shall be more than satisfied, because on this particular point we support him, in principle, with one or two slight reservations which may be mentioned later on. If he will give us that assurance, it will guide our conduct in the remaining stages of this Bill.
5.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause, to leave out "all" in subsection (3) ["all the shares"]. The noble Viscount said: There are three Amendments, Nos. 25, 26 and 27, which stand in the names of my noble friend Lord Teynham and myself, so perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke about them all together, as they all refer to the same point. I can certainly follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in welcoming the clause which has just been moved by my noble friend. It looks as if noble Lords opposite have welcomed this clause not only in principle, but also rather more in practice than they welcomed some of the earlier clauses in the Bill. My own feeling is that a great deal of use will be made of this clause and that an expedient of this sort is the right way to hand over transport to private enterprise in what one might call a painless way, in such a way as not to disrupt the operation of the transport and also not to disrupt the positions of the people who are running those companies.
It is also, I think, a far better way in which to take care of those assets of the Transport Commission which are represented not by vehicles but by
1190
garages, service depôts, stores for spare parts and such things. So far so good. But there is one point that worries me a little. The draftsman has evidently spent much ingenuity and time on this clause, and his efforts, if I may say so with great respect, have had the cumulative result of bringing a little unbalance into this Bill. All the regulations for dealing with road transport are laid down meticulously, and yet, when we come sooner or later to Clause 14 about the railways, we shall find broad directions to prepare a scheme. If wonder whether it is right that we should go on adding to the details of the road transport scheme in the Bill, and whether the position as in Clause 14 is not really the better one—to lay down the broad principles in the Bill and allow them to be threshed out in the light of requirements and of events.
One case in point strikes me regarding the words that are the subject of my Amendment. The Commission are required to dispose of the shares of these companies "in one parcel," whatever that turns out to mean. I take those words to mean that all the shares have to be sold at one time to one buyer. If I am wrong, my noble friend in front of me will no doubt say so. I wonder whether it is entirely wise to go into such detail. Admittedly, the object of the Bill, which we on this side of the House support most strongly, is to return the proper proportion of transport to private hands at the earliest possible moment. If everything goes well and buyers are to be found in the right numbers and at the right prices for the transport which is going to be disposed of, whether in these companies or otherwise—well, so much the better. Everything then will go right and the Minister will have no worry, nor will the Commission. But suppose, for a moment, that things turn out not to be so easy as at first we anticipated. I do not want to meet trouble half-way or to suggest that that trouble is going to be such that those words "in one parcel" would make it harder to achieve the desired result than it would be if the Minister had more latitude than he appears to have under the provisions of the proposed new clause.
I wonder whether we ought, for example, to exclude the possibility of the Minister accepting an offer to dispose of

1191
the whole of the shares in more than one parcel at the same time. That seems to be excluded by the Bill. I wonder also whether, despite the need to return transport to private hands, we are entirely right in the terms of the Bill to exclude the possibility of the Commission retaining, perhaps even for a short time, a minority holding in the shares of any given company. The power to do that might easily assist the Minister or the Commission, whoever is going to do it, and might make it possible to place the company in the hands of a much sounder and better buyer.
I should like to put those points to my noble friend in front of me and ask whether he thinks that they are worth further consideration between now and Report stage. My only interest in raising them is to see that we do everything we can to make sure that the disposal takes place in an orderly way, in the easiest possible manner for all concerned, and following ordinary business principles and commercial practice. I think we are going a little too far by leaving in the Bill the words which I suggest should be taken out. I am not suggesting that this Amendment is absolutely right—it may go too far as it stands. Indeed, I put it down largely in order that the matter should be considered and not with the idea of pressing the Amendment in its present form. I ask if it is possible for my noble friend to look at the matter a little further. If he feels that I am justified in asking that, then I will not press the Amendment at this stage, nor will I move the other two Amendments which are consequential on it. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved:
Line 35 of the clause, leave out ("all").—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to support the Government Amendment, so far as it goes, because I think it will facilitate the sale of transport units. But I was a little surprised to see that sales of the whole of the shares of any company must be made in one parcel. I have always felt that it might be a good thing for the Transport Commission to run a partnership with private enterprise in road haulage, more or less in the same manner as exists in road passenger services, where it has certainly proved a very efficient and effective combination. Then again, as
1192
was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, I cannot help feeling that it might be much more difficult to dispose of shares in a company in one block than perhaps it would be to sell, say, 51 per cent. of them. Cases might arise in which buyers might not be able to put up the whole of the money, but might like to have an option on a group of shares and to pay by some form of instalment. I would ask Her Majesty's Govenment to look at this matter again.
LORD HAWKE: I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this Amendment to their Amendment very seriously. As the noble Lord opposite said, the new clause as it stands provides a completely new conception of the relationship between road and rail in this country. But although the new clause as it stands provides an extremely good method, it is an extremely brutal method of solving the problem. There is no alternative; the shares have got to be sold. I, for one, want competition between road and rail, but I do not want to see such competition that I shall have to pay 6d. in the £ in income tax, or 3d. on a pint of beer, to keep the railways solvent. I think that this Amendment to the Amendment provides a degree of flexibility, from which it will be possible to ensure that competition exists, but that it is not too "cut-throat." If the system works in a monopolistic manner the Minister will always have power at some future date to tell the Commission to divest itself of some amount of its shares, so that its control over these companies is reduced, or even that it divests itself completely of that control. If our Amendment is accepted, I do not imagine, in the first instance, that they will part with such a degree of control that they will not be able to retain at any rate some degree of direction on the boards of these companies. Therefore, I think the new clause, as amended by my noble friends' Amendment, would be the correct solution of the road-rail problem.
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Noble Lords who have spoken have raised some interesting questions, which are well worth consideration. I agree with some of their observations. What I have to say applies not only to road haulage but also to the passenger side of the business. As I think I said in my speech on Second Reading,

1193
the object of doing this was to use and not to abuse. I agree, in principle, that it is a good thing that where the Commission is running the transport business, whether it be road haulage or passenger transport, that business must be efficiently managed, so that, as a haulage proposition or as a bus proposition, it will make money. I entirely agree that one of the ways that will best be ensured is to allow the Transport Commission to run the business, whether it be road haulage or something else, in partnership with a highly competent road undertaking. Certainly there will be occasions when that can be usefully discussed; but, quite frankly, on this particular clause does not seem to me to be appropriate time or place. In this Bill one part interacts so much with another than we are apt, in regard to a special matter, not only to argue from the particular to the general but to depart from the particular to the general.
What is the object of this clause? It is a very long clause—I wish that it could be simplified, but I must not hold out any hope that between now and Report stage the skill of the draftsman may simplify it. I do not believe that it could be made much simpler, even with Lord Winster's assistance. Its only object is to provide an alternative method of selling a transport unit in what we anticipate will be exceptional cases. The main method of sale, and certainly, in most cases, the convenient method of sale, will be that which has always been laid down in the Bill. The units will be, for the main part, those most likely to appeal to the potential purchasers. I think that is the most convenient method—and certainly it is the simplest. These units of varying sizes will be created by the Commission, with the approval of the Disposal Board, and sold for cash. That is the normal procedure under the Bill. Then it was said that we may find it a useful adjunct to the normal practice of sales of units for cash, to have a company structure, so that in appropriate cases a company may be created which owns the vehicles, the garages, and other ancillary assets. In those exceptional cases the Commission, with the approval of the Board, might consider that there would be a better chance of disposing of these units as a company, by selling shares in the company, than by selling the unit for cash in the ordinary way. I cannot say
1194
how many such cases there will be, but I think one must take it that this method of disposal is likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, if these Amendments were carried, they would apply only in exceptional cases. But, after all, the main purpose of this Bill is to dispose of these units as units.
I am not sure that there would not be insuperable administrative difficulties in selling part of the shares and continuing to hold the rest. I am the last person in the world to plead administrative difficulty or inconvenience if I think a certain course of action is the right one to pursue. I should be prepared, as one noble Lord said, to go through any obstruction by lawyers or civil servants to pursue the main object, if I believed that to be a good thing to do. But observe one or two results of what is how proposed. You sell a unit for cash. The whole unit is transferred. That unit is then entitled to an "A" licence. It will be rather difficult to grant that "A" licence in cases in which only a part has been transferred. I think that in subsection (12) there is a special provision concerning the safeguarding of the interests of employees. I do not know how that would work if there were a partial selling of shares. Moreover, although this may be a matter of opinion I am bound to say that all the advice which I have received accords with my own practical experience, that this would, on the whole, run counter to the principle on which stress has been laid on both sides of the House—that we must sell for the best price obtainable. It would be in a very rare case, I think, that a partial sale of shares would command the same price as a sale of a whole business, and, of course, in so far as some smaller sum than the best price is obtained, the levy would be increased.
But I find another difficulty. Everybody wants to come to finality about the levy. We have got to find out as soon as we can what is the loss which is going to be incurred on the sale. When a unit is sold, whether as a company or as a unit for cash, any loss is calculable; we know what are the assets included in that sale; we know what is the goodwill attributable. But supposing some shares are left to the Commission, what is the Commission, whose responsibility it is to assess the loss on the value, to attribute to the

1195
shares which are retained, as against the shares which are sold? Obviously, if the Commission retains the shares, then it is not entitled to compensation under the levy, because it would be compensated for something which it was retaining; yet no one has been able to devise a form of words to meet the case when this loss occurs, with so much sold and so much retained. What happens if the process goes on gradually and more shares are sold in six months' or a year's time?
My noble friend who proposed this Amendment said also that it might be that a prospective purchaser would not have enough money to pay the full price straight away. That would occur whether it was the purchase of a unit or of shares in a company. That is a thing which was appreciated; and, of course, if you got in the money you would probably get a better price. I think my noble friend knows of the arrangements which are already in train between one company—namely, the United Dominions Trust—and the Road Haulage Association, where credit facilities will be available to buyers. I think it likely that other companies will extend credit facilities in the same way. I think that is the right method of extending credit facilities. But, having said that, I hope that my noble friend will believe me when I say that I am not arguing against his main argument in favour of his Amendment, which was that he would like to see partnerships between the Transport Commission and other undertakings. On that I am entirely at one with him. I am not sure that any special provision in the Bill is required for that. In speaking on this point, I speak for the Minister of Transport and for the Secretary of State for Co-Ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power: I know that that is their view also. I believe that certain clauses which come later afford opportunity for encouraging and, if necessary, enforcing a policy which I believe the Commission would be only too ready to adopt. But this is not the way or the place to do it. We can do it only in a very limited number of cases. It might be done in cases where it would not be a question of a partnership, and it would be only on a most limited scale.
I have given very careful consideration to this matter, and I have been quite frank with the House, both as to what
1196
I should like to see done and as to why I should like to see it done. I should like to see some of the things come about of which my noble friend who moved this Amendment has spoken, but this is not the right way to do it. If I may respectfully say so, I would urge that these provisions should not be wrecked or spoilt by introducing partial proposals which are inappropriate in a number of cases. I have spoken at some length on this matter because I thought it was a very important issue, and I have given reasons why I do not think this Amendment is practicable. I am quite prepared to look at it again. Not that I would change my mind on anything I have said to the Committee to-day—and probably my noble friend agrees with most of the things I have said; nor would I put down something which merely presented the matter in a different way. But if I do find, on re-examination of the matter, something which might help towards partnership, I shall be prepared to return to the point. But for the reasons I have given I do not think this is the way to do it.
5.40 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: With the best will in the world I have tried to follow the noble Viscount, but I must confess that I have not grasped what he has tried to convey to us. What is the purpose in the minds of the Government in putting forward this particular clause? I can well picture people buying units: I can even picture people buying shares. But I do not understand what the Government have in mind in drawing a distinction between those two. What kind of transaction do the Government envisage will be handled by these shares? It is not a question of money; it is just as easy to buy commodities as it is to buy shares. Why this distinction? Can the noble Viscount give us some sort of concrete example in which this particular clause would apply, instead of telling us that they must be rare occasions upon which these powers will be operated. I am not at all clear upon this matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I cannot say what circumstances may arise. This new clause is moved because it is considered necessary. The suggestion came, I think, very largely from the Opposition, who said that there might be cases in which

1197
the Commission found that they would be able to realise better prices if they turned a unit into a company and sold the shares in the company rather than sold the physical unit. I cannot say, before the Commission have got to work, where this clause will apply.
LORD GREENHILL: I can understand that it will mean preserving, in a form which could be acquired by any investor, the value of the assets which are being offered for sale. What I do not understand is what the Government wish or intend to do with this particular clause.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Government intend to do exactly what the Opposition suggested we should do. I am sorry if it is not clear to the noble Lord. I suggest that he should study the clause. It enables the Commission, with the approval of the Board, in what they consider is an appropriate case to create a company, and to sell the unit as shares in a company, rather than to make a physical sale of the unit.
LORD GREENHILL: Would the noble Viscount tell me what, in his conception, would be an appropriate case?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: How can I tell the noble Lord what would be an appropriate case? I can only tell him what is an appropriate case when the Commission have looked at a particular case, have considered all the circumstances surrounding it and have said—I do not know what their reasons might be—that the unit would sell better as shares in a company than as a physical unit.
LORD GREENHILL: Then what are we legislating for if we cannot be told what is envisaged by the legislation?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are legislating to do exactly what the Opposition have suggested. Really the noble Lord must settle this with his own Party. I have been asked over and over again by noble Lords opposite to give more discretion to the Commission in this business. Here I am giving discretion to the Commission. The noble Lord says: "Do not leave it to them, but tell them what they are to do."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think perhaps I can help my noble friend. I do not know whether he was present when I addressed your Lordships
1198
after this clause had been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The question I addressed to the noble Earl is really the same question which my noble friend is raising in another way. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I can put my point briefly to the noble Viscount—who, unfortunately, was not in the Chamber when I spoke—on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
We accept this clause, though my noble friend has something to say on another aspect of it. I am afraid that the noble Viscount cannot now conform to The request I made—he has cut right across it. My noble friend and I are trying to find out the same thing. I have done it one way, my noble friend is seeking to do it in another.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for what he has said about my right honourable friend—I much appreciate it—and also for the way in which he and other noble Lords have accepted the general purpose of this clause. Incidentally, he persists in talking of £40 million worth of vehicles, whereas I persist in saying that written down in the accounts the amount was £25 million. So there are still differences between us on the question of finance. The question which he asks is: what are the conditions in which the need to operate these powers would arise? Frankly, they are written into the Amendment of the Bill. Noble Lords opposite spent a lot of time yesterday saying that they did not like the Disposal Board. The position is this. The function of the Disposal Board is, in a way, to advise the Commission as to the sort of circumstances—place, size and equipment and so forth—in which a company could usefully be formed, a company whose shares would sell. That is functional. It is not really for us to give any expression of opinion. I could imagine occasions, just as no doubt the noble Lord could imagine occasions, when a certain type of business, a largish one, probably, could best be undertaken by a company. It is not for the Minister to interfere, unless there is disagreement between the Commission and the Board. It is for them to decide on the circustances in which this should be done. We have confidence that they will approach their task in a practical way, and use the powers of this clause when

1199
it is appropriate. I hope that, broadly, that answers the noble Lord's question. I do not think it is for us to go into this matter in detail.
LORD GREENHILL: I do not wish to pursue the subject unnecessarily, but it seems to me that if the Disposal Board have to decide how certain assets can be disposed of, there is an option either of selling for cash the assets to be disposed of or of forming a company whose shares will be disposed of. All I am asking is: What are the circumstances envisaged by the Government under which there will be a difference in the nature of the transaction? Are the Government now legislating for something they cannot even conceive ever happening, or are they saying that, because the Opposition has suggested something to them, they are propitiating the Opposition, even though they do not know what the Opposition wants—which is all it amounts to. Will the Government please tell us what we are legislating for?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I find it very hard to understand quite what the noble Lord has in mind. Without this clause, sales would have been by transport units—that is to say, sales of assets. In this clause we have taken powers—as has already been said, there has been a discussion about the matter, in which most of the Opposition has suggested that it should be done—to enable the formation of a company where it seems advisable that a company should be formed as a working organisation to carry on. I really do not see what the difficulty is.
LORD GREENHILL: We have been told that only in exceptional circumstances will the transaction take the form of sale by shares. What in the opinion of the Government are those exceptional circumstances? That is all I am asking.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The circumstances are these. People will want to buy—
LORD GREENHILL: Exceptional circumstances.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We think the circumstances will depend on the opinion which the Board form as to the way in which a particular formation can usefully
1200
be sold. That is all in the Bill, and I cannot add to it. When we have passed this Bill, substantial power will pass to the Disposal Board and to the Commission to conduct their affairs as the Bill directs. There is no statement in the Bill about exceptional circumstances.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I believe that my Amendment to the Amendment is still before the Committee. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that we have reason to be very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for the care and clarity with which he has explained the position of the Government. I should like to be able to say that I appreciate all his arguments and agree with every one of them without question, but he will forgive me if I cannot say that, because there were a number of technical arguments which did not convince me at once and I know I cannot argue against them until I have read them in Hansard. Another question, which was the subject matter of Lord Greenhill's speech, was whether this system of disposal by companies would be exceptional or the rule. As I understood my noble friend, disposal by chattels would be the usual method of disposal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: By units.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I beg your Lordship's pardon. Disposal by units would be the usual method of disposal, and the method of disposal by companies, in the opinion of the Government, would be the less usual system. Whether that will be true, time alone will show, but that is the opinion given by my noble friends in front of me. I was grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the financial arrangements which had been made through the United Dominions Trust, and possibly other financial companies, for financing those who are suitable buyers of a parcel of shares of these companies but perhaps cannot find the cash in any other way. I think that will meet a good part of the objections raised to this Amendment. May I be allowed to express the hope that if the United Dominions Trust wishes to make an application to the Capital Issues Committee (I am not personally interested in the United Dominions Trust), no objection will be made by the Treasury to placing funds at their disposal to finance those

1201
who are seeking to raise money for this admirable purpose? That is one way of getting round this difficulty, which I still think is a real one. Another way may be found in the opening subsection of Clause 5, to which we are coming in a moment. But I do not wish to take up further time of the Committee on this Amendment. I am most grateful to my noble friend for the consideration he has given to it, and for the consideration which he says he will still give to this problem, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I will not move Amendments 26 and 27.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will recollect that yesterday I moved the deletion of a similar subsection in Clause 3—namely, subsection (6). The case for the removal of this subsection is almost identical, but is stronger here because it will be even more difficult to ensure that the undertakings do not pass into too few hands. An undertaking was given to look again at the Amendment I moved yesterday, and if a similar undertaking can be given on this occasion I am prepared not to develop my argument—which would be in exactly the same form as it was yesterday—but to rely upon that assurance. I do not know whether the noble Earl can give me an answer straight away, or would he rather I deployed my case? I move.
Amendment moved—
Line 48 of the clause, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL DE LA WARR: It is true we discussed this matter fully yesterday, particularly on the point raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, of whether this was not a matter for decision by the Minister rather than by the Commission, and I undertook, specially on that point, to look at the clause again. I gladly repeat the assurance here.
LORD SILKIN: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.55 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: I wish to say a word about this proposed new clause. In the course of my lifetime at the Bar, I had many cases of estates having to dispose, of large blocks of shares. It is common knowledge that if one threw all such shares on to the market at the same time, they could be disposed of only at a serious loss. Consequently, in such cases the sale has to be nursed, as every man of any knowledge and business experience will agree. Steps must be taken not to dispose of all the shares at the same time and, if necessary, a holding company must be formed to liquidate steadily and carefully, and not throw on the market more than the market can absorb. Nobody with experience of this sort would doubt what I say. I take it that the object of this clause is to do that specific thing: not to dispose of too large a number of units at the same time. It is obvious that we might overfeed the market to such an extent that we could not get anything like an adequate price. Therefore, we might have to adopt the device of the company method of dealing with the situation. So far we are all agreed, and I apprehend that the basic idea underlying the company method of disposal is to ensure that the assets can be disposed of steadily, slowly and in an orderly way.
I notice that the first subsection of the new clause provides that this is to be adopted only if
"such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three—."
Looking at subsection (3) I find a series of things to which the Commission must have regard—I am not going to trouble to read them as they are all set out, but in particular there is the one we have been discussing about looking after the small man. I suggest that somewhere in this clause ought to be stated the underlying purpose of the clause. If I have got it aright, we are doing this to get the best price. Though in this clause it is stated that the object of this method of disposal is to look after the small man, and all the rest of it, I do not think that it is stated that what we want to do is to get the best possible price. I may not be correct there, because it is a complicated clause and I may not understand it fully. But we want to see that put in this clause

1203
—and I give notice now because it may be possible to consider between now and Report stage whether there is anything in my point and whether words can be put in. We should set it out at large that the object of resorting to the company procedure is to ensure that we get the best price. I should like to see the criterion which the Commission or the Board, whichever it may be, are to adopt. If we can get a really satisfactory price by the unit method of disposal, well and good, but if by the unit method of disposal carried on to the extreme, as it will have to be, we are going to disturb the market, then we will resort to the company method. That is the reason for it. Although we set out all sort of desiderata in this clause, we nowhere set out that desideratum which is fundamental—namely, to get the best price possible.
I suggest that in the reconsideration of this clause the noble Earl and his friends should look at it to see whether I am not right in saying that it would be a good plan to set out quite plainly that that is the criterion which ought to be present to the minds alike of the Commission and the Board, and anybody else concerned, namely, that this whole device, this elaborate clause, is to ensure that the Commission do not have to be content with a far too low price. That, after all, is the last thing any of us wants, because, in a sense, it is the concern of us all as taxpayers. Let us get the best price we can. I suggest that this clause ought to be looked at from that point of view. I do not want an answer now, but I should like the noble Earl to tell me that he will pay some regard to what I have said. If he thinks, on reading my words, that there is any substance in what I have said, I hope that he will ask the draftsman whether he cannot put in appropriate language to bring out plainly that intention, because that is the idea which I feel noble Lords on both sides have in mind, and that is the matter in which we are all interested.
It is a simple thing for these business men. Can we get a really satisfactory price by disposing of all this stuff, huge blocks of it, by the unit method? If not, let us resort to the company method. That is the criterion to be adopted in deciding whether or not to resort to the company method. At present that is not stated in
1204
the clause at all, and it should not be difficult to set out that that is the criterion to be borne in mind in deciding whether or not to adopt the company method. It is for that reason that I think the company method is so important. I am certain that if you fling all these assets on the market you will slaughter the price. The company method is the only successful way to nurse these things, and to ensure that you get a satisfactory arrangement in the interests of the taxpayer. I am not moving an Amendment. All I do is to ask the noble Earl to consider the point between now and the Report stage, to see whether it would not be possible so to alter this clause as to bring out that as being the main point and purpose of the whole business.
LORD HAWKE: If the Government are to put in considerations of the sort the noble and learned Earl has just mentioned, I feel that continuity of service should be included. To my mind, price and continuity of service are equally important.
EARL JOWITT: I agree, but I think those things ought to be there stated. Can the noble Earl tell us whether that proposition will be considered?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for his remarks, which I know will be examined most carefully. What he has said is quite true. The selling of these companies will be a tricky business. One of the tasks of the Disposal Board is to help the Commission in their work. With great respect, I would say that the Commission were never appointed to attempt something approximating to a floatation. This may not be a floatation, but it has some comparable features about it. The noble and learned Earl mentioned the question of the best price. There are a number of factors to be considered—the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has mentioned continuity of service. I should like to point out, in reference to the companies Amendment, that the last words of Clause 3 (3) are:
"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."
I should have thought that the reference to that clause had precisely the effect of

1205
drawing attention to this particular factor in consideration of the word "expedient," which stands in the front of the companies clause. I may be wrong, and we will certainly have a look at the point to make it clear that that is one of the major purposes for which the companies would be formed.
Clause 5:
Disposal of property otherwise than in transport units
(2) The Minister may give directions to the Commission, as respects any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, requiring them to dispose of that property otherwise than as or as part of a transport unit, and the Commission shall comply with any such directions.
Any directions of the Minister under this subsection may be absolute or conditional, need not be restricted to individual hems of property and may require the Commission to consult the Board and, to such extent if any as may be specified in the directions, to obtain the approval of the Board as to the action to be taken.
6.3 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, to leave out subsection (2), The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Your Lordships will see that Clause 5 refers to the disposal of property otherwise than by the two methods we have already discussed, the unit method and the company method.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, because I am particularly interested in this point. Is his interpretation correct? Does this exclude the company method? I was going to ask the Government spokesman whether, in fact, it did not include the company method.
LORD SILKIN: I was going by the marginal note, which says:
"Disposal of property otherwise than in transport units."
LORD HAWKE: It does not say, "otherwise than in companies."
LORD SILKIN: No. But I thought we had dealt with companies.
LORD HAWKE: The Deputy Leader of the House, in commenting on our Amendment to the new clause after Clause 4, said that it was not the proper place to put it in. It occurred to me that
1206
somewhere in Clause 5 might be the place where we were covered.
LORD SILKIN: I suppose that it is arguable, but it would not be a very tidy method of doing it, if you have a special clause relating to companies, a special clause dealing with units, and then you say:
"Disposal of property otherwise than in transport units."
One would have thought the clause had relation to methods other than the two with which we have already dealt. Be that as it may, my Amendment does not depend upon that interpretation. It is that the Commission may dispose of their property by methods other than those two that have been dealt with. Subsection (2) of the Bill says:
"The Minister may give directions to the Commission, as respects any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, requiring them to dispose of that property, otherwise than as or as part of a transport unit, and the Commission shall comply with any such directions.
"Any directions of the Minister under this subsection may be absolute or conditional, need not be restricted to individual items of property and may require the Commission to consult the Board…"
I quite recognise that there may be circumstances in which the Minister may have to direct the Board to dispose of certain assets, but I do submit that this subsection goes far too wide. It lays down no principles upon which the Minister is to act. He is not required to explain why he is giving his direction. It may refer to property which the Commission are entitled to hold, and are authorised to hold. It may be most damaging to their undertaking to be required to dispose of it.
Moreover, it does not relate to single vehicles; it need not be restricted to individual items of property. Indeed, theoretically, the Minister, having given the Commission five-fourths of what they held before, could then require them to dispose of the whole lot; and he is not required to give any reason for issuing such a direction. Again, I do not suggest that the Minister is going to do that; the Minister is a reasonable person and would not flout the intentions of the Act. But he is in a position to act arbitrarily if he so decides. What I suggest is that, while it may be necessary for the Minister to have a reserve power by way of

1207
direction—I would not challenge that—this goes much wider than can ever be necessary. Therefore I would ask that this subsection be looked at again, with a view to defining the circumstances in which the Minister may give such a direction, so that we all know on what principles he is going to act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Silkin.)
6.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if I reply rather shortly to this discussion. I am going to do so simply in these words: that these are, as the noble Lord has said, reserve powers. Every good thing in this world comes to an end, and somehow this sale has to be terminated. This is intended as a reserve power which will enable the Minister finally to bring to an end the whole disposal business. If these clauses existed alone in the Bill, what the noble Lord has said would have been perfectly true and it would have been highly objectionable. But one is entitled to read the Bill as a whole. What does the Bill say? First of all, we have the disposal in transport, we then have the disposal in companies and we then have the disposal at the request of the Commission and the Minister accedes to it. Then at the last the Minister has the reserve power of disposing of the remaining items of the Road Haulage Executive property.
That is as the matter stands, and it is a responsibility which the Minister has to carry. I admit that the powers are wide. The House of Commons and we in this House may question the Minister as to how he uses those powers. But they are the reserve powers to be used finally to terminate this whole disposal business. I hope the noble Lord will accept this explanation. If he thinks that those powers can be made adequate and yet restricted to that purpose, we shall be happy to consider it; but it must be clear that the essential terminating powers must exist in the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl has again said something which nobody could possibly infer from reading this subsection. He is now saying exactly what I said is not in the subsection—
1208
namely, the laying down of the principles under which the Minister may issue directions. What I asked him to do was to put those principles in the Bill so that we all may know the circumstances in which the Minister will use these very wide powers. If he says he is prepared to look at it again from that angle, to see whether the powers can be defined, the principles laid down or circumscribed, I am quite satisfied, and I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment. But if he says that this must stand and we shall have to guess hereafter what it means by reference to other clauses, and so on, it is really most unsatisfactory.
EARL JOWITT: I think this is a matter of great importance, and I beg the Government to think again. I beg them to remember what they have said for the last six years about this sort of clause. Before I start, may I ask the Committee to turn to Clause 9 (4) on page 12 of the Bill? It reads as follows:
"If it appears to the Minister that, having regard to the stage reached in the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, it is expedient so to do, he may by order provide for abolishing the Board and winding up their affairs, and for transferring to the Minister any functions of the Board so far as they remain to be exercised or performed.
The power conferred by this subsection to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.…"
There, at least, this House and, of course, another place do have some sort of control—inadequate though I think the control is, because we have either to take that statutory instrument or leave it. So the Minister has those powers in this Bill already, but, of course, they are subject to statutory instrument.
Now come back to this clause, which is really one of very great importance. Let us see what it does. It is all very well for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to say, "Take the Bill as a whole. You first of all have the disposal by unit, then you have the disposal by company and then you have this method of disposal." But the noble Earl has not realised that this is an overriding power. This enables the Minister to give any directions he likes without getting leave or approval of either House of Parliament, and it does not specify the grounds upon which he has to exercise his powers. I have known the Minister for a lifetime, and I am perfectly certain that he is a very reasonable

1209
person. I am not suggesting for a moment that this particular Minister will do anything unreasonable. But as noble Lords opposite said to me for so many years, that is no reason why we should confer upon the Minister powers in which he might act unreasonably. The noble Earl really must be more definite about this matter and think again.
If I understand the clause aright, it enables the Minister, without coming to Parliament, to give directions to the Commission which the Commission have to obey, authorising them to dispose of any property, no matter whether it is individual property or property of a class, under any conditions he thinks right. It is an absolute power. I ask the noble Earl this question: Is it not the fact that this overrides all the other powers? If the Minister chose to give a direction, could he not short circuit the unit method of disposal and the company method of disposal? Is it not plain that on this clause he Eras absolute authority to do what he likes? I was attacked for years by the noble Earl, amongst others, upon the iniquity of conferring these powers on a Minister, and about ousting Parliamentary control. Here we have it to a supreme degree. Here we have the power of a Minister to do exactly what he likes. Does not this power override, and does not the Minister have a right to overrule, any of the other preceding powers? Is it not therefore utterly fallacious to say here, as the Minister has, that we have to look at the whole combination of unit disposal and company disposal and then this method, which is a disposal "in the last resort"? It is not a last resort at all. It is a power which the Minister has which overrides all other powers in the Bill, if he is minded to be unreasonable about it.
Am I to be told by noble Lords opposite, who lectured me for the last six years, that this is what we have come to: that, without asking for a statutory instrument and without coming to Parliament, we are to confer upon the Minister this power? What a farce it is to discuss this unit disposal and this company disposal when you give the Minister power on his own ipse dixit, with no control in the courts or anywhere else, to say what can be clone, without any check or control at all. Am I right? Has the Minister that power, and if so will not the noble Earl
1210
look at it again? Surely what my noble friend Lord Silkin is asking is eminently reasonable. He requests him to consider this matter again; to give an undertaking that between now and the Report stage the question will be considered whether it is not right that the Minister's powers in this regard should be checked on the lines that the noble Earl himself used to prove so eloquent about in the past; whether we ought not to establish once again the sovereignty of Parliament, and the principle that we do not entrust to any Minister, however eminent and able he may be, powers to override completely the express sections of an Act of Parliament.
I beg the Minister to think again about this matter and to give us some undertaking that the observations that we have made on this clause will be carefully considered between now and the Report stage. I do not ask him to commit himself to the fact that he will make an alteration. All my noble friend Lord Silkin asked was that he should at least give an undertaking that he will look at this most seriously to see whether he cannot do something to moderate this absolutely uncontrolled power of the Minister. I quite agree that the Minister should have some power, but not uncontrolled power like this.
6.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I have listened with some sympathy to what has been said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, but if he will look at the 1947 Act, Section 4, subsection (5), he will find that very similar powers were given to the Minister under that Act. This is what the Act says:
"Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section, the Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, direct the Commission to discontinue any of their activities, dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any securities held by them, call in any loan made by them or exercise any power they may possess…"
and so on. These are surely great and overriding powers.
EARL JOWITT: That, surely, is a mere tu quoque. If the noble Lord has no better argument than that, it is very shocking. It is shocking indeed to say, "You did it, and therefore we shall do it." This seems to me wholly lamentable. Are we now to be told—and told by people who lectured me six years ago

1211
—that the Minister is to have complete power to override the wishes of Parliament in these respects? Will not the noble Earl say that the whole matter will be most carefully considered?
LORD WINSTER: This seems to me a most objectionable thing. It is most unfair to the Commission and the Board. Under the Bill you are setting up a Commission and a Board, and you are giving them a duty to get on with the disposal of these assets. It is to be presumed, surely, that the Commission and the Board will do their best to carry out the duties imposed upon them by the Bill. Yet here is a clause in the Bill to say that no matter whether they are making an effort to do their duty or not, the Minister can step in, interfere with what they are doing, dictate to them and tell them what to do. Surely that is not a good thing. I should have thought that the powers which the Minister should have in this matter (and it is agreed that the Minister must have some powers) are implied in subsection (8) of Clause 4 on page 6, which lays it down that if the Commission and the Board are trying to get on with their duty but for some reason cannot agree as to what is the best course to take in a given case, the Minister then has power to intervene and give such directions as shall be carried out by the Commission and the Board. That seems to me eminently fair and reasonable. It seems to me quite unfair to give the Minister power to override and interfere with the work of the Commission and the Board without reference to the fact of whether or not they are making an honest effort to carry out the duty imposed upon them by the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is a great experience to think that we have not been wasting our time in the last six years. We now have a reformed noble and learned Earl with us, and we all rejoice on the new life which has come to him. It is certainly clear that if any Minister cares to be unreasonable there is not a shadow of doubt that at least for a time he can do quite a lot of damage. I am afraid that is inevitable, if he really wishes to behave like an idiot. But if he were to do so it could certainly be very awkward for him, especially, perhaps, if he were Minister of Transport. Since his job must be to get a good sale
1212
for these assets, he would hardly be encouraged to do anything foolish. However, I accept what the noble and learned Earl has said. There is undoubtedly a theoretical possibility of the danger which he mentions, in spite of the opening clause of the Bill which says:
"…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…."
Then the Bill goes on to describe how that shall be done. A rough reading of the Bill will show in what sequence these things are to be done. The noble and learned Earl is not, however, quite correct in quoting Clause 9, for the reference there is to the winding up of the Disposal Board, which is a separate matter, because the Disposal Board does not own any property in the full sense, except perhaps for a few debts. It is not on the same footing as the Road Haulage Executive. This, after all, is the element of final disposal. I think the powers to terminate this matter will have to be fairly drastic in some form. But I agree that it would be much better to avoid any dubiety and to make clear that the powers can be used only if certain other measures fail. We will consider that, and put the matter in a form which will, I hope, be acceptable to the noble and learned Earl.
LORD SILKIN: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.26 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) Any land or interest in land which, immediately before the date of transfer, as defined in Part II of the Transport Act, 1947, was property of any of the bodies specified in the Third Schedule to that Act and, on that date, vested in the Commission under the said Part II, may, with the consent of the Minister, be retained by the Commission notwithstanding that it is property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment merely seeks to give greater flexibility. At the present moment the Commission has to sell the land or interest in land in question under this clause. Now we are referring to sites that may well in the past have been owned by railways or canals, or the London Passenger Transport Board; and these are

1213
sites which the Commission were quite willing to let to the Road Haulage Executive. They did it willingly and, indeed, in the public interest; but one can conceive of cases where they would not wish to do so in the new circumstances, where it might be a matter of having to sell this land or interest in land to actual rivals. Again, it might not be in the public interest that they should do so, although probably, on the whole, it would be generally desirable. It is important that there should be some flexibility in the matter. Therefore we propose this new subsection, which lays down that the land or interest in land can be retained if the Minister is convinced of the real necessity for its retention, and that the property is not needed to make a satisfactory transport unit. I think your Lordships will agree that this is an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the face of it this is a reasonable and common-sense Amendment, and the noble Earl has explained it clearly. We all know that the Road Haulage Executive have rented or moved into some of the property of the railways, and we know that this could not be considered in this Bill as road haulage property which may be disposed of—indeed, must be disposed of. But the whole common sense of this clause is in my view spoiled by the insertion of these words:
"with the consent of the Minister."
There must be a bureaucrat, a sort of Frankenstein bureaucrat, hovering round this Bill, sprinkling these bureaucratic restrictions anywhere he can possibly get them. The property to which this Amendment refers is the property of the Commission temporarily occupied for the purposes of the Road Haulage Executive. If the Bill stands as it is, strictly speaking this property will be included as property of the Road Haulage Executive which has to be disposed of. The Amendment quite plainly says it can go back from whence it came. Why, to achieve this, is it necessary to have the consent of the Minister on every occasion? I wish someone would give an explanation. We propose to move an Amendment later in this Bill. There are nearly seventy cases in the Bill, where it is stated that the Minister must be asked before
1214
the Commission may do this or that. The day of dictators is not over. The noble Earl may answer me in the same way as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, answered my noble Leader, that no reasonable Minister is going to object to a desire being expressed by Parliament; but why must the consent of the Minister be obtained before Parliament can have that desire implemented? That is what we are asking.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to add a few words to what has been said by my noble friend. I ask the noble Earl whether he will consider taking out of this proposed new Amendment the words
"with the consent of the Minister,"
because here is an extremely important principle. It means that properties which were in no way associated with road haulage will now, under this clause, go back to the inland waterways or to the railways only if the Minister agrees; but the subsection refers only to inland waterways and railway undertakers, as defined in the Third Schedule to the Transport Act. While the principal object of this Bill is to dispose of the road haulage undertakings, we are now seeing that object widened into the disposal of properties which were transferred to the Commission as part of the railways and part of the docks, harbours and so on. It is widening the scope very much indeed. May I, as a railway man, say how difficult it will be if these properties do not flow back automatically to their original use, without any question at all of the consent of the Minister?
Take the case, as cited by my noble friend, of a road haulage unit or a few lorries using part of a railway goods yard, or using a shed or something of that kind, including rights of way and the use of the goods yard. That property will now pass to the new company unit or to the purchasers of the lorries; the use by the competitors of the railway undertaking of the goods yard, or a garage in a goods yard, to stable their lorries, will continue, unless the Minister decrees otherwise. Therefore, I hope we shall not now leave it in this state but that this point will be looked into between now and Report stage. If it is in order, I hope that an Amendment will be put down on Report stage. I did put an Amendment down yesterday, but unfortunately it was too late to be included

1215
in the second Marshalled List. We would delete from this Amendment the words "with the consent of the Minister," so that the properties flow back to their original use in the ordinary way when a road haulage unit is disposed of.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask the noble Earl a question? It is a simple one. As I understand it, this Amendment enables the Commission to retain certain property. That is right, is it not? The property which they may retain is either property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking or property not so held. That is right, is is not? Because the word is "notwithstanding." With regard to property not held for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, which the noble Earl agrees is also covered, what is the necessity for this clause at all? The Commission are under no obligation to dispose of it, are they?
EARL DE LA WARR: No.
EARL JOWITT: Then what is the sense of saying "with the consent of the Minister"? Why say that the Commission may retain certain properties when the fact is that the Commission are under no obligation to dispose of those properties? Of course they may retain them, just as any ordinary owner may retain his property. You want only a power to retain which is coterminous with an obligation to sell. Is that not right?
EARL DE LA WARR: May I answer the noble and learned Earl?
EARL JOWITT: Certainly. It is a very simple point. The noble Earl, I am sure, must have considered it, but perhaps he did not quite understand what I was putting. I will put it once again. I do not understand why you want a power to retain unless that power is coterminous with an obligation to sell. If there is no obligation on the Commission to dispose of that property, why do they need a power to retain that property? That is the question.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will try to answer the noble and learned Earl first. If he will read the last nine words of the subsection, he will see:
"for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking."
1216
I am just wondering whether noble Lords really want to press me, if they think further on this matter, because, after all, they have to ask themselves: Why has this particular land been let to the Road Haulage Executive? The reason, obviously, is that there were sites being held in reserve by railways or canals or some other undertaking, and they were not using them for their original purpose. Perhaps they had preferred not to get rid of them but really had no use for them. Therefore, the sites were handed over to the Road Haulage Executive. The only case in which they will have to be sold is where they form part of a particular unit that is to be sold in normal circumstances. In such a case, they should be sold as part of that particular unit. But the Government agree that there may well be exceptions to that rule. Therefore, we felt it desirable to insert this subsection. As it is an exception, however, we felt that it was also right, in this case, to say that the exception should be put into operation only with the consent of the Minister.
EARL JOWITT: I have not made myself plain at all. The noble Earl has not answered the question I put to him, which is really a very simple one. It is the fact, I understand, that the only obligation on the Commission to sell is in connection with property used for the purposes of road haulage. Apart from that, they have no obligation to sell. Indeed, they can retain their central office, or what you like, because they are the owners of that central office, if it is not used in connection with the road haulage undertaking. There is here a subsection which contains the word "notwithstanding." The word "notwithstanding" makes it perfectly plain that property which they are to be allowed to retain may be property used in connection with road haulage or may be property not used in connection with road haulage. That is the obvious meaning of this subsection. My question is simply this: Why do the Commission want a power to retain unless they have an obligation to sell? There is no obligation to sell property which is not used in connection with road haulage. I am only asking for information—it really is a very simple question. What then is the meaning of a clause—it may have a perfectly good meaning—which says that the Commission may retain this particular property,

1217
if they get the consent of the Minister? Of course they may retain it. They are the owners of it, and the State imposes no obligation whatever on them to get rid of it. That is the point which I am asking the noble Earl and, if he will forgive my saying so, I was a little disappointed that I did not get any answer at all from him.
LORD HAWKE: I have been following the noble and learned Earl with great interest. Quite frankly, I cannot follow the interpretation he puts on the word "notwithstanding." I read the word "notwithstanding" to mean something in the nature of "even."
EARL JOWITT: "Even though."
LORD, HAWKE: "Even though" it is property held by them; and there would be the onus of getting rid of that property in other cases. But they can hold it, even though it would be property that they would have to dispose of, if they got the permission of the Minister. In that case, I think the noble and learned Earl's question need not be posed.
EARL JOWITT: Surely that is wrong. The fact that you may retain property which comes within category A, even though it is property that you can get rid of, pre-supposes that there is other property not coming into category A which you have also got to get rid of. Surely, that is the common sense of the thing.
EARL DE LA WARR: I really cannot pretend to be competent to make on the noble and learned Earl on a matter of law. I thought that, for all normal purposes, my interpretation was perfectly clear; but if the noble and learned Earl says he is not satisfied with the legal interpretation of what I have said, I am perfectly prepared to look at the matter between now and Report. In the meantime I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to make it perfectly clear that, as it stands, this Amendment allows the Transport Commission to retain parts of a goods yard or a goods shed which may be used temporarily for road haulage purposes, only with the consent of the Minister. I repeat, that on Report stage we shall endeavour to take out the words "with the consent of the Minister," so that the goods yards and other things
1218
will revert to the Commission for their original use.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Earl has really stated the case for this Amendment in regard to pares of a goods yard. If it were let only temporarily for road haulage purposes, then obviously it is a case for exception. But where it was a bit of land that the Railway Executive were not in fact using, and had not used for many years (we all know plenty of bits of land of that sort) then automatically it is part of the transport unit and should normally be sold with it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl is going to consider the point raised by my noble and learned friend, which rather diverted attention from the point raised in connection with the words "with the consent of the Minister." Would he also look at that at the same time?
EARL DE LA WARR: I will look at anything, but I certainly will not undertake to remove those words.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not asking the noble Earl to do that.
6.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, to add to the clause:
"(5) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore in this Act contained, if any property held by the Commission as part of the existing road haulage undertaking (other than property retained by the Commission under the provisions of this Act) has not been disposed of by the Commission by the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-four, the Commission may, if and to the extent that they deem expedient, retain that property instead of disposing of it, and any property that the Commission so retains they shall employ for the purpose of providing directly or indirectly for the public and carrying on such road haulage, services by way of carriage of goods for hire or reward as they deem practicable and expedient in the public interest; and for that purpose the Commission may without obtaining the consent of the Minister in that behalf make over such property or any part thereof and on such terms as the Commission think fit, to any company or companies formed by the Commission under or in pursuance of the provisions contained in subsection (1) of the section (the new Clause after Clause 4), and the Commission may for the purposes aforesaid cause to be incorporated such further Companies (without consultation with the Board) as they consider expedient in the public interest.
(6) In the preceding subsection the word 'property' shall be deemed to include shares in any Company formed by the Commission in pursuance of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I think this is an Amendment which will appeal not only to the noble Viscount but to the Committee as a whole. We have heard that to allow what I may call "Operation Disposal" to go on interminably would be in no one's interests. It will not be in the interests of the Commission, nor in the interests of the country; it will not be in the interests of trade or industry, and it will certainly not be in the interests of the taxpayer. At the same time, this matter must come to an end. The Commission are really told that they must carry on these intricate disposals and at the same time preserve a transport system for the country. They cannot do that and have the auctioneer's hammer hanging like a Sword of Damocles over their heads. It just cannot be done. The disposal must come to an end.
This Amendment is designed to bring that about at the end of the year 1954. We propose that after that time all property—units, companies and everything else—that has not been disposed of shall once again belong to the Commission; they can then sweep up the pieces and try to rehabilitate the transport system of the country. That is the simple purpose of this Amendment. There is nothing in the Bill which terminates the disposal except by the edict of the Minister. You cannot have a protracted and delayed operation; you must have a date upon which the guillotine comes down and industry and the country can once again be assured that the upheaval, great or small, is at last over. There is no need for me to say any more. That
is the simple purpose of this Amendment, which accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 47, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: One cannot help feeling that this is at least an interesting Amendment, coming from a noble Lord who moved that the words "as soon as possible" should be taken out of Clause 1 of the Bill. As Her Majesty's Government have made clear throughout these discussions, not only do they desire but they are indeed determined that there shall be no unnecessary delay about the sale of this property. But the present arrangements with regard to the Commission keeping control over vehicles and other property are that the Commission are given the right to keep those vehicles that are considered necessary for some actual purpose. This Amendment would take no account whatsoever of need; it would affect any property that is left behind in 1954, whether the Commission had a use for it or not. What number of vehicles were left in the hands of the Commission would be a matter of pure accident. I am quite sure the noble Lord would not want that to happen.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, I would.
EARL DE LA WARR: Well, if the noble Lord wishes that, most certainly Her Majesty's Government do not. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, and that the Committee will support the Government in resisting it.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 54.

Selborne, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Llewellin, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cherwell, L.

Lloyd, L.

Cranworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Allenby, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Palmer, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Rea, L.

Falmouth, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Remnant, L.

Furness, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Sandhurst, L.

Goschen, V.

Freyberg, L.

Savile, L.

Long, V.

Gifford, L.

Teynham, L.

Ridley, V.

Hacking, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Swinton, V.

Hawke, L.

Waleran, L.

Hylton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Resolved in the negavite, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Commission's vehicles to require licences but to be free from twenty-five mile limit
(2) As respects goods vehicles which at the passing of this Act belonged to the Commission or were in the possession of the Commission under an agreement for hire or loan, the repeal of the said section shall not take effect until six months from the passing of this Act and, if before the expiration of the said six months an application is made for a licence authorising the use of any of the vehicles which so belonged to the Commission, that repeal shall not take effect as respects those vehicles until the application is determined by the licensing authority.
6.58 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that the total number of vehicles in respect of which any such licences are to be granted shall not exceed seven-eighths of the total number of vehicles comprised in the existing Road Haulage Undertaking on the 31st day of December. 1952."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to limit the total number of vehicles in respect of which licences shall be granted, having in view the total number comprised in the existing undertaking at the end of 1952. I think it is the fact that the Road Haulage Executive has something like 6,500 vehicles not in use at the present time because traffic is not available for them. If the Commission were allowed to license all these vehicles there would be more "A" licences than the traffic warrants, and I think it would also have a depressing effect on sale prices. I suggest that it is only reasonable that the vehicles unused should be excluded.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: May I add one word in support of this Amendment moved by my noble friend? In addition to the figures which he has mentioned there are also, I believe, another 6,400 or 7,000 vehicles belonging to the Commission which are undergoing repairs or are on the way to disposal. From this it will be seen that the number of vehicles held by the Commission and not assigned for service is very large indeed. If they were to be placed on the market as a part of these units it would have a very depressing effect. It is true that any vehicles which are not sold with road licences could be sold afterwards as chattels and would fetch a very good price. Therefore I think that it would not cause depression on the market if this Amendment were accepted.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not want to detain the Committee on this matter. I am myself of opinion that there is a great deal in what noble Lords have just said, but I should find it difficult to accept the actual wording of the Amendment. The figure seven-eighths, as well as the general drafting, we should certainly have to look at again. If the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, I will gladly undertake to discuss the matter between now and the Report stage, and I have not the slightest doubt that we can come to agreement on another Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for accepting the idea in the Amendment. On the understanding that the matter will be looked at again and that the figure of seven-eighths will also be looked at, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is one of the company Amendments, and it is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 38, leave out ("section four") and insert ("the preceding provisions")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Repeal, as from end of 1954, of provisions relating to twenty-five mile limit]:
7.1 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to the clause:
(3) The Minister may give directions to the Commission as respects the issue of permits referred to in section fifty-two of the Transport Act, 1947, and such directions may require the Commission to grant any particular application or any particular class of application for such permits."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been set down to cover ordinary and job permits during the period of the twenty-five miles restriction. As the clause is drawn at present, no mention is made of ordinary and job permits. As I see it, these might be cancelled by the Transport Commission during the twenty-five mile restrictive period. The object of the Amendment is to give a right of appeal to the Minister should such permits be cancelled. The ordinary permit allows a haulage operator to travel outside the twenty-five mile limit. A job permit allows him to travel outside the limit for a particular job lasting perhaps part of a day, a day or one or two days. The Amendment would ensure that the present practice in the issue of permits is continued. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support the Amendment. As my noble friend has said, we think that during the transitional period there should be the maximum amount of flexibility. It is not covered in the proposed clause, and we thought that it ought to be there.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Permits have been granted in the past by the Transport Commission. They are of four types. Original and substitute permits fall into the first category and they, so far as granted, will all be continued until the end of 1954. This question has been raised purely in regard to ordinary permits and job permits. The noble Lord,
1224
Lord Teynham, has referred to the present practice, and Lord Wolverton has spoken of maximum flexibility. It is our intention that that should continue—that is to say, that the present practice should continue whereby these licences should be issued at the discretion of the Transport Commission. It is appropriate to make this point—that there is no vested interest in these permits. These permits have been granted at the discretion of the Transport Commission, and those who receive them have no real vested interest in them.
Though, as we have said before, we dislike a system whereby anyone licenses someone else to do a job which he might do himself, there is no other organisation which has the detailed knowledge which would enable them to grant these permits in the interim. Plainly, from the administrative point of view, it would not be possible for anyone except the Commission to decide whether it is appropriate that either job or ordinary permits should exist. I have been attacked by the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, on the question of the Minister having power. Here is an instance where Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to agree to the acceptance of powers of direction which it is suggested that my right honourable friend should take. We have the firmest assurance that the British Transport Commission do not intend in any way to alter the present practice. There are certain special cases of hardship which have been brought to notice, cases in which, for instance, a man has died and his original permit has lapsed, cases where a son has succeeded his father, and so on. In such instances, the Transport Commission have undertaken, in view of the circumstances, to give an ordinary permit.
I should also, I think, quote again what was said in the other place by the Minister on what the Transport Commission have undertaken.
"In July last year the Commission instructed the Road Haulage Executive that in general existing ordinary permits should be continued or renewed in accordance with recent practice, but that permits should not be issued to new applicants unless the resources of the Commission were unable satisfactorily to meet customers' requirements."
I hope noble Lords will accept that undertaking. I am certain it is made with absolute sincerity, and will be fulfilled. I think, in the circumstances, and bearing

1225
in mind the nature of the ordinary permits, that is the only practical way in which to approach the matter. I very much hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the assurance given by the noble Earl that the practice with regard to the issue of a permit is to be continued, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.8 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON had given Notice of an Amendment to add to the clause:
"(3) Where—

(a) before the passing of this Act a notice of acquisition was served under Part III of the Transport Act, 1447 with respect to an undertaking; and

(b) that notice has not, at the passing of this Act, been withdrawn or declared to be of no effect but no transfer has been effected there under; and

(c) there is in force at the date of the passing of this Act a licence authorising the use of any vehicles which, if the transfer by virtue of the notice had fallen to be made at the passing of this Act would, by virtue of the notice, have been transferred to the Commission,

then, as from the passing of this Act, the said section fifty-two shall not apply to that licence or any licence substituted therefor so long as the following condition is fulfilled as respects that licence or, as the case may be, the licence so substituted, that is to say, that the total of authorised vehicles, being motor vehicles, does not exceed the total number of the vehicles, being motor vehicles, mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving this Amendment I would point out that if it is accepted, it will have to be amended slightly. After the word "total", in the third line from the end of the Amendment, it will be necessary to insert the word "number". The passage will then read:
"that is to say, that the total number of authorised vehicles being motor vehicles,"
and so forth. To come back to the Amendment itself, its object is to free certain independent road hauliers who have hitherto been running outside the twenty-five mile limit from becoming, as a result of the Bill, subject to the twenty-five mile limit. It is clearly a freak, situation that has arisen, and one that hope and imagine was not intended by Her Majesty's Government.
I should first explain briefly the background history attaching to the situation which now arises. Under the 1947 Act, Section 52, original permits could be issued to hauliers so that they could operate outside the twenty-five limit, and at the end of one year the British Transport Commission could revoke the permits. If, as the result of revocation, a haulier could prove that his business had been seriously interfered with, the Commission were forced to acquire his unit. When the last change of Government took place, the British Transport Commission, anticipating a possible change in policy towards road transport, realising that probably in the course of the lifetime of this Government further haulage would not be taken over, offered to the road hauliers in that position a postponement of acquisition, to await events; and those who accepted that offer were able to continue to operate unrestrictedly. The present Bill abolishes the machinery in the 1947 Act which made it possible for hauliers to operate outside the 25-mile limit and, as a result, these independent hauliers will have to become subject to this limit. On a number of occasions the Government have said that they do not want to put further burdens and restrictions on the independent hauliers, and I imagine that this situation, by which their activities are to be curtailed, has arisen as the result of a slip or oversight. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved.—
Page 10, line 23, at end insert
("(3) Where—

(a) before the passing of this Act a notice of acquisition was served under Part III of the Transport Act, 1947 with respect to an undertaking; and

(b) that notice has not at the passing of this Act, been withdrawn or declared to be of no effect but no transfer has been effected there under; and

(c) there is in force at the date of the passing of this Act a licence authorising the use of any vehicles which, if the transfer by virtue of the notice had fallen to be made at the passing of this Act would, by virtue of the notice, have been transferred to the Commission,

then, as from the passing of this Act, the said section fifty-two shall not apply to that licence or any licence substituted therefor so long as the following condition is fulfilled as respects that licence or, as the caste may be, the licence so substituted, that is to say, that the total

1227
number of authorised vehicles, being motor vehicles, does not exceed the total number of the vehicles, being motor vehicles, mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection.")—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of what the noble Earl said on the last Amendment, I hope he will not accept this one. I do not see how he could do it and be consistent, because the effect would be to burst open straight away the deferred abolition of the 25-mile limit in this Bill, and the Commission would be inundated with applications. The noble Earl stated his case with great clarity and I thank him for being just to the Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, has put his case clearly and fairly, but there are only sixty-one operators with 175 vehicles who invited notices of acquisition and whose acquisition was postponed by the fortuitous circumstance of the foreshadowing of this Bill. They have been enjoying the best of both worlds. They have enjoyed immunity from the 25-mile limit, but once this Bill is passed they will lose that privilege.
If the noble Earl accepts this Amendment, he will not be doing justice to his noble friend Lord Teynham, because it will mean that up to the date fixed the privileged few would enjoy the right of ignoring the 25-mile limit. I do not think he can turn down the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron. Why should these people have this exemption? The noble Lord wants to carry on for another two years the results of a fortuitous circumstance. This is not a matter which involves many vehicles but, in principle, if the noble Earl resisted the blandishments of his noble friend Lord Teynham, to be consistent he must resist those of his noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron.
LORD TEYNHAM: I would make it clear that my Amendment was set down in order to be sure that the present practice of issuing permits by the Commission should be continued. I was not asking for anything more or for anything special.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: The hauliers I was referring to have always been long distance people and never subject to the 25-mile limit. Those who are going to be subject to the limit until the end of 1954 have been subject to that
1228
limit since the 1947 Act. These are two different types of haulier. What I ask for in my Amendment is only what is covered by the assurance given by the noble Earl about the previous Amendment—namely, that people who have enjoyed unrestricted traffic up to now outside the 25-mile limit should not suddenly be deprived of that freedom by a Bill which is designed to free road haulage. I do not quite see the pith of the point the noble Lord opposite was trying to make. I think the two Amendments are quite consistent.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron has clearly explained a rather unusual circumstance. These hauliers are in a peculiar position and not entirely dealt with by the 1947 Act, and they require some attention because they have fallen between two stools. On the one hand, the original permits on which they were operating have lapsed and, on the other hand, their right to demand of the Commission that they should purchase their undertakings because they were long-distance and would be wrecked by the imposition of a 25-mile limit has also fallen; so that, pending other arrangements, they had been allowed to continue. To my mind there is no inconsistency in accepting this Amendment and refusing the last. Consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds and it would not worry me if this was inconsistent. I contend that this is a perfectly clear issue. Accordingly, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to these people and have pleasure in accepting his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Amendments as to grounds for granting or refusing licences]:
EARL DE LA WARR: This is little more than a drafting Amendment, but I think I ought to say a word. This clause provides additional grounds for the revocation of licences. It was never meant to be used retrospectively, and this Amendment and the next make that point clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, at end insert ("made after the passing of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, after ("expectation") insert ("made after the passing of this Act"—(Earl De La Warr.)
7.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to the clause.
"(5) This section shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1956."
The noble Lord said: This clause undoubtedly makes it easier for an applicant to prove his case before the licensing authority. Therefore, it allows easier entry into the industry. I suggest that this may eventually be a good thing, but that it would be wrong to modify the entry until such time as the denationalisation has settled down. Moreover, by this clause the licensing authority can take charges into account—which is new—when coming to a decision on any application for licence. Again, there is a change in the onus of proof, which also is likely to introduce more competition in road haulage. Eventually this, too, may be a good thing, but I would point out that more competition might well make the purchase of transport units less attractive, and therefore depreciate their value. I maintain that there is bound to be some disturbance during the sale period which will make the task of the licensing authority more difficult. Therefore, I feel that there is a strong case for postponing any experiments until denationalisation has settled down. It would also appear that in this clause little or no recognition has been given to the position of coastal shipping, which may be adversely affected by changes of licences before such time as the whole picture becomes much clearer than it will be in the first few months. I ask the Government to look at this whole matter again, with a view to postponing, if not the operation of the whole clause, at least certain parts of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke on this Amendment and did not move Amendment No. 39.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think it would.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, says. I feel that the whole of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, needs looking at. The Government—and I think they are wise—have the The siger Committee sitting on the whole of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It is under the Road and Rail Traffic Act that the licences for goods vehicles are issued, and under the Road Traffic Act that licences for passenger vehicles are issued. We are now in 1953. The Government are going to do a lot of things. They are going to alter the emphasis here they are presenting a number of different aspects. The Government are, changing the face of the transport system of this country. I would beg of them not to do anything in a hotch-potch, piecemeal manner like this. It has been the ruination of many a Government's legislation that they would not get down properly to amending an Act but would try to tinker it about, and botch it up to make it suit modern conditions, when it did not. Frankly, I believe that the Government will find that they will have to take power to have more remote control, if I may use the expression, over those things. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is quite right. We have twelve licensing authorities in this country. The same people issue licences under this clause as issue passenger licences and sit and hear appeals on fares. They have no common policy. This clause can be interpreted by twelve different licensing authorities in twelve different ways.
My object in putting down an Amendment to leave out Clause 8 was not to press it but to ask the Government whether they would have an inquiry into this and come forward with rather better material than the Road and Rail Traffic Act by the date which the noble Lord suggests, the first day of January, 1956. I should think that it could be done in two years. Therefore, I rather support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I do not know whether he is prepared to press his Amendment to a Division, but if he does he will find my colleagues and me in the Lobby with him. II hope that that will not put him off, or give him reason for withdrawing the Amendment—he might for once find himself in some good company. I think the noble Earl, Lord

1231
Selkirk, will see the force of my words. I am not at all opposed to what is being done. What I am saying is that the Government are doing a bit of tinkering. What they want to do by this clause is to open the closed shop. The people who will be against opening the closed shop are the hauliers, who do not want any more competition. They have a nice little closed shop now, but this is going to open it, and they will be against it. I do not really take them into consideration, but I want this thing done properly, if it is possible. I want the whole of the Road and Rail Traffic Act studied, with a view to amending it to suit present-day conditions. I think the noble Earl will find, before we have finished with this Bill, that we may suggest a number of directions where he will have to take powers. I am not going to delay your Lordships by talking at any great length on other Amendments which we have down, but the way I suggest that those Amendments could be made effective is through the medium of the Road and Rail Traffic Act. I think it would be in the interests of the Government to study this matter closely and to get the Road and Rail Traffic Act made more suited to modern conditions. I feel that they should do it by the date the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, mentions. That is why I put down the Amendment to leave out Clause 8. I have explained what I had in mind, and I shall not bother your Lordships by pressing the Amendment when we come to it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for raising this point, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for explaining the views he holds in regard to this clause. But I must emphasise that we are trying by this Bill to hold a balance between the different (shall I say?) parties who are concerned, and it is part of the balance that we should have a proper licensed competition. That is the essence of the Bill. It is with that in mind that we do not feel we can leave this matter over. Attractive as it always is to leave matters over until a Royal Commission, or some other body, has examined them, we felt that we could not do it on this occasion. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the The siger Committee will not deal much with the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, not at all.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The particular aspect here will not be dealt with. Let us examine just what this clause does, and see how we stand. There are really five things that it brings into slightly different perspective. In the first place, it instructs the licensing authority to pay attention to those persons requiring transport before those who are providing it. I think most of your Lordships will agree that that is a desirable provision. In the second place, it instructs the licensing authority to give special consideration to transport by containers, and so to do away with reloading from one vehicle to another. I think everyone will agree that that is a desirable thing. Thirdly—and this is a very important point, as my noble friend Lord Teynham has emphasised—it transfers the onus of proof from a man who is making the application to the man who is making the objection; that is to say, it is allowing new people to come in more easily than is the case now. We are frequently accused—I do not in the least mind it—of being friendly with the Road Haulage Association. This is frankly a provision they do not like, and we are endeavouring to hold a balance between this and other considerations.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has mentioned the question of charges. Clause 8 (3) (b) sets out the factors which the licensing authority have to take into consideration. They
"shall have regard to the relative efficiency, reliability and adequacy of the existing facilities at the date of the application and the facilities which the applicant will provide if his application is granted and to all other relevant considerations"—
They have to take into consideration all those points, and then comes,
"including the charges."
I am only saying that there are a great many other things to take into consideration before charges. I am not saying that charges are unimportant, because they are. But there are many other considerations, and we hope that this will not be the first and decisive influence on which an application will or will not be approved. I would add—and we did emphasise this in the original White Paper—that greater latitude will be granted to new men coming into the road

1233
haulage industry; and we want that to happen.
I would emphasise that there is not likely to be a great deal of disturbance in the course of the next two years. Anybody who wants an "A" licence to go long distances will have to buy from the Transport Commission. He will get an automatic licence from the licensing authority, and therefore the provisions here will have no application whatsoever. I do not know the precise position within the twenty-five mile limit, but I do not imagine there is a great deal of room at present for new entrants there. I do not know, but I suspect there is not. Therefore, I suggest that until the twenty-five mile limit is raised, this clause will, in fact, have very little application, except for one subsection, subsection (4). That is of great importance in the sale of transport units. It is concerned with false statements, and links up with Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule. That indicates that when a licence is granted to a purchaser from the Transport Commission a statement has to be made of the area from which he operates: he has to state that he will serve substantially the same area as those which might conveniently he served by users from the second mentioned base or centre. That is the only assurance we have that areas will, in fact, he served when units which are now served by the Transport Commission are sold off, and it is for that reason alone, or that reason inter alia, that it will be impossible for us to consider postponing the clause as it stands.
If there are other aspects of it which the noble Lord wishes to press, I shall be glad to consider them, but it must be made clear that, so far as location is concerned, there can be no question of postponement. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a matter which will require full examination, but in starting this new system of licensed competition we feel that it is essential to give a certain direction in certain circumstances. And we feel that it will give a fuller balance to the position of the road haulage people, the independent road hauliers, to have this provision at the present time than would be the case if it were postponed. If a thing is worth while in 1956, why should we not have it in 1953? Is the argument really so much stronger for 1956 than it is for
1234
1953? I do hope the noble Lord will not press this matter. I do not think the effects will be catastrophic, and I do not think the effects will be, felt in full strength for quite a time.
7.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I find myself in considerable agreement with what the noble Earl has just said. I feel that if we are to have this amendment of the law, the sooner we have it the better. I particularly find myself in sympathy with the general principle that if a person applies for a licence to do something, the onus should be on those who object and not on the person who is applying. It was a principle that I myself tried to interpret in town and country planning. Many local authorities seem to assume that the onus of being allowed to do something is on the applicant himself. Of course, it is not. There must be a clear case for refusing before a local authority refuses; and the same applies here. If a licence is to be refused, the onus must be on those who are objecting. That is a considerable improvement, and I think it would be wrong to postpone it. My noble friend Lord Lucas rather jocularly professed himself to be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. Of course, what he meant was that the whole matter wanted looking at, and that there was a case for a review of the whole question, just as there is for a review of the railway system under Clause 14. For that reason, if there were to be a review, then there might be a case for putting off the change until the result of the review. If we are not to have a review, then the sooner Clause 8 comes into operation, the better. That is my own personal view, and I should not feel myself in a position to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I think we have reached the point where we can say that as regards three of the four subsections, we can accept the view of my noble friend in front of me. I wonder, though, whether there is not another word to be said on subsection (3). That is the important subsection. Subsection (3) has the two separate parts—the onus of proof and the arrangement for the bringing in of consideration of charges, which is new in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Selkirk

1235
said that if we are going to do it in 1956—on which we are all agreed—why not do it now? I think that the arguments for 1956, as against now, refer particularly to subsection (3). Many times in this debate we have all expressed the feeling that we want to do nothing which will make the transition stage more difficult or more uncomfortable for those concerned. Those of us who put down this Amendment, felt that the two provisions in subsection (3) were right ultimately, and might well be left over until 1956, in order not to produce any unnecessary friction in the transition period. It will be hard enough for the licensing authorities to know where they are under the changing conditions, and for that reason it seemed to us very much better that they should defer consideration of new factors such as charges.
As to the onus of proof, we feel that if the onus of proof is going to introduce more competition, that competition may work adversely to the taxpayers' interests. It may make it less attractive for people to go into the road transport industry, and may thereby reduce the number of applications to purchase transport, or the price fetched by the units sold. That is the sort of element in the case which we should be loath to see introduced in this period, which is going to be difficult enough as it is. I suggest that, whatever happens to subsections (1), (2) and (4), subsection (3) still merits further consideration.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I should like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman has just said, because while listening with a great deal of interest to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I felt that these two particular matters contained in subsection (3)—the onus of proof and the question of charges should be looked into very carefully, with a view to seeing whether their introduction could not be postponed; although I appreciate that the other matters in the clause cannot wait. Take first the question of the onus of proof. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that at this stage the Government have the job of trying to maintain the balance between a number of different people. I should have thought that the application of this change of the onus of proof, particularly during this period of transition in the road haulage
1236
industry, is greatly "hotting up" competition amongst various people in the industry, and certainly might make for unknown, and even perhaps slightly chaotic, conditions during this period. Furthermore—and I think this is a very important point—after the end of 1954, when the 25-mile limit is raised and the short hauliers are free to go into long-distance haulage, the competition is likely to be much greater still, because the field will be open to many more people to go into long-distance haulage.
On the question of charges, it is perhaps odd that considerations of this nature should be introduced at a time when the question of the issue of licences will mean a great deal more work, both for those who have to consider the applications and for the hauliers who are applying. There is bound to be a lot of I work in finding out the details and facts, which must be accurate and which have to be brought before the licensing authority. It might have been better to let the industry settle down a bit in its new job before throwing this new burden on the officials and the hauliers. I hope the noble Earl will be able to think over these two points and perhaps meet us to some extent on them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We have had a very interesting discussion. To me it has been a valuable one because we have narrowed the issue down to two points. One is the question of the onus of proof and the other is the question of charges. I have a certain amount of support from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the onus of proof. It is difficult to push away the onus to show that an objection is bad. I may, for instance, apply for a licence, and if the other man says to me, "I don't want you to do so," it is difficult for me to show that his objections are bad; whereas he, if he objects to mine, can say "I have twenty vehicles doing nothing." That is a fact which can duly be presented. I suggest with great respect that the present method proposed in the Bill is probably more equitable. With regard to charges, we will certainly look at the charges provision again. We do not want to make this a major issue and we will see whether we can word it in such a way that it will be made more acceptable to the noble Lord. I hope that in the circumstances he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look at the matter of charges again. I think it is a very important matter. On the basis of the noble Earl's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(5) For paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of section two of the Road and Rail Traffic Act. 1933, there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) such motor vehicles from time to time in the possession of the holder of the licence under an agreement for hire or loan as are specified in the licence."
The noble Lord said: I will try to explain this in the briefest possible time, because it is a very intricate subject. It seeks to clear up an abuse which is very prevalent at the present time—the abuse of carrying goods for hire or reward by the medium of a "C" licence. Any "C" licence holder owning vehicles for carrying his own goods only has a margin, so to speak—a point at which he need not buy any vehicles but can hire them. The technique is for a haulier to go to a "C" licence holder and say, "If you will apply for a 'C' licence on your margin, then I can supply you with vehicles. You give me your disc and while I am carrying goods I will put your goods on the vehicle." He does this for about a dozen people, and so can change the discs at will and can carry for hire or reward. The practice cannot be detected. He does not go outside the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. He evades all responsibilities as regards wages and conditions of employment, and he also evades the obligations of the 25-mile limit under the 1947 Act.
That is an over-simplification of something which it would take me about three-quarters of an hour to explain in detail. I am conscious of the fact that I think this abuse will fade right out when the 25-mile limit comes to an end. Is it worth while doing anything between now and then? If the noble Earl says, "On balance we do not consider it is," I do not think I should die in the last ditch over this. But it is something of which perhaps other noble Lords have more experience than I have, and they may think it should be tackled now. I should like an expression of the noble Lord's
1238
opinion on this subject, and that is why I have put this Amendment down.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has moved this Amendment in terms of great moderation and frankness, and I am grateful to him. I have, in fact, run into one of these "institutions" myself, to my astonishment. One has to recognise in this case that this is an evil which has arisen directly out of the 1947 Act and that before that time it did not exist. It has arisen owing to the ingenuity of individuals, stimulated, if you like, by lust for profit, serving each other—simply serving each other. One party finds it more easy to get his goods moved and the other party finds a simpler way of getting traffic on the road.
The noble Lord has said frankly that the evil will fade out in 1955. The difficulty we are in is this: is it worth taking action in the interim period? There are certain definite advantages under the 1933 Act in retaining the measure of flexibility which has been allowed in "A" licensing. I think I am right in saying that, provided you pay the driver and have possession of the vehicle, that is enough for the licence. The licence need not specify any particular vehicle at all. That is done for the purpose of assisting people engaged in this particular industry—that is to say, they can transfer easily from one vehicle to another. Is it really worth sacrificing that measure of flexibility for a mere period of two years? I am bound to say that, on the information which we have at present, we do not think it is. After all, it would mean a rigidity about granting a licence which would be, or might be, permanent, and would redound to the disadvantage of people engaged in this particular industry. So, whilst I think the noble Lord has turned over one of those dirty stones which one does every now and again, in drawing attention to this matter—and it is one which undoubtedly has to be put right—I do not know that it is illegal. That it is an abuse of the spirit of the 1947 Act I have no doubt. I feel, on the whole, it is not worth taking action during the small period which remains to us.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I do not

1239
usually cross swords with lawyers because I am not a lawyer. The whole practice is illegal. As he has said, this is greed and lust, and he will know better than I do that the whole practice originated in Scotland. So, with a fellow feeling for the noble Earl, I will not pursue the matter any further. To save him further embarrassment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Supplemental provisions as to preceding sections
(4) If it appears to the Minister that, having regard to the stage reached in the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, it is expedient so to do, he may by order provide for abolishing the Board and winding up their affairs, and for transferring to the Minister any functions of the Board so far as they remain to be exercised or performed. The power conferred by this subsection to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
7.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words from "affairs" down to and including performed. The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 40. The particular subsection in which these words occur gives the Minister power to abolish the Disposal Board when he thinks that the Board has substantially done its job. I have no objection at all to that. Of course, when the Board has done its job, or when the Minister thinks that it has done its job, it should be wound up. But the subsection goes on to say:
"and for transferring to the Minister any functions of the Board so far as they remain to be exercised."
That is the part of the subsection that I am asking to delete, because I do not agree that those functions should be transferred to the Minister in so far as they remain to be carried out or performed. These are the functions of advising the Commission on the disposal of the property required by the Act. I take it that, so long as there is any advice to be given to the Commission, so long as there is any property to be disposed of, the Minister will not wish to wind up the Board. He will do it, I imagine, only
1240
when the property has been disposed of. So I cannot conceive what other functions will remain.
If any functions do remain, surely it is not for the Minister to carry them out. They should be left to the Commission. If there are any minor matters of winding up to be carried out, surely it is for the Commission, and not for the Minister, to do it. Is the Minister going to take over the staff of the Disposal Board and run it?—because he cannot run these functions without a staff. It seems to me, putting it at its highest, that these words are wholly unnecessary, and putting it at something less than its highest, I would say that they may indicate something which we do not understand. I am not going to press this Amendment. I would only ask the noble Earl who is to reply just to look at it, without any commitment whatever, and see whether, when the job of the Disposal Board has been done, it really is necessary to talk of transferring to the Minister functions which, ex hypothesi, have come to an end. If the noble Earl is prepared to ask his right honourable friend to look at this point and see whether those words are necessary, I shall be perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 21, leave out from ("affairs") to end of line 23.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has posed this Amendment. At first thought. I found it a little difficult to follow noble Lords on the other side of the House, because they started off discussion on this Bill by saying that the Board must be abolished. Now they are objecting to its abolition by the Minister when its functions are more or less fulfilled.
LORD SILKIN: No.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not want to make that point. I think there is a great objection to having Boards and committees hanging about when their functions are virtually fulfilled.
I use the word "virtually" There is bound to be a time when the work will be running out, when there will be just a few more vehicles and a few more bits of property to dispose of, but not sufficient to justify the existence of a Board.

1241
At that time I think it is right to do away with the Board and for the Minister to take on its very slender functions. I am wondering whether I may mention the next Amendment. I should find it difficult to agree to this Amendment, but perhaps I may say straight away that I am prepared to accept the next Amendment, which requires that an Affirmative Resolution of the House must be passed before the Board can be abolished. Perhaps we might dispose of this matter in agreement.
LORD SILKIN: In disposing of this Amendment, I hope the noble Earl is not trying to bribe me.
EARL DE LA WARR: I merely wanted the noble Lord to be in possession of all the facts.
LORD SILKIN: I will move the next Amendment formally when the time comes and not put up the argument for it. The noble Earl is under a misapprehension. I am a good democrat, and this House having decided to have a Disposal Board, I accept that position. I am not seeking to get rid of it nor am I objecting to its coming to an end at the right time. I think that is right, and I said so. What I doubt—I do not put it higher than that—is whether the Minister should take over the function of the Board when the time comes for the Board to be brought to an end. It is that which I am asking the noble Earl, without any commitment whatever, to look at again. It may be that: these words are right; it may be that it is right that the Minister should take over non-existent functions, functions which have already been disposed of. It may be right to say so in an Act of Parliament. But I doubt whether the Minister is the right person to take over such functions as are left.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord who is to take them over?
LORD SILKIN: I am in this dilemma, that I cannot conceive what functions will be left.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Exactly.
LORD SILKIN: But, in so far as there are functions of advising the Minister, I should have thought that the Commission were the right people. However, as I say, I am not pressing this Amendment. The noble Earl can look at it or not,
1242
just as he likes. I think he would be well advised to look at it again. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), in the second paragraph, to omit all words from and including "any" down to the end of the subsection, and to insert:
"no order shall be made by the Minister under this subsection unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 25, leave out from ("and") to end of line 27, and insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
8.0 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
Compensation for losses arising through interference with existing contracts
".Where—

(a) the Commission the Road Haulage Executive has, before The thirtieth day of April, 1952, entered into any contractual arrangement with any other road haulage undertaking; and

(b) the revenue or capital value of such undertaking has been or will be diminished by the effect of this Act on that contractual arrangement;

then either—

(i) the Commission shall pay to the owner of such undertaking full compensation for such diminution; or

(ii) if any such contractual arrangement shall involve the purchase by the Commission or by the Road Haulage Executive of any such undertaking, the Commission or the Road Haulage Executive as the case may be shall be released from such contractual arrangement on the payment by the Commission of full compensation for the damage suffered by such undertaking as a result of such release."

The noble Lord said: Although this suggested new clause looks fairly simple, it is rather a difficult one, in that, so far as I know, it applies to only one company and its two subsidiaries—F.T.S. (Great Britain). So far as I know, they are the, only road haulage undertakings having a specific long-term contract with the Road Haulage Executive. They were, and are, mainly employed in the transportation of

1243
films from one end of the country to the other. When transport was nationalised they applied to be taken over by the Transport Commission, but theirs was such a complicated form of business that, instead of taking them over, the Transport Commission made out three forms of contract, each precisely the same, so that the three companies could go on doing this work, without competition from the Road Haulage Executive and without any opposition from either the Road Haulage Executive or the Railway Executive to the licences they might require. Those contracts are in existence to-day; but if the Commission is done away with, they go to the floor; and this company, who on the strength of those contracts, have raised money to purchase additional vehicles, suddenly find themselves left open to free competition from everybody, and to opposition by anybody who wishes to oppose their applications for new licences. In fact, all the benefits of their contracts have disappeared and, so far as I can see, there is nobody against whom they can enforce their contracts.
I realise that, in the main, trying to legislate for a hard case generally produces a bad law; on the other hand, justice is justice. They did not sit on that stool of their own free will; they were perched there by the Executive. They have got their contract with the Executive who, by rights, should have paid them something in the neighbourhood of £625,000, or probably rather more, if they were taken over. Now, not only will they not get that sum, but the contracts which they had previously entered into are not fulfilled. I should have to take up a great deal more of the time of the Committee if I were to explain the whole matter in detail. What I did was to send a memorandum on the subject to the noble Viscount who is in charge of a Bill, in order that he and his advisers could study the matter and see what could be done to help. Naturally, I am not wedded to the words of my Amendment. What I should like is an assurance that the whole matter will be examined and, if it is humanly possible, that something will be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope that the Government will turn this Amendment down flatly. This is not even a hard case. Moderate language would tempt me to say that it is just a bit of special pleading, to put in a new clause to suit somebody who, because of a change of policy by this Government, is going to lose the advantages he gained from the last Government's enactment. If one Government is coming in and is going to change the policy of the last Government, somebody is bound to lose. Here is one company who, before nationalisation, had to withstand the rigours of competition in the transport industry. When nationalisation came along the British Transport Commission could have acquired this concern, but as it was specialising in one particular branch of transport—I do not know whether the noble Lord mentioned the name of the firm—
LORD SANDHURST: It is F.T.S.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is a firm dealing in the carriage of films. If the noble Lord had not mentioned the name, I certainly did not intend to do so. It is a film transport company specialising that particular business. The British Transport Commission said that they did not want to dabble in this sort of thing. They said, "What we will do is to enter into an agreement with you, to allow you to have a monopoly. We will not enter into your sphere. We will give you permits to carry on this work. We will enter into an agreement with you covering so many years, and we may perhaps extend it after that number of years; and we will see that your monopoly is not interfered with by us, and therefore by nobody else." That was all very nice. But now, under this Bill, the company have to revert to their pre-nationalisation status—they have to withstand the rigours of competition. They have liked the "featherbed" of monopoly; it has been very nice for them, and they do not now want to suffer the cold, icy blasts of competition.
The noble Lord now comes along as their advocate and says that because the Government which noble Lords opposite now support have brought in this wicked Bill, this company wants £620,000, which is the sum they would have got in 1948 if they had been taken over by the British Transport Commission. I suggest that

1245
that is asking a little too much. I suppose it is worth trying. But if noble Lords Opposite believe in competition, then I am afraid they must take the swings with the roundabouts. The British Transport Commission are not going to cancel the company's contracts. They can continue with their contracts, but they will not have great value, because they do not protect the company by giving them the monopoly granted by the British Transport Commission. So now they have got to operate against wicked competition, which of course they do not like, and they want noble Lords in this House to insert a new clause into the Bill which will have the effect of handing over to them £620,000. I do not think the noble Earl opposite is going to accept this Amendment; but should he be inclined to do so, I want to ask him, where does the £620,000 come from? Is it to come out of the levy? It must do, because it will be a loss on the Commission. If the Commission are going to pay £620,000, they will say that it is a loss on the transfer occasioned by this Bill, and that they must charge it to the levy. Would the "A," "B" and "C" licence holders in this country really like to see their levy increased in order to pay compensation to the extent of £620,000?
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I answer his question by saying to him simply: What questions you do ask! Her Majesty's Government have the greatest sympathy with the case put up by the noble Lord, but he will be the first to agree—indeed, he actually said so—that it is exceedingly difficult and dangerous to legislate for one company. As we all know, the situation is not so unique as we like to think. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has rightly said, the agreements that arise out of these monopolies inevitably fall to the floor. If you are going to do away with monopoly you must do away with those monopolies that arise out of the central one. There is no doubt that the company in question will suffer. It is a very specialised company. I have been surprised, from the inquiries I have made, with what immense efficiency it has satisfied this particular market. I do not see how we can get away from the fact that it will in future be open to competition from other parties' vehicles. I am afraid that we cannot have it both ways. It is a choice between competition and mono-
1246
poly, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment, though I feel a great deal more sympathy with this company than apparently does the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
LORD SANDHURST: I do not know whether any means can be found for meeting the position. One means would be a peculiarly Irish one of buying up the company quickly and letting it sell itself back a little later. But I do not think that would be regarded as a good policy. I see the point with regard to monopoly and competition, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10:
The transport levy
10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to the provisions of section thirteen of this Act, in the case of the vehicles described in the first column of the Tables in Parts I and III of the Second Schedule to this Act, being vehicles which are used on public roads in Great Britain on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, a charge, in this Act referred to as "the transport levy," shall be made in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section for the benefit of the Transport Fund established under the next following section.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four" and insert:
"a day to be appointed by an order of the Minister, being the first day of January in any year."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which is a very simple one.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is not this Amendment put forward really to make way for a later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord?
LORD SANDHURST: The later Amendment is consequential upon the one I am now moving.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think we should discuss the two together.
LORD SANDHURST: The later Amendment, as I have said, is a purely consequential one. We can discuss the two together, though the disadvantage will be that if the Amendment I am moving is lost and the other is moved with it, that also will fall. This Amendment

1247
is a very simple one. The levy is strongly objected to throughout the country, by almost every trader. Many traders feel that if the transport were sold the loss would be very small, and there should be in fact no need to have a levy at all. This is simply a case of leaving everything as it stands in the Bill, but, instead of making the levy come into operation automatically on January 1, 1954, telling the Minister he must wait until he sees the real need for the money before he raises it. That, briefly, is the situation as far as the first of these two Amendments is concerned. The question at issue was raised in another place, but nobody seemed to deem it worth while to answer it. But if you are going to encourage the Commission or the Board to sell their units at the best possible price the greatest mistake in the world will be to give them a bag full of money into which they can dip their hands to replace losses incurred on any individual unit. If they feel that they have got to get a proper price, they will, by some means, get it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, leave out ("the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four") and insert ("a day to be appointed by an order of the Minister, being the first day of January in any year").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would not say for one moment that the noble Lord's Amendment is not worth answering, and I am glad to give him an answer and, I hope, a clear one. He said it was dangerous to give these people a bag of money into which they could dip their hands. I do not know how much there is going to be, but certainly there is going to be a considerable sum, and we decided in principle on the Second Reading, and will decide again on the appropriate clause, that there is to be a levy for it. But the one thing which is certain is that when these businesses are sold they cannot realise what was originally given for them. The money has to come from the levy or the taxpayer. Assuming there is to be a levy, everybody wants to get rid of it as soon as possible. In the alternative, if this levy were not imposed on the date which is set down they would only have to borrow through the bank and pay interest at bank rate.
1248
Of course, the noble Lord is proposing the present Amendment to pave the way for a later Amendment to Clause 10 which stands in his name on the paper. I think it fair to draw the attention of your Lordships to what the Amendment now being proposed involves in preparing the way for Lord Sandhurst's later Amendment. That is the Amendment numbered 42A, and it asks the Committee to say that the Minister shall not impose the levy until the loss upon sale has risen to 1 per cent. of the capital value of the assets. I asked for a calculation to be made to show what that meant, and the answer was £17 million. So no levy would start until the deficit was £17 million. And if the deficit was £16,999,999, and rose no higher, there would never be a levy at all. No doubt it would suit the noble Lord and those for whom he speaks, but it really would not suit the taxpayer at all. It is no good saying: "The Commission will pay." If the Commission is out of pocket, only one person pays, and that is the taxpayer. I must say that I hope your Lordships would not wish to put an additional burden of £17 million upon the taxpayer at a time when many of your Lordships—certainly the noble Lord is one—are urging that there should be the maximum of economy and reduction of taxation.
LORD SANDHURST: I cannot say that I am at all happy about the reply which the noble Viscount has given. For one thing, I do not see why there should be any big loss on the sale of this undertaking. When the Road Haulage Executive took over and nationalised transport, they bought up a great many fleets made up of vehicles which were really little more than mobile wrecks. To-day they have a first-class fleet which they are selling back, and the difference between the two ought to make up for more than the difference arising from the loss of goodwill. However, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (1), after "nineteen hundred and fifty-four" to insert:
"other than vehicles owned by—

(a) the Commission and

1249

(b) local authorities as defined in subsection (1) of section one hundred and nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and in subsection (1) of section one hundred and thirteen of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, used for the purposes of the exercise and performance of their powers and duties."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It is really two Amendments, but I thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if they were put together. What I am seeking to do by the Amendment is to exclude the Commission and the local authorities from being charged a levy. The cases are a little different, and I hope I may be permitted to put them separately. As regards the Commission, I think it is quite simple. The purpose of the levy is partly to make good to the Commission losses they will sustain in disposing of the vehicles. It seems extraordinary to charge the Commission themselves a levy in order to make good losses which the Commission is going to incur. This is not merely a theoretical point it is a practical point. These losses will either have to be made good by the taxpayer—which, as the noble Viscount has just said, is most undesirable—or by increasing charges which the consumer will have to pay. Neither of those courses is right. Therefore, I am suggesting in this Amendment that the Commission should be excluded from payment of the levy.
As to the local authorities, they possess vehicles but they are not using them for the purpose of profit: they are using them merely for the purpose of carrying out their normal functions. I suppose the majority of vehicles which local authorities own are used for the purpose of carrying out maintenance work on their housing estates, and the effect of imposing a levy on the local authority vehicles must be to increase the rates. It is the only way in which the local authorities can meet these increased charges. And the rates are high enough. Particularly at this moment, when almost every local authority in the country is increasing its rates very considerably, it would seem to be a pity to impose a further charge upon them. And it is an unjust charge. One can understand a levy being imposed on undertakings which stand a chance of making a profit, and which are, in fact, being run for profit, but local authorities, of course, are not being run for profit;
1250
they are merely rendering service to the community. It seems grossly unfair that they should have to pay a levy as well.
The case that has been made for charging both the Commission and the local authorities a levy is based on administrative convenience. The levy is linked up with payment of Excise Duty, It is said that it is simple for anyone who pays Excise Duty also to pay the levy. In this connection I would quote what the noble Viscount himself said only a short time ago. He said that if he thought that a thing was right, he would not let administrative convenience stand in the way of it. I agree with him entirely. And I do not think he would do so. I do not think he ought, in this instance, if the case is not one of equity but one of administrative convenience, to say that anyone who pays Excise Duty should also pay levy. I suggest that that is not an adequate reason for imposing a levy on these two types of authorities. I have put the cases very briefly, but I hope that the noble Viscount will not think, in consequence of that, that I feel any the less strongly about this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 34, after ("fifty-four") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
8.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has put the case very fairly, and if I thought this was merely a matter of administrative convenience I would not reject the Amendment on that ground. I am not going to ask the Committee to reject it on that ground. I am going to ask the Committee to reject it on what I may call broad grounds of equity, fairness and convenience. Let me, first of all, dispose of the nightmare which the noble Lord has raised that rates are going up by some vast sum.
LORD SILKIN: I did not say a vast sum; I did not say how much.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought the noble Lord suggested that at any rate they were going up by some considerable sum. Certainly he made our flesh creep. Considering that the levy comes to only a fraction of a penny per ton-mile, I do not think—indeed I should be prepared to bet upon this—it will have any effect upon the rates. Broadly, I think the argument is that either you do this out

1251
of taxation or you do it out of the levy. I think it is right—and the Committee have accepted it—that we ought to do it out of the levy. And I also think that if we are going to do it out of the levy, the levy ought to fall widely on people of the same classes. You cannot put it simply on the sort of "A" licence holders, who carry for hire and reward. If you did, I agree that the payment to be made then would be vast, and it would put up the rates enormously. I cannot see any argument based on logic or ethics which would say that a Commission which has to compete on equal terms with other people has to be exempt, while other people are included in the levy scheme.
I may observe, in passing, that a lot of local authority vehicles are already excluded, among them fire engines, vehicles kept by local authorities while they are used for the purpose of their fire brigade service, ambulances, road rollers, certain road construction vehicles, and any vehicle being used for clearing snow from public roads by means of a snow plough or similar contrivance. You cannot let off local authorities because they do not operate all their vehicles for profit. They do not operate them for profit; but they operate them in order to save themselves spending money. If they had not their own vehicles for carrying their own goods, they would have to pay a contracting firm to do it. If a local authority have found it convenient to have their own lorries, they are in exactly the same position as any firm with a "C" licence, and if we let off the local authority because they find it more convenient to have a vehicle of their own rather than hire a road haulier to do the job, in equity, exactly the same argument could be made for "C" licence holders—at least, for those who do not hold a "B" licence as well. We have applied the same rough justice to Government Departments owning vehicles. For instance, the Post Office are going to pay the levy. In common justice we had better put the levy on all people who come properly within the same class. That is my answer to the question why local authorities should not be exempt and why the Commission themselves should not be exempt, although the levy goes to compensate them in other respects. I think it will be quite unfair and improper to
1252
exempt the Commission, who are going to be put on all fours with all other road hauliers.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to delete Clause 10. The noble Lord said: Now we do join issue. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is not going, because I was expecting to see him with me in the Lobby, as I am going to improve on his Amendment. I am going to attack the levy because, if I may use an Irishism, there never was a case for the levy and now that the Government have agreed to the companies method of disposal of assets there is even less a case for one. The new clause that has been inserted in this Bill today lays down in subsection (5) the injunction that
"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."
I argue strongly that if the shares in the companies are properly valued, if the units are properly marketed and the goods that have to be sold as chattels are properly marketed, there should be no loss that cannot be easily amortised by the Commission in the ordinary way of business. The Commission's turnover is £600 million a year, and I believe that if proper me chanting methods are used, the amount of ultimate loss will be a small one, if any, and within the scope of amortisation. We are going to have a levy that is to compensate the Commission for this loss, but unless the proper merchanting methods are used the loss is going to be enormous. On Second Reading, I said that if no regard is paid to real value well marketed, the loss to the taxpayer can be £50 million, while the loss by disturbance to the transport system is not measurable.
This levy is to be spread over goods-carrying vehicles of one ton and over in weight. Out of 900,000 vehicles affected by the Bill, 560,000 are over one ton in weight, and out of that total "C" licence vehicles number 450,000. The levy is spread over "A", "B" and "C" licence holders, and so 77 per cent. of the levy will be found by the "C" licence holders who, except by an odd chance, are not going to buy any of these

1253
vehicles. I think that should be known throughout the country, that one class is going to be singled out for taxation and 77 per cent. of that taxation is going to be paid by one section of that class, whose members are not carting goods for hire or reward but are using their vehicles for carrying their own goods. This means that 77 per cent. of the levy is going to be borne by industry and trade—at a time when the Government are exhorting industry to cut costs because we are over-pricing ourselves in the export market.
There is another denationalisation measure on thestocks—the denationalisation of steel. There is no levy there. Who is to pay for the loss that may be incurred when the steel shares are marketed? Who is to pay for the compensation to employees for loss of employment or worsening of conditions in the case of steel? There is no levy, so it must be the Exchequer. Why is one method adopted as regards steel and another method as regards transport? Perhaps the question has lever been asked, so I ask it now. Why should there be a different method? Is it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not touch this transport levy at arm's length? The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said on Second Reading—I paraphrase him, but I think correctly—"The first thing you did when you nationalised transport was that you had to go to the Treasury for a guarantee of £1,000 million. "That is quite right. That was to pay the stockholders of the railways, to give them gilt edged securities. But he went on to say: But under this Bill this will not cost the Treasury anything"—suggesting, of course, that the other did; although, in fact, it did not. But the levy is chargeable to tax. Any concern that has to pay the levy is allowed to charge it in their accounts against tax. So that, in the ultimate result, the Treasury lave to find from the taxpayer 50 per cent. of the total of the levy, contributed by those who are profit-earning companies.
I wonder whether industry is going to put up with this. I wonder whether industry is ever going to learn. There is no guarantee that this levy will not go on for ever: there is no guarantee that it will not go on and on in future legislation. I am young enough, or old enough, to remember the pledge given by Mr. Lloyd
1254
George about the vehicle tax. That was to be a levy on road vehicles only for the purpose of maintaining the roads—Mr. Lloyd George put his hand on his heart and said that. And Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: "If that is ever altered we, the Conservative Party, will vote against it." But when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926, he was going to have no nonsense about pledges like that. He was going to garner it into the Treasury. That is how this money is collected to-day. The vehicle owners who have to pay this levy are already taxed at the present time to the tune of 87 per cent. of the total vehicle taxation, which is £375 million a year. The industry is the milch cow.
Perhaps the greatest objection of all is that this provides the Disposal Board with a bottomless purse. There is no financial discipline at all. There is no limit to the drawing that can be made on this levy, and there is no limit to the time that it can continue. if some of the things I fear are going to happen; if some of these chattels are sold at scrap value; if the purchaser is going to have all the consideration that we have heard; if these shares are not going to be marketed, as my noble and learned Leader said, at the best possible time at the best possible price, and a £50 million loss is going to be made, then it will take twenty years to amortise that. The levy is designed to collect only £4 million a year, and my calculation is that to pay off a loss of £50 million, at £4 million a year will take, with interest, twenty years. If the loss is £30 million, it will take ten years. There is nothing to stop any Board from going on endlessly. This is the kind of conversation that might take place between the Board and the Commission. The Commission may say, "No, we are not going to agree the price at which you want us to sell our assets, because it is too low." The Board may then say, "Why should you worry? There is the levy. You will get it back via the levy. Why should you stick out for a proper price?" Have your Lordships ever heard of financial arrangements like that made in the conduct of companies?
What are we getting to? If a dispute arises between the Board and the Commission, because the Commission will not sell their assets cheaply, and the

1255
operation is being delayed, they can then go to the Minister. The Minister may say to the Commission, "We must get on with this. Do not stand out for a price in future. We have got to sell these things, and you must not worry about any loss. There is the levy." How can you sell the taxpayers' assets on a proper basis when there is, all the time, this bottomless purse? Do not forget that we have had an admission that some members of the Board are to be the nominees of the Road Haulage Association. Do you mean to tell me that industry will put up with this? Do you mean to tell me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has countenanced it? I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, two questions, and I want to ask them in terms. The first is whether the financial adviser to the Ministry of Transport, Sir Alan Rae Smith, one of the most eminent accountants, has been consulted about this method. If not, why is he there?
The next question I want to ask is this, have the Auditors to the British Transport Commission been consulted? If so, what is their advice? All the professional advice that has been given to me is that this is an absolutely unworkable method, because the endless discussions on how they are to assess the loss, if any, and what is to be done with the levy, will continue for years and years. As I have said, there is no time limit. In point of fact, it is anticipated by the Government as going on interminably, because the Bill provides that the Minister must give Parliament a report every three years as to the progress made. In twenty years' time there can still be this levy, an inducement to bad management, an inducement to slack selling. And there is only one thing that justifies this levy—namely, the indecent haste: "Sell at any price; it does not matter; you will not lose anything, because you have the levy." That is my case against the levy.
The Minister on many occasions has said: "We are only doing now what you did under the 1947 Act. We are forcing people to sell, and so did you." I said: "Yes, we did." There was a forced sale by the hauliers to the Commission; but there was a forced purchase by the Commission at a predetermined price. Here you are forcing the Commission to sell.
1256
You know that you cannot put any statutory obligation upon the buyer to buy. The market price will dictate in the end. So this levy is introduced to make up the other figure of the equation. That is why I ask the Committee to reject this clause. I ask you to reject it because it is bad in principle; it is one of the worst principles ever brought into the fiscal system in this country. It is liable to stay with us in one form or another. It was never stated in the White Paper that we were to have compensation to employees, and when the debate on the White Paper took place I asked the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, across the Floor of the House who was going to pay for the compensation for displaced employees. I asked whether the hauliers or the Government were going to pay. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said: "How wrong it would be for us to ask private enterprise to pay!" That is what private enterprise is doing; it is paying in the end, and that is the provision in this Bill. That is our case. We feel very strongly on this matter and I move the Amendment without any knowledge of what the noble Viscount opposite will say. But I will sit down and hear what he has to say, because I want to know—I press him on this, and I think the House is entitled to know—what is the opinion of the chief financial adviser to the Ministry of Transport. Has he been asked? If not, why not? Have the auditors to the Transport Commission—two of the most eminent accountants in London—been asked? If not, why not, and if they have, what is their opinion? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 10.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
8.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can only presume that this Amendment is inspired by shame. The nationalised undertaking has lost the whole of its goodwill. In ordinary business, where an undertaking loses a large part of its capital or income, the company or its shareholders have to bear it. I am interested to know whether that is the basis on which the noble Lord would have us proceed, and whether he considers that the £30 million lost, or whatever the sum may be, should all be charged up to the Transport Commission. Unfortunately, charging things up to a nationalised industry does not mean

1257
charging them to a shareholder or going to the court to write down your capital; it means charging them up to the taxpayer. There are only three ways—realistically only two—in which this loss can be met. You may say that the Commission should bear its own loss. But it cannot, because it falls back automatically on the taxpayer. You may say that the taxpayer should recoup, or you may, as we have here, put the levy on all road haulage.
All sorts of theoretical and ethical arguments can be used as between the taxpayer and the levy on haulage. By and large, it has nothing whatever to do with the financial adviser or some firm of accountants. It is a simple ethical principle upon which Parliament is quite competent to decide. Anyone can understand it. Broadly speaking, I think most people would agree that the levy in its present form is the best way out. We have decided that it ought to range wide—the House has decided that—over all vehicles of the same kind. About half a million vehicles will pay a small sum for a limited period. Here the actuaries do come in I am told that it means a fraction of a penny per ton-mile. As my noble friend Lord Leathers said on Second Reading, as a result of this Bill trade and industry will get a better service, and so it is not unreasonable to put the levy on the "A," "B" and "C" vehicles.
EARL JOWITT: Why "C"?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The "C" licences form perhaps the most arguable case. After all, they are going to get a

CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allenby, V.

Gifford, L

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

Cholmondley, M.

Falmouth, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Goschen, V.

Llewellin, L,

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Lloyd, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Swinton, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr. E.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grey, E.

Cherwell, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow. E. [Teller.]

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Stamp, L.

Radnor, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Teynham, L.

Rothes, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Selkirk, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Webb-Johnson, L.

Freyberg, L.

Wolverton, L.

better service, and they have the privilege of using their own transport when it suits them and of using public transport when that suits them. I thought it was pretty half-hearted, although I was not surprised at the objection. There was one argument which I had never heard before, and I must congratulate the noble Lordon having imagined some new thing which nobody else had ever imagined—I might also say, on having imagined some vain thing. He said, "It can go on for ever—thirty or forty years. Nothing will stop Minister after Minister once this has started. It will be diverted to this purpose and that, to the benefit of this person, or to the benefit of that." Of course, that is completely untrue. Clause 13 provides at the very beginning of subsection (1) that when the Transport Fund is sufficient to meet all the payments falling to be met there from, the Minister cannot carry it on; he must by Order provide that the transport levy shall not be charged in respect of the use of any vehicle after the end of that period. The levy, therefore, is for a precise and definite purpose. It cannot be applied to any other purpose. It cannot be extended for a day longer than is necessary for that purpose. The House has already decided, I think, that it is on the whole reasonable to levy it on these classes of persons who're specified in it, and naturally the Government will stand by this essential clause.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 17.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Greenhill, L.

Pakenham, L.

Lawson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandhurst, L.

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

Mathers, L.

Shepherd, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Winster, L.

Crook, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 11 [Establishment of Transport Fund];
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of an amendment to delete Clause 11. The noble Lord said; In view of the fact that we have divided on Clause with its principles, I not propose to move this Amendment because Clause 11 is really consequential on Clause 10.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Payments to Commission out of Transport Fund for loss on disposal of road haulage undertaking
12.—(1) An amount equal to—

(b) one million pounds (for the loss from disturbance suffered by the Commission while the assets of the existing road haulage undertaking are being disposed of),

shall be paid out of the Transport Fund to the Commission by such instalments as are hereinafter mentioned, that is to say—
(4) In this section "the road haulage capital loss" means the amount by which the aggregate of the prices at which property is sold under section three or subsection (1) or subsection (2) of sective five of this Act falls short of the sum of the following amounts, that is to say—

(a) the aggregate net value of that property as at the times of the respective sales, as shown in the books of the Commission but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the sale so far as not already taken into account; and

9.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "one" [million pounds] and insert "ten." The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission and with the permission of the Lord Chairman I intend to deal with this Amendment and the next together. In the Bill as it stands, an amount of £1 million is to be
1260
paid to the Commission out of the Transport Fund for the loss and disturbance suffered by the Commission while the assets of the existing road haulage undertaking are being disposed of. This is a separate compensation from that which is to be paid on the loss of realisation. The Government have thought fit to put the amount of £1 million into this Bill. I do not know how they arrive at the figure of £1 million. It must be an entirely arbitrary figure; and I amendeavouring to make it realistic by asking your Lordships to alter the £1 million to £10 million. I think that perhaps this figure of £1 million was put into the Bill because at the time the Bill was drafted the Government had the idea that the disposal of all this property and all these assets would be completed within a year. In point of fact, the Minister said in another place, early on in the proceedings there, that he thought nine or ten months would see the end of the disposal. I do not think he takes the same view now. And after all the disruption, the disturbance will not be confined to one year. It may not be confined to two years or perhaps three years.
How, therefore, is this figure of £1 million arrived at? If the Government will tell us that I might be satisfied. I suggest the figure of £10 million. I have also put down, in my next Amendment, these words:
"or if the Minister so directs such other sum as may be determined by an independent person appointed in default of agreement between the Minister and the Commission by the President for the time being of the Institute of Chartered Accountants."
If noble Lords think it is too much to insert £10 million they will easily arrive at the conclusion that the figure of £1 million is meaningless. What the exact figure should be, I do not know; and a far cleverer individual than I will have to try to find out. I do not know on what basis the calculation of this compensation for disturbance will be made. If, however, it is an ascertainable figure, I suggest

1261
that some independent arbiter be asked to decide it. If it is not an exact figure, and we have to do some intelligent guessing, I may tell your Lordships that all accountant opinion which I have consulted agrees with me that my guess of £10 million is a little more intelligent than the Government's guess of £1 million. With those words, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 36, leave out ("one") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope that the noble Lord will not let his imagination run away with him, and that he will not think that all losses must necessarily be on the scale which this unhappy Commission have entertained in the last few years. This, quite frankly, is guesswork; it is an arbitrary figure; but it is a pretty reasonable figure. The amount required may be a little more; it may be a little less. So far as it goes, this. I will not say "calculation," because these are not things one can calculate, but this figure, is likely, if anything, to be above rather than below the amount required. Probably £1 million is somewhere near the mark. Consider what the noble Lord proposes. He says:
"Take thy bill and write fourscore."
Poor Commission! I give it only £1 million for loss by disturbance. The noble Lord gives £10 million. I really feel that this is loose dealing with millions, even for the Party opposite. To put in £10 million would be to impose a wholly unnecessary penalty upon the levy payable, which the noble Lord was so anxious to relieve, and would give the Transport Commission a wholly unearned increment.
The noble Lord says, "Neither you nor I know exactly what the amount is going to be, so let us have an accountant." Any accountant can guess—but his guess would be no better than ours—what the loss by disturbance is likely to be. I believe that to be an absolutely impossible calculation for any accountant to make, and I will tell your Lordships why. What has he to estimate? He has to estimate what the net revenue of the Board would have been if there had been no disturbance. He has to take into
1262
account or guess what would have been the effect of variations in trade on the general economy of the country. He has to take into account—and how can this be more than a guess?—whether the Commission have taken all possible steps to limit the loss by disturbance and have taken all possible steps to maintain the efficiency of the undertaking. The noble Lord says that he has consulted many accountants; I have not consulted any about this. But I do know enough of accountants to say that no accountant would think of attempting to answer a proposition such as this. If one asked him to do it, he would say, in simple language, "Your guess is as good as mine." I think the House had better make a guess, and I think that £1 million is probably as good a guess as anybody is likely to make. Certainly, unless I can hear some better arguments than have been made so far, I shall ask the House to stand by the £1 million as a fair guess.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Leathers, I beg to move this Amendment. It is one of the companies consequential Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 45, after ("means,") insert ("subject to the provisions of the next following subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4) after the first word "amount" to insert "(to be determined by the Minister)."The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Leathers, I beg to move this Amendment. It is not a great deal more than drafting, but it makes it abundantly clear that the Minister is responsible for determining just what the road haulage capital loss will be. The procedure of how it is to be determined and calculated is laid down in this clause, but the clause does not show quite clearly who makes the final determination. We thought it as well to put these words in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 46, after ("amount") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What the noble Earl has just said increases our disturbance more than ever. This is what the subsection says:
"In this section 'the road haulage capital loss' means the amount"—
and then the noble Lord wishes to insert the words:
"to be determined by the Minister".
How that is determined is set out precisely in this Bill under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (4). It could not be more precise. The noble Earl then tells us that the Minister is to have an overriding veto as to whether it is to be done in that way. Really, we have had this argument so many times. This clause, if it is passed, will state precisely the will of Parliament, but, by some bureaucratic dispensation, the Minister can then upset it all. Where are we getting to? I see a noble Lord opposite shuddering and shaking his head. I should think it would make anybody shudder.
LORD HAWKE: He has got the ague.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This will give him something worse, I should think. How can we pass this Amendment without some further explanation? The noble Earl has just said that its purpose is to make sure that the Minister has the final word as to what is the capital loss, but it is all set out in precise language in the subsections as to how that loss is to be calculated. May we have some further explanation?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can give a further explanation but I really think this is rather a storm in a teacup. I admit subsection (4) lays it down rather fully, but there are a number of factors which could be put one way or the other. For instance, paragraph (b) refers to:
"the expenses incurred by the Commission in connection with those sales, so far as not included in the sums shown in the books of the Commission as expenses deductible in computing the sums shown therein as net traffic receipts."
I am quite certain the noble Lord will admit that accountants could present that information from slightly different angles. That is the whole purpose of this Amendment. The broad lines are not laid down so precisely. I say there are elements in
1264
it which will require a final and definite statement. That is all the Amendment is intended to do. The limits within which the Minister can act are very narrow. To pretend for one moment that there exists a veto on the precise position defined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) really does not reflect a realistic reading of the Bill. What is true is that there are certain margins within these clauses which could be pushed either one way or the other. Precision is essential and important, for the Minister, after all, has to fix the levy, terminate the levy, and make payments on what is due under this figure. I think it is right and proper that a perfectly definite and clear-cut decision should be given of what is the loss involved.
EARL JOWITT: I thought I heard the noble Earl say that this was little more than a drafting Amendment. When a Minister takes it upon himself to say that, particularly at this time of night, things are very apt to go through. I do not know how the noble Earl came to say that, but it seems to me that this is much more than drafting. Set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)are various principles which are to be the governing factors. But for this Amendment, it would be for the courts to decide the figure; one would have a right to go to the court and ask the court to determine it. What you are doing by inserting these few words is to take it out of the purview of the courts and put it into the hands of the Minister. There may or may not be a case for that; but this much, at least, is plain: that this is not a matter of drafting—and whoever is under the impression that it is a matter of drafting is under a profound misapprehension about the whole thing.
I entirely agree with the noble Earl that when factors like these are set out they are difficult to determine. I had many cases of that sort in the old days, when one accountant would come and give one figure and another accountant would give another figure about half as large as the first, and sometimes the court would say that the right figure was about halfway between the two. Of course it is difficult to determine. The vital point at issue here is, ought it to be determined by the courts or by the Minister? If we insert these words, the courts will have no jurisdiction at all in the matter, always

1265
provided that the Minister has been honest. So long as they are satisfied that the Minister has come to an honest determination, the courts are excluded; they cannot do anything at all. But if we do not have these words, the whole matter will be open to the courts, and they can decide. Here there is an important and a real distinction in principle. This is not a matter of Grafting.
LORD WINSTER: Is not the duty thrown upon, the Minister by the explanation given by the noble Earl a very peculiar one? The noble Earl referred to paragraph (b) and said that different accountants might present the matters referred to in different ways. So that what the explanation amounts to is that in regard to a financial matter affecting his Department, the Minister is given one view by one accountant and another view by another accountant, and he is charged with the responsibility of deciding which of those views he prefers. That seems to be a most remarkable duty to throw upon a Minister.
LORD OGMORE: I think that here we ought to have a further explanation from the noble Earl, because the light that has been thrown on this matter, both by my noble friend Lord Lucas and by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, shows that this is quite a substantial alteration. In the normal way, as one would anticipate, the subsection as it stands sets out "the amount by which the aggregate of the prices" for the property sold "falls short of the sum of the following amounts," and then the sum of the following amounts is set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d.) and (e). Surely, in the normal way that amount would be arrived at by whomsoever is properly competent or capable of assessing the values of the property under the various headings set out in the subsection.
Presumably that was the Government's view when this Bill was drafted. They thought, as everybody would think looking at this, that, added up, these categories would give the values of the property which we are considering. Then, by an afterthought, they bring in the Minister, and he, being the final arbiter, apparently has the responsibility, duty and opportunity of himself estimating what the road haulage capital loss is
1266
going to be. As I see it, this puts the Minister in a new and very powerful position, one in which he was not put before and we are now told that this is a drafting Amendment. I should have thought that to make the Minister into what is virtually a dictator in regard to this very important matter of the assessment of the road haulage capital loss, is doing something far removed from moving a drafting Amendment, and I think we are entitled to know from the noble Earl why he led the Committee to believe that this was only a drafting Amendment. I take it that if my noble friend Lord Lucas had not jumped to his feet and raised this point, with the support of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the Committee might have passed the Amendment without any more consideration at all, unless someone else had realised what the alteration meant.
Quite apart from what we were led to believe by the noble Earl, I think the merit of the proposal has to be considered. I say that in that respect my noble friend Lord Lucas has made a very strong point. This is one more case where the Minister is to be the sole determining factor. In some cases it may be necessary, although they are not nearly so numerous as are provided for in the Bill. But in this case, where it is possible to arrive at the correct valuation or estimate in accordance with the directions given in the subsection, I suggest to the Committee that it is not necessary to have the intervention of the Minister of Transport. And if he does come in, I am bound to say that it makes us suspicious. Recently some of the suspicions that we had at the beginning began to die down a little, but this sort of thing makes us very suspicious. It was not thought to be necessary when the Bill was drafted; it is thought to be necessary now. We want to know why there is the change. Unless we hear some reason for the change, I am afraid our suspicions are bound to be enhanced.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should hate the noble Lord to go to bed with a suspicion which is quite unfounded. The word "drafting" was perhaps not exactly the best word to use. I nearly always use the wrong word. But what my noble friend meant, and I thick what most people here understood him to mean, was that this Amendment would make plain

1267
the manifest intention of the Bill. I hope I do not do noble Lords opposite an injustice, but anybody who has read through page 16, where there is an obligation, a duty, and a discretion—so far as there is a discretion—put on the Minister the whole time, will, by the time he reaches the last line on that page, consider it is perfectly obvious that the Minister is the person who should decide. If I may substitute for what I consider to be the reasonable language of my noble friend, the words "to make plain what is the obvious intention of the Bill," then I do not think we need quarrel about it. Of course, it is commonsense to have it. Suppose in this one instance out of the rest of the provisions of this clause we left the matter in doubt, and it was possible to go to the court, would this thing ever come to an end? Presumably, the Commission could go to the court, but so could any one of five hundred thousand people who are going to pay the levy. We might have a dripping roast for the lawyers, but we should also have this matter going on for an eternity, which is the one thing that noble Lords opposite have been complaining about. But if we put upon the Minister, who will have his actuaries to advise him, the obligation to say that the amount is so much, then we know where we are, and I am certain that anybody who will have to pay the levy, and indeed anybody who is going to receive the levy, will thank us. If we do not put this Amendment in, we shall leave the matter in doubt, and the people who are going to pay or receive will be in endless doubt as to where their liability lies until the lawyers have had their cut at it.
LORD SILKIN: We have now heard the explanation. I would first challenge most strongly the suggestion that it was clear from the Bill without these words that it was the Minister who was to settle the matter. There is nothing in this clause to suggest that. I certainly would not have imagined that this matter was to be settled simply by the ipse dixit of the Minister. The Minister may have many fine qualities, but he is in no way qualified to decide this very complicated matter. Is it really satisfactory that the Minister should settle it without being answerable to anyone as to the way in which it is settled? The noble Earl, in putting this Amendment forward, indicated
1268
that there were possibilities of considerable variation in the interpretation which might be put upon paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). There may be a wide range between one interpretation and another, but, surely, the people who are going to be concerned are entitled to some satisfaction, either that of being able to discuss results or that of being able to challenge them. I submit that there ought to be, if not the courts, at any rate some sort of tribunal which would be satisfactory to the Commission, to the thousands of people who are going to pay the levy, and to the community. There ought to be some arrangement which would be satisfactory to everyone, by which the actual amount of the loss should be determined.
I take it that the intention is that whatever the Minister says should not only be accepted but should be final and not subject to appeal. So we have the position that the Minister states a figure but he is never to be required to state how he arrives at it, and whatever he says must, in the end, be accepted by all concerned, without any question. There will be no opportunity of arguing the case. I admit that that idea has the merit of simplicity. Of course, in all dictatorships there is that same advantage. You cannot argue with dictatorships; you just have to accept them. In many cases you close down the law courts and, indeed, close down the laws. But I do not think that that, in itself, is a conclusive reason for having dictatorships. It is certainly not a conclusive reason in this case for leaving the whole thing to the Minister, and not having any opportunity of questioning his decision or of arguing about it, or even of finding out how he has arrived at it. I hope that noble Lords opposite will give an assurance that they will look at this matter again to see whether some better method can be found.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I give the noble Lord the firmest assurance that we will not look at this matter again, because it is one on which we are perfectly clear. Therefore, if it is a matter on which he is determined to dissent, I hope we may divide.
LORD SILKIN: That is a challenge which we will accept. We feel just as strongly that the noble Lord is wrong as he thinks he is right. Merely being

1269
emphatic about it, is no substitute for argument.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I feel, listening to this debate, that noble Lords opposite are saying more and more about less and less. In the first place, my noble friend on the Front Bench started by saying that this is little more than a drafting Amendment though that assertion has been hotly contested. The Opposition are suggesting that a position has been arrived at which, happily, we are very far from reaching. If you look at the subsections of this clause, you will see that the Minister is mentioned in a great many places; he is mentioned all through the early part of the clause. The Minister has the final decision in what is to a large exent a Departmental matter. If it were a question of the Minister deciding between a number of individual members of the public as opposed to the Minister, deciding matters of the levy, I could not agree more that there would be a strong case for the independent member of the public having the opportunity of recourse to an independent tribunal. But I do not think that that is the position here.
I believe the position to be this. In the first place, the method by which the loss is to be calculated is clearly laid down in subsection (4). The point is whether these calculations should be accepted or whether, if there is a dispute between professional people who make these calculations, the Minister should decide. This is very largely an internal matter, and power is given to the Minister to decide whether the calculation has been properly made in accordance with the Act—as it will then be—or not; or if two views are put to him by the Department, it will be for him to decide which should prevail. He certainly does decide as to whether more or less of the loss should be borne by the levy. That surely is not the great and high constitutional matter which it has been represented to be by noble Lords opposite. I feel that this is a proper case for the Minister to make the decision and that the elements which would demand recourse to an independent tribunal are not here. I feel that my noble friends in front are right in saying that they stand by the terms of the clause.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As we shall have another opportunity of returning to this matter—there is another Amendment later in the Bill—I do not intend to ask your Lordships to divide upon it now. But I think noble Lords should appreciate this. This Bill has made a journey through another place. The Government have had a lot of time to consider it, yet in this House we are suddenly confronted with this Amendment. I suggest that the reason is this: that someone is advising the Government that their financial provisions in this Bill are so crazy that no professional accountants would ever arrive at a decision. Therefore, they have to provide for an arbitrary decision by the Minister. As we shall have another opportunity of discussing this point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: On a point of order, my Lord Chairman, I should prefer that proposals to withdraw Government Amendments should come from this side of the Chamber.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.38 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out all words after "sales" down to and including the second "account" and to insert:
"after taking into account depreciation up to the time of the sale, such value and depreciation to be calculated in the manner provided by section forty-seven of the Transport Act, 1947."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I now propose is one of considerable importance. Paragraph (a), on page 17, sets out how the capital loss of the Commission is to be arrived at. Paragraph (a) reads:
"the aggregate net value of that property as at the times of the respective sales, as shown in the books of the Commission but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the sale so far as not already taken into account:…"
I contest that as being the proper basis of valuation for sale. May I refer once again to the new clause which has been inserted into this Bill by the Government—the new clause after Clause 4.
My Lords, I have been talking in this House since half-past two. I have not

1271
left this Bench and my voice is on its last legs. Could I have the courtesy of silence while I am addressing the Committee. I do not think that that is too much to ask?
As I have repeatedly said, subsection (5) of the new clause lays down that the price must be
"…a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking …"
Therefore we cannot take the net value of the property. I pay no attention to the value of property passed from the Commission to one of the companies, but I am interested in the value put on those assets when they are sold to the ultimate purchaser. The Commission, as prudent business men, have written down these assets. There is a vast difference between the book value of any asset and the selling price which business men would ask. The prudent business man writes down his assets so far as he is allowed to do in law by the Inland Revenue, but that is a different thing from the value he places upon them when they are sold.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in his speech on Second Reading, and he has repeated it several times, that though I had valued the vehicles owned by the Commission today at £40million, in the published balance sheet of the Commission they were valued at £28 million. The noble Earl is quite right, but that is the written down figure. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who said that the Commission had purchased a lot of poor vehicles, but they spent a lot of money repairing them, and that had added to their value. The Commission took possession of many vehicles before purchase tax was imposed, and purchase tax has increased their value. When the Minister was discussing this point in another place, after saying that the maximum number of vehicles which could be grouped together with the Minister's approval was fifty, he went on to say (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 46, col. 1942):
"If each vehicle is worth £3,000, such a business would be worth £150,000, which is a substantial undertaking."
The Commission's valuation was £28 million. My value is £40 million. And
1272
the Minister's value would be £120 million. Now, what is the value? It is certainly not the net value as shown on the books of the Commission.
If we are going to say that that is the value to the Commission of the whole of the assets which may be transferred to one of these companies is the book value, I contend, with sincerity, that we are saying something which is untrue and would never be supported by any business man. We have to recognise that some of these companies may be very valuable and others not of such great value. The aggregate will amount to a sum we hope will prevent the necessity for any levy to be made. We are not going to make a big profit on every one, but there are some that, by fortuitous circumstances, will fetch a high price. Maybe a group in Manchester will bring a high price, but another group formed in the remote parts of South Wales will not be worth bothering about—if my noble friend Lord Ogmore will forgive my saying so. The aggregate is the thing. What we have to do is to say that the value of these assets is not the book value.
I am not going to deal to-night with the question of income tax, because it is too late, but there is a tax question involved here, too. The words I propose are the same as those which appear in the 1947 Act and they are the best I can think of, though I am not wedded to them. I think the basis of valuation given there is fair. At least, it is the value at which some of these vehicles were acquired and it cannot be too bad. It might be considered that that should be the value for the purpose of the payment of this levy. I do not think I can make a clearer case than that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 5, leave out from ("sales") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("after taking into account depreciation up to the time of the sale, such value and depreciation to be calculated in the manner provided by section forty-seven of the Transport Act, 1947,").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
9.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This would be an odd Amendment coming from any quarter, but it is odder still when moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The procedure suggested would be extremely

1273
inconvenient. It would lead to the maximum of delay. Observe what would happen. If, instead of a plain statement in paragraph (a), we substituted the current replacement value, as the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to do, every vehicle would have to be valued by reference to the current replacement value of a similar vehicle, depreciated (as the clause in the Act cited runs) at 20 per cent. We should have to revalue every single one of 40,000 or more vehicles which are to be sold. That revaluation, with the revaluation of all other property, would be a difficult and laborious task and would involve considerable delay. The whole object of Amendment after Amendment which the noble Lord has moved is so to delay in every way the operation of this Act that it may fail completely. I think the noble Lord has been perfectly frank about this and has not concealed it. His attitude has been: "If we are not going to win by hook, we will win by crook." The noble Lord said "By hook or by crook." The noble Lord need not be too mealy mouthed about this, but if he likes, I will withdraw that remark. He is trying to frustrate the principle of the Bill in every way he can. That is a perfectly legitimate thing for the Opposition to do, but we are not going to stand for it.
Let me say why I think this is an odd Amendment. If we take current value and not book value for the physical assets of the business, obviously we shall have to take current value and not book value for the goodwill. What has happened? Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I must not say, "By hook or by crook," but the Opposition say the Commission are to have it whichever way suits them, on the principle of "Heads I win, tails you lose;" that "If it suits me to take book value, I will take book value; if it suits me to take current value, I will take current value." That is a very odd way of valuing a business. Really, in common decency I am sure the noble Lord will agree that if you take current value for one thing, you take current value for the other. How would that operate? This business has lost most of £33 million of the goodwill, because it has carried on at a loss, where the private business carried on at a profit of £9 million or £10 million a year. That is what the levy is about. The value of
1274
the good will has depreciated to next to nothing, but the value of the goodwill stands in the books at £33 million. That is why we must have the levy. If we were to pay current value on physical assets, and current value for goodwill, that might considerably reduce the amount of the levy, and considerably reduce the amount which everybody will pay. But it certainly would not redound to the benefit of the Commission, whose interests the noble Lord professes to advocate but in this case, I think, is not advocating to great advantage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I answer the noble Viscount? When the noble Viscount addresses some noble Lords on this side he appears to me to suppose that we came down with the last shower and never spent any time in business at all. The noble Viscount is completely wrong. Anybody with an ounce of business experience knows that a figure of goodwill can be quite a lot of things. Take again my case of Manchester. Very likely there will be a company formed by the British Transport Commission for sale in Manchester, or in Birmingham, where there is a great demand for haulage and where the potential profit-earning capacity of that company is high. Does the noble Viscount say, "As the unit to which this was attached, some years ago lost some money, there is no goodwill value upon that company you are selling to-day"? That is a futile argument. If you were selling the British Transport Commission as it stands, lock, stock and barrel, there might be something in the noble Viscount's argument. But even then, I would contest it. When he talks about loss, and talks about goodwill, I wonder what the profit of the British Transport Commission would have been if, in 1947, they had been told, "You must, when you are incorporated in 1948, lay all your plans, and shape all your policies, on the basis that in five years' time you are going to be sold under the hammer." They would not then have made a loss, if they had been prudent business men. The British Transport Commission were entitled on January 1, 1948, to lay all their plans on the footing that they were going to be long-term in this business. When you are starting a long-term business with a capital of £1,180 million, it really is long-term.

1275
They ran as a business only for twelve months, because for the first four years they were acquiring the road haulage concerns. They did not become a real entity until one year ago.
All the arguments put by the noble Viscount are fallacious. Please do not think that we are quite so "dumb" that we have not had any experience. One does not mention personal things here, but I can assure the noble Viscount that I have not been in business all my life without learning something; and one of the things I have learned is that goodwill—as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, knows—is something that can mean two different things to two different people, one the buyer and the other the seller. The noble Viscount accuses me of delaying this Bill. That is a false accusation. What I am interested in, first and foremost, is not to satisfy the Election pledge of the Conservative Party but to do the best I can for the taxpayers of this country. I want to see these assets fetch the highest pos-

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Crook, L.

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

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

Mathers, L.

Silkin, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Winster, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Freyberg, L.

Gifford, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Allenby, V.

Hawke, L.

Bridgeman, V

Jeffreys, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falmouth, V.

Llewellin, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Furness, V.

Lloyd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Goschen, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr, E

Long, V.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Swinton, V.

Ritchie of Dundee. L.

Grey, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Howe, E

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Stamp, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Douglas, L.(E. Home.)

Wolverton, L.

Rothes, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.6 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: With fear and trembling I say that this Amendment is almost a drafting Amendment. It deals with the question of goodwill. The words that are in the Bill, "properly apportion-
sible price. But if the noble Viscount has anything to do with it, the levy will be so heavy that, at the rate of £4 million a year, I doubt whether the noble Viscount will be on this earth to see the last instalment paid.
LORD WOLVERTON: I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord has just said. Perhaps he thinks that we on this side of the House are very "dumb." If you break up companies, as they were broken up, and put them into a large organisation like the Transport Commission, naturally the goodwill has gone. When you build up the companies again it may take years to get back that goodwill. Steel nationalisation was done in a different way. There, the problem is different, because the steel companies were kept with separate identities: but in the case of road transport the companies were broken up and, as a result, the goodwill was broken up.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 15; Not-Contents, 37.
able," are considered to be over-rigid, and we propose altering those words to "ought justly to be apportioned." Your Lordships will see the profound difference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 22, leave out ("is properly apportionable") and insert ("ought justly to be apportioned").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought all this goodwill had gone. They have found it again, and now they want to apportion it. We support that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 34, leave out ("includes a reference to all") and insert ("means the aggregate of all the")—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4), to add to the definition of "price," after the word "purchase"
"adjusted, however, by adding the value, if any, as at the time of the purchase, as shown in the books of the Commission, of any liabilities of the Commission to third parties taken over by the purchaser from the Commission and subtracting the value, if any, at that time, as so shown of any obligations of third parties to the Commission taken over by him, not being property."
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend. I beg to move this Amendment. This is a further definition of "price" as applied to transport units. It is not consequential on the companies clause, but is entirely consistent with the line adopted by the companies clause. I have been into this matter, and I think the noble Lord may take it that, from an accountant's point of view, it represents a correct approach to the problem. It is perhaps a little difficult to envisage exactly the type of liability which might arise out of it—possibly a hire purchase scheme, or something of that character. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide for some sort of continuing liability which might arise in transferring units from the Commission to purchaser. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, after ("purchase") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to move the next Amendment. The Commission have suggested that some of the adjustments needed in calculating the capital loss may be a little difficult to assess, so we have tried to meet them by substituting words which we hope will give them a little more flexibility.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("all necessary") and insert ("the appropriate")—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) Where, under the section of this Act (Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares) the shares of a company to which property has been made over under that section have been sold by the Commission, subsection (4) of this section shall have effect with the modification that the price at which the shares are sold shall be treated as if it were the price (as therein defined) at which property had been sold under section three of this Act and with the following further modifications—

(a) to the sums mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection there shall be added the aggregate net value of the property of the company as at the time when the shares are transferred in pursuance of the contract of sale, as shown in the books of the company but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the transfer so far as not already taken into account, increased by the value, is any, as so shown, of any rights of the company as at that time not already taken into account, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown of the liabilities of the company at that time;

(b) to the expenses referred to in para-paragraph (b) of that subsection there shall added the expenses incurred by the Commission in connection with the making over of the property to the company and the sale of the shares;

(c) the references in paragraph (c) of that subsection to the sales shall be deemed to include references to the making over of the property to the company;

(d) references in paragraph (d) of that subsection to the property which was the subject of the sales shall be deemed to include a reference to the property referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection:

Provided that if, under the contract for the sale of the shares, the nice paid therefor depends to any extent on the position as respects the company or a particular date, paragraph (a) of this subsection shall have effect as if the references therein to the time of the transfer of the shares were references to that date.
In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to the aggregate net value of the property as shown in the books of the company are references to the value shown in the books of the company after making the appropriate adjustments of provisional items and, if the company in keeping their books depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by the Commission for the years falling before the passing of this Act, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure."
The noble Earl said: This is an important part of the new companies provisions. It does little more—in fact it does nothing more—than has already been done in respect of the transport units in subsection (4). The wording is slightly different in certain cases, to adapt itself to the companies structure in the various definitions which fall under subsection (4) which make up the capital loss. I would, however, mention one point. It is under consideration by the draftsman whether the whole of this computation of the capital loss could not be more conveniently included in a Schedule. At the present time, this clause is inordinately long, and if it needs redrafting that may be done on the Report stage. I mention it now merely so that your Lordships may understand it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, be agreed to?
10.10 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: Before we leave Clause 12 I want to say a few words with regard to the position generally. As I have always understood the constitutional position, a Minister is technically responsible for a certain Department and answers for it. In this debate on the administration of transport, and on this clause in particular, the Commission and the Road Haulage Executive have been attacked time after time. They have been accused of dissipating the goodwill of the undertaking and there has been no one officially in this House to answer for them. Strictly speaking, representatives of the Road Haulage Executive should have been in the Officials' Box, so that we
1280
could consult them in regard to the defamatory statements which have been made in regard to their administration.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Who has made defamatory statements?
LORD BURDEN: Defamatory statements have been made.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: By whom?
LORD BURDEN: By members of the Government Front Bench. I say that a statement is defamatory when one talks about the Road Transport Executive and the British Transport Commission having dissipated the goodwill of a business.
EARL DE LA WARR: Can the noble Lord quote the reason for these remarks?
LORD BURDEN: The noble Viscount time after time has said that the goodwill has disappeared.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is quite intolerable. The noble Lord has never quoted a single word. I challenge him.
LORD BURDEN: I stand to my ground. On constitutional, let alone English, practice, it is wrong for men to be attacked as the Road Haulage Executive and the British Transport Commission have been attacked, without there being anybody to answer for them. They have never had a fair chance, let alone the Englishman's privilege, of defending themselves. I make the most energetic protest at the way in which they have been treated.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjurned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.