Lords Sitting of 11 March 1953

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL
Clifford Arthur, Lord Bishop of Liverpool—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, can the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House give us an indication of how far he intends to go to-night with this Transport Bill? I am completely committed, speaking on behalf of this side, to giving the noble Viscount the completion of the Committee stage to-morrow night. The only question is, how we shall divide it up. I think it is convenient to Members to know, so that they can make their arrangements. I suggest that we might get to the end of Clause 22, or possibly the end of Clause 23, whichever suits the noble Viscount better. It is convenient that we should know in advance.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. Naturally, I would entirely wish to suit the convenience of the House. I think the suggestion which the noble and learned Earl has made is a happy one. If we confined ourselves to-day to Clauses 14 to 22 then, with the exception of Clause 16, which deals with a different subject, we should be able to devote the whole of the day to the various aspects of the railway clauses, to which the noble and learned Earl, and, indeed, the whole House, rightly attach a good deal of importance. Therefore, I gladly accept the suggestion that we should complete to-night our consideration of Clause 22 or Clause 23. If there is nothing much in Clause 23 we may as well take that also, so that we can go forward from there on the following day.
1282
Perhaps I may at the same time make one other comment. There are on the Paper for to-morrow three small Orders which would normally be dealt with first. Obviously, those ought to go to the bottom of the list, so that when we start to-morrow we can carry straight on with the Transport Bill. So far as today's business is concerned, I gladly accept the noble and learned Earl's suggestion.
EARL JOWITT: The proposition, then, is that we go to the end of Clause 22 and, if it appears that there is nothing much in Clause 23, we throw in that clause, so to speak; but that our target is the end of Clause 22
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, the "target for to-night" is Clause 22. If we manage the subsidiary operation, so much the better.

RATIFICATION OF TREATIES
2.45 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: 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 it should not in future be a rare exception that important Treaties, rightly negotiated in privacy, should come into force on the day of signature, without need for ratification, thus depriving Parliament of any opportunity for discussions before being confronted with an accomplished fact.]
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am afraid the answer is rather long, but as this is an important subject I think the House would probably prefer that I should read it rather than circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The noble Lord has raised a question relating to the practice of Her Majesty's Government, but before I deal with that, it is perhaps necessary for me to restate the position in regard to the ratification of international Agreements, both in International Law and in relation to our Constitution.
Internationally, there is never any necessity for ratification unless the Agreement so provides. It is entirely for the parties to decide, in the light of their own internal constitutional and political

1283
positions, whether or not they will make the Agreement subject to ratification. If an Agreement is not made subject to ratification and is expressly to come into force at the moment of its signature, that is, internationally, perfectly valid.
So far as our own constitutional position goes, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said on February 18, when the noble Lord raised this question apropos of the Sudan Agreement, ratification is part of the treaty-making power in the Prerogative and is the executive act of the Government of the day. There is, under our Constitution, nothing corresponding to the necessity for Senatorial ratification of Treaties obtaining under the United States constitution. Strictly speaking, Her Majesty's Government never have to obtain Parliamentary consent before making or ratifying a Treaty.
Having said that, I should now come down to what happens in practice, which I understand is really the main object of the noble Lord's Question. Ratification occurs in practice, and it is desirable that it should so occur, in two types of international Agreement. The first is where we should not, in fact, be able to implement the Treaty without legislation. It is then necessary to ask Parliament for the legislation, and since Her Majesty's Government cannot be certain that Parliament will grant it, it is necessary that the Treaty should be subject to ratification, and that we should get the legislation passed between the time when we signed the Treaty and the time when we propose to ratify it. The other case is that in which the political importance of a Treaty is so great that Her Majesty's Government feel obliged, as a political necessity, but not as a legal necessity, to consult Parliament about it before becoming committed. Here again, it would be customary to make the coming into force of the Treaty dependent upon ratification and to stage a debate about it in Parliament at some point after signature, so that, if Parliament clearly disapproved, it would still be open to Her Majesty's Government not to ratify the Agreement.
That is the general position. So the answer to the noble Lord's Question is that, leaving aside the cases where a Treaty requires domestic legislation to become effective, it must rest with the Government of the day to decide whether
1284
a particular Treaty should be reserved for Parliamentary approval.
LORD VANSITTART: I thank the noble Lord for his statement and I hope I may ask for time to digest it. In view of the repeated outbursts of General Neguib, a procedure which admitted of no discussion before we were faced with an accomplished fact might not be acceptable to some of us.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is always a matter of opinion by any individual as to whether or not the Government of the day should reserve a Treaty for Parliamentary approval before it ratifies it; but, of course, the Government of the day, and nobody else, can take that responsibility. It does so having regard to all the circumstances and with the knowledge that Parliamentary resources in relation to the Government are not exhausted, and that if Parliament disapproves of the action of the Government in advising the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, it is quite open to Parliament to pass a vote of censure on the Government, and that would be the end of the Government.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Viscount gave a clear account of the position legally and politically, but is it not the fact that, in recent years, in the last generation particularly, all important instruments and Treaties have been brought before Parliament? The case brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, surely falls into that category, and yet the Government appear to be departing from what has become an established practice.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Most certainly not. The Lord Chancellor, I am sure, would confirm this. No such practice has grown up. There has been no change in recent years in the position that it must rest with the Government of the day to make the decision. There has certainly been no change.
LORD VANSITTART: It has been the practice that Agreements of real importance ought to be stipulated as subject to ratification. Surely some of us would not be prepared to accept this in respect to something even more important, like the impending Agreement on the Suez Canal.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Whether a particular Agreement should be reserved for Parliamentary approval before ratification must be a matter of opinion, and in a general answer I am not prejudging any case that may arise as to any Agreement that may be entered into in the future. But I do not think that any constitutional lawyer, including the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, himelf, who was in a prominent position in the Foreign Office for a long time, would dispute the constitutional position which I have laid down—namely, that the decision must rest with the Government of the day.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is not the position extremely involved, according to the noble Viscount's answer, and does it not clearly call for a special review in view of present day circumstances? If the Government were to step in, as he suggests, in particular cases, would that not involve stepping in on the Royal Prerogative?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In making the Treaty the Royal Prerogative is exercised. It is necessary for a Government to ratify where domestic legislation is required and where the Treaty cannot become effective unless there has been domestic legislation. Where no legislation is required it must rest with the Government of the day to decide whether it is a case reserved for the approval of Parliament before the Treaty comes into effective force. I think the two cases are simple and I have no doubt at all that I am stating the constitutional position.
LORD KILLEARN: May we be told why, in this case, it was decided not to include in the Agreement a clause providing for ratification?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Because in all the circumstances the Government of the clay thought they were acting in the right way.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No one will dispute that the noble Viscount has given a perfectly accurate summary of the legal position and has described the constitutional position as it has always appeared to the Executive of the time. But is it not an extremely questionable practice to embark on an Agreement of this character, and not merely to omit the formality of ratification but also not to
1286
seek of either House of Parliament an opportunity for discussion and advice? Does not the noble Viscount think that the experience we have had at the hands of the other party to this highly controversial Agreement ought to teach the Government next time to obtain Parliamentary approval, remembering that they depend for their continued existence as an Administration upon the continued confidence of Parliament?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Viscount has repeated what I have already said—that in taking a decision as to what is desirable and right Her Majesty's Government will always take into consideration the fact that if they were not supported by Parliament in the executive action they take, they would cease to be a Government. It is a matter of opinion which anybody can hold whether in relation to something that has happened in the past Her Majesty's Government have acted wisely or unwisely. I must not be led, and I am sure no such experienced Parliamentarian as the noble Viscount would expect me to be led, into the consideration of a hypothetical case in advance, and say in such a case what the decision of Her Majesty's Government would be.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is it not the simple fact here that the Government are afraid of their own supporters in both Houses?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are not afraid either of our supporters or our opponents.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Why is this described as a Treaty at all? The Sudan Agreement is an Amendment of the Agreement presented by Sir Evelyn Baring to the Khedive in 1899. Why is it therefore called a Treaty, and said to require all the procedural safeguards that a full treaty would enjoy?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not sure that I should like to answer that question without notice. The White Paper, Cmd. 8767, is called Constitutional Documents Relative to the Sudan and the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Egyptian Government. However the thing is described—and it is described as an Agreement—it is in

1287
effect a Treaty because a Treaty is an agreement between two sovereign parties.
EARL JOWITT: I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount has said as to the correct constitutional practice. It is for the Government of the day to decide whether in any particular case to ask for Parliamentary approval in advance. But I do not think the noble Viscount recognises that in the last thirty or forty years a very considerable change has been accepted; and nowadays the convention has grown up that, save in exceptional cases, Parliament is asked in advance. I do not say that that is an absolute rule, and I do not dispute that the Executive have authority to decide, but in my experience the convention has altered during my political lifetime. Nowadays, Parliament is asked in advance far more than was the case in the old days.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I agree with the noble and learned Earl. In the old days, probably, Parliament was seldom asked. To-day, Parliament is more frequently asked. I think that is certainly the case in very important matters. There may be cases of vital urgency where it maybe extremely desirable to make an Agreement which, had there been ample time, the Government would have submitted to Parliament. The noble Lord, I think, has himself been in that position. We are certainly always anxious to take Parliament into our confidence, and I think we have proved that in practice. But in cases such as I have indicated the Government of the day must take the decision. We have to act and then to justify to Parliament.
There is also the other side of the matter. We have entered into a very large number of Agreements in recent years—I think the noble Lord himself was concerned in many of them—where ratification was necessary, because what was done under the Treaty could not be fulfilled without domestic legislation in this country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the Government are so confident of support in a matter of this kind, even if they have not time to ask Parliament before they enter into these commitments, would it not be
1288
desirable for the Government to go to Parliament and, by virtue of a Resolution, seek some approval from one House or the other of what they claim to have done?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that would be an unusual course where action had been taken. I think the more natural course would be for a debate to take place on a Motion challenging the action of the Government, if it was challenged.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, confirming what the noble Earl who leads the Opposition has suggested, is it not the fact that the course which he suggests had its origin in the action of the late Lord Salisbury's Government, when they submitted to Parliament a Treaty which surrendered Heligol and to Germany, and also, I think, made some arrangements about Zanzibar?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That may well be so.
LORD VANSITTART: Before I leave this subject may I, with great respect to the noble Viscount, say that putting down a Motion after the fact has been accomplished is not the same thing as having opportunity for amicable discussion on ratification. I for one, in this case, should not have put down a Motion on this subject, although there are points in the Agreement which I do not particularly like, because of the inevitable effect in the Sudan. I feel that it would have been a great tactlessness on my part to do such a thing. But I should have tried to put several points if we had had an opportunity of discussion on ratification.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not at all saying that asking, after the event, for approval of something you had done, or answering after the event for something you had done, was at all the same thing as asking for approval before you do a thing. That applies in every relationship of life. But what I did say was that it must rest with the Government of the day, having regard to all the circumstances of each particular case, to decide which of the two alternatives they thought, with their full responsibility, it was right to adopt.

THE SUDAN: THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S POWERS
3.3 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To inquire whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that, with his now restricted authority, the Governor-General of the Sudan still retains sufficient powers in the interim period to safeguard the Sudanese people against any overt or covert attempt to impair their genuine independence.]
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My right honourable friend is satisfied that the powers retained by the Governor-General are adequate for the purposes which the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD KILLEARN: In thanking the noble Viscount for that statement of satisfaction, which I am sure many people will receive with relief—it will, of course, be noted in the columns of Hansard—may I ask him whether his attention has been called to the report in to-day's Times in a telegram from Cairo, dated March 10, of a rather startling character. The first point is to the effect that the Agreement "is already in a fragile condition." That is the view of the Times correspondent. A little later on in the same message there comes what is apparently an expression of opinion by Neguib, that certain action—rather complicated according to the report—alleged to have been taken by us, shows lack of good will on the part of the British.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I haw noticed that report. I understand that my noble friend the Minister of State hopes to be in a position to make a statement, in answer to a private notice Question in another place, in about half an hour's time. It will probably be of sufficient interest to the House that I should get a copy of that statement, if the Minister is able to make it this afternoon, and make a similar statement here.
LORD KILLEARN: I shall be very grateful.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Royal Titles Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ROYAL TITLES BILL
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Statute of Westminster, which did not create but recognised and declared the status of the independent countries of the Commonwealth, in its second Preamble recites thus:
"Inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
The Royal Style and Titles were altered in 1927, and in 1947 conditions in Eire and India necessitated further changes. Fortunately, the Commonwealth Conference at the end of last year afforded an occasion for discussing the whole subject. I think we all felt that those discussions were as opportune as their outcome was felicitous.
There were other considerations, besides those relating to the Irish Republic and India, which made a further alteration in the Title desirable. There was a feeling in other Member countries of the Commonwealth, which we in the United Kingdom fully shared, that the Title should reflect clearly what is now the established constitutional position: that the Sovereign stands in exactly the same relation to each of those countries as to the United Kingdom, and that for this purpose the names of the other countries

1291
should be included in the Title no less than the name of this country. The conclusion was reached that the best course would be for each country to use a form of Title which would suit its own particular circumstances, while at the same time embodying, to the largest possible extent, an element common to all. The Title as used in all the countries concerned will include the phrase "Head of the Commonwealth" and a reference to Her Majesty's other Realms and Territories. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that we thus achieve, in complete accord, a happy reconciliation of the unity and diversity which characterise the British Commonwealth.
Adoption by each Commonwealth country of the Royal Style and Title it chooses will emphasise and enhance the relationship of the Queen to all her peoples, as it affirms the love and loyalty felt for Her Majesty throughout her Realms. As I have said, the titles which other Commonwealth countries are adopting emphasise that Her Majesty is their Queen as much as ours. "Queen of Canada"; "Queen of Ceylon"—the oldest and the youngest. But significant and important as this is, it is in reality nothing new. Lord Balfour in the introduction which he wrote to Bagehot's English Constitution, and which contains so much of the wisdom he contributed to the Conference of the Commonwealth in 1926 says this:
"The King is the chief of a nation—the chief indeed of many nations. He is everybody's King; by which I do not so much mean that he is the ruler of the Empire, as that he is the common possession of every part of it."
In the debate in the Canadian Parliament, Mr. Pearson told how the title, "Queen of Canada," fulfilled Sir John Macdonald's hope at the start of Confederation that the country of Canada might bear the title, the Kingdom of Canada. Your Lordships will also have noted that the Titles in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan all refer to Her Majesty as Queen of the United Kingdom. Thus the Canadian Title runs, "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen." As the Prime Minister of Canada explained, introducing the Canadian Bill, this was no mere compliment to the United Kingdom, but an
1292
explicit recognition (to quote his own words) that
"it is the Sovereign, who is recognised as the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, who is our Sovereign."
So to-day I move this Bill, which has its counterpart in the other countries of the Commonwealth. And when each of us has taken the action appropriate to our Constitutions, there will be one further demonstration of the unity of the Commonwealth. The seven Proclamations proclaiming the Queen's Titles will be made throughout the Commonwealth on the same day. "God save the Queen!" I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Swinton.)
3.12 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to give my cordial support to the Motion which the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House has moved and to trouble your Lordships for a brief moment only to say why I so strongly support this step. I think it is a significant fact that here for a moment we lay aside the rancour and asperity of the Committee on the Transport Bill and turn to a subject, and one which I venture to think is far more important, on which we are absolutely at one. The fact that we at home in this little country all feel the same about this is surely a splendid thing. The Crown is a symbol of our underlying unity, which prevents disaster even though it be the fact that the House is divided against itself in other respects, and at the same time the Crown enshrines the great traditions of the past and our hopes for the future.
When I was a young man studying constitutional law, I used to be told that constitutionally the conception of the British Empire, as it was then, was incomprehensible. If I may borrow the language of St. Athanasius, we have now not only one incomprehensible but seven incomprehensibles. Although the constitutional position may defy logic, I venture to think that it works very well. I would have commended these proposals to your Lordships even though I disagreed with them, because they are based on an agreement which was hammered out by common

1293
consent. But it so happens that I agree with every conclusion come to on this occasion. I think the Government were wise not to insist on the continuance of the word "British." It is unfortunate that this adjective is connected with two wholly different concepts. When we talk or when we used to talk about "British Railways" or "British Transport," we used "British" in a local sense; but when we spoke of the British Empire, we used it in a very different sense. I remember the Canadian representative, at the Imperial Conference, in 1930, making this very point. The documents before the Cabinet in those days, and indeed ever since Lord Rosebery's time, had this legend on their front pages:
"This document is the property of His Britannic Majesty's Government."
The Canadian representative drew attention to that legend and pointed out the two different senses of the word "British."
I think, too, that the Government are wise to drop the word "Dominion." I believe that the word "Dominion" had come to connote a status, I will not say inferior, but certainly not quite equal to that enjoyed by this country. The whole conception of our British Commonwealth is that we are all completely equal amongst ourselves. I think the conception of putting in the words "Head of the Commonwealth" was a great inspiration. I believe that if those words had been there in the old days, when Burma was considering whether she should or should not remain in the Commonwealth, they might have made all the difference. I am sorry that there seems to be some slight anxiety in Scotland at the Title, "Elizabeth II."I do not know whether there was the same anxiety at the accession of William IV or Edward VII or the Georges, but let us hope that if ever a Monarch succeeds to the Throne bearing the name of Robert, he wilt be known as Robert IV—or perhaps it is III: my Scottish history is not good. I should like to associate myself with the fine words spoken to-day by the Deputy Leader of the House and to assure the House that this Bill has the entire and cordial support of Her Majesty's Opposition.
3.16 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Samuel, who much regrets that he is not able to be present to-day, I rise from these Benches to give cordial and full support to this measure. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill though small, is nevertheless a notable one in constitutional history. I would congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the honour which they have in putting on the Statute Book a measure which can hardly fail to bind closer all the Members of the British Commonwealth in loyal devotion to their Queen.
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while this debate on the Royal Titles Bill is, in the interests of time, merely a first Order before the more prolonged discussion on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill, it will be a pity if we do not fully realise the vast constitutional importance of the measure which is now before the House. It is a measure which, by its Preamble, declares that the object of Parliament is:
"to reflect more clearly the existing constitutional relations of members of the Commonwealth to one another, and their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth."
The contents of the Bill are particularly striking for a reason which has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition: the complete omission of the word "Dominions" from its language.
I have some reason to appreciate the importance of that omission, for when the Indian Commission, over which I presided a quarter of a century ago, were about to produce their Report, the Government of that day, without our assent, issued a declaration that in their opinion
"the natural issue of India's constitutional progress is the attainment of Dominion status."
I have always thought that that announcement was unwise and paid little consideration to the particular problem of the development both of the British Commonwealth and of India. Subsequent events have carried us far beyond the conception of Dominion status, and I am glad that the use of the word is now, by common consent, abandoned. It marked an advance at the time of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and the Balfour

1295
Declaration which preceded it, but it is now demoded and quite out of date.
There is another observation to be made, which is suggested by the speech of the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading. It is a curious fact about the Statute of Westminster, 1931, that one of its recitals was to the effect that it would have been in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that
"any alteration in the law touching the Royal Style and Titles should hereafter require the assent as well as of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
But, though this was stated by way of recital, there is no section in the Statute of Westminster which deals with the point. This Bill, though it has an operation only within the boundaries of the United Kingdom and all other territories for whose foreign relations the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible, is to be accompanied, as we are told—and I gather from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is already accompanied—by new legislation in the other Commonwealth countries. Indeed I believe that Her Majesty is already by Canadian law the Queen of Canada, just as one of the earlier founders of the Canadian Constitution urged she should be.
May I be allowed to make one other brief observation? There is, I think, a danger in the over-emphasis which is sometimes employed in insisting upon the divisibility of the Crown. The Crown is, no doubt, divisible in its local aspects and functions, when the Sovereign follows the advice of separate Ministries, but in matters of common concern we can only hope that the advice will be consistent. It would be unfortunate, for example, if a Ministry in one part of the Commonwealth advised the Sovereign to issue a proclamation of war, while another Ministry advised the Crown to make a declaration of neutrality. We might have had, as I well remember, a similar divergence at the time of the Abdication, for our Abdication Act altered the law touching the succession to the Throne, and that is certainly a matter on which common agreement throughout the Commonwealth is desired, and common agreement
1296
was forthcoming. The truth is that the Crown is indivisible, in the sense that it is a single historic Crown, devolving according to a recognised right of succession. It is not a purely personal union in the same individual, such as existed between the Crowns of this country and of Hanover from the accession of George I to the death of William IV, or like the casual union of the Austrian Imperial Crown with the Crown of St. Stephen in Hungary.
The important thing, as it seems to me, is that as between members of the Commonwealth which have retained the Crown there is a common status of loyal subject which every citizen enjoys and shares with every other. That is the real basis for confidence in the future of the Commonwealth. We are taking part to-day in the passing of a most significant Act, for this Bill is one further proof that the Commonwealth is not a merely mechanical arrangement, but is a thing of life and growth which pervades and inspires the hopes and devotion of us all.
3.26 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have been asked by the Secretary of the Scottish National Party—to which I do not belong—to say a few words to-day upon the numbering of Her Majesty as Queen Elizabeth II, to which the noble and learned Earl opposite has referred. I am going to begin by saying that, so far as I can make out, nearly every responsible Scotsman I have met deplores and laments the outburst of lawlessness and violence that has greeted the appearance of Her Majesty's monogram in Scotland. I share that feeling most strongly. It would have been a very charming thing—and I believe Queen Anne intended it—if, when the two countries sunk their individualities and obliterated their ancient kingdoms to form the kingdom of Great Britain, the renumbering had taken place at that time. But, of course, the objection is very much stronger now than it was then, because, as your Lordships know, the real difficulty in this case is that in all lawsuits and litigation of any kind it is important to be able to cite rapidly and with complete certainty the laws and Statutes to which reference is made; and as those Statutes are named after the monarchs in whose names they run, it is absolutely necessary to be able to refer to each King or Queen without doubt.

1297
Therefore, the only way in which that can be done is to have the highest number in use in either country.
The Government were perfectly aware of the trouble that was likely to arise immediately on Her Majesty's Accession. I submit that this difficulty—which I certainly have never found a way to get over—and this fact should have been prominently put forward at that time. If people in Scotland were opposed to the numbering that Her Majesty, under advice, decided upon, it would have been very good for them to try and find a way out of that difficulty. I am always in favour of asking people to use their brains before they start using their hands. However that may be, the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite is one with which I have also toyed—namely, that unless this position can be clearly understood and explained in Scotland, the best hope we can have is that when Prince Charles comes to reign—and I hope it may be a very long time before that happens—he may choose to assume the style and reign in the name either of David III or Robert IV, or whatever it may be.
I should like to point out to your Lordships that the numbering of the English Kings from the Conquest is really an injury much more to England than to Scotland or any other country. For us in Scotland, apart from being the representative of our great and ancient line of Kings, the principal ornaments of the blood royal are two, I think one is its connection with the ancient Saxon Royal House, through St. Margaret; and the other is its connection with the blood of St. Columba himself, through King Duncan. I should have thought, from the English point of view, that the great ornament of the blood royal would be its connection with the ancient Kings of England, and the blood of Edward the Martyr, through Queen Edith the Queen of Henry I.
But your Lordships will remember what happened. I think it was Edward III who called himself "Third since the Conquest," and your Lordships will remember that what really happened was this. When William the Norman came over, he claimed as heir of Edward the Confessor, and when he had conquered and settled the country he realised that the whole thing would dissolve if it
1298
passed to Robert. Therefore, he had to enable himself to pass the Crown to his second son, Rufus; and, in order to do that, he made England Conquest, which, as your Lordships are aware, is territorial property acquired outside feudal inheritance. I myself think that the Title he took from Edward the Confessor would have sufficed for it, but he was on the spot and judged otherwise. Because of that fact, his second son succeeded him, and after him, Henry, his younger brother, because, of course, in feudal law heritage goes down and not up. That fact has obscured the really ancient descent of the British Royal. Family from the ancient Kings of England; and, I suppose, that, owing to this unfortunate trouble in quoting Statutes, this will always prevail.
It is a disadvantage to England in another way which is far more important; and it is this. Every Scottish boy, when he learns Scottish history, learns the dates of the Kings of his country, and he gets a ladder of dates going back into the mists of antiquity in which he can insert every event that he learns went on in the world outside. The same is true of the French boy who goes back to those horrible Frankish Kings, with their terrible or unfortunate wives, and right back to the gates of the Roman Empire. But in England, as somebody said to me the other day, "That goes back to the Conquest, and nothing happened before the Conquest." No Englishman, so far as I can see, ever learns that anything happened in the world before the Conquest. I think it is a great misfortune to England, and a really practical one which I myself have experienced, that they should number the Kings and Queens of England from that date.
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should conclude this debate with a very few words. This Bill appears to me to be the affirmation of Her Majesty's subjects in this United Kingdom of a new faith. In the words of the Preamble to the Bill, it affirms their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of the free association of the Members of the Commonwealth of whom they are one, and of this Sovereign as

1299
the Head of the Commonwealth. That is a new conception in the history of the world, and we rejoice that it is out of the genius of our people that there has been born an idea that binds together so large a part of the world in bonds of a common loyalty. May we not rejoice, too, that it is in the person of Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, that we see the first flowering of that conception which will, we believe, cherish and foster throughout the world the ideals of freedom and of peace, for which our people have fought and died and for which they now stand?
But this Bill, too—and perhaps for us this means most of all—recognises the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, as the Queen of this Realm of England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are united under one Crown. It is one United Realm which now, for a period of time that can count its centuries, has shared under one King or Queen, good times and ill, glory and tribulation. We will not mar this day by controversy whether the Queen's Title should be Elizabeth I or Elizabeth II. Whatever number is chosen, the pedant may find fault he can find historical error whatever choice is made. It will surely accord with our tradition and history if, in all parts of this Realm, we accept without demur the Title which has found favour elsewhere throughout the Commonwealth, and with one heart and voice acclaim Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT ON THE SUDAN
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, before we go into Committee, I have now received a copy of the statement which I promised I would read to the House. It was in answer to the following Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered reports
1300
alleging that General Neguib has complained of breaches of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement on the Sudan, and if he has any statement to make. This is the statement which my right honourable friend has just made.
"I understand that General Neguib held a Press conference yesterday, in which he is reported to have made a number of allegations about breaches of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement on the Sudan. I have asked for full information from the Governor-General on all these allegations. There is, however, one with which I wish to deal today. It has been said that we are delaying the elections in the Sudan by refusing to accept the two Sudanese members of the Governor-General's Commission nominated by the Sudanese and approved by the Egyptian Government. The facts are as follows.
"On February 25 a meeting of representatives of all four Sudanese Northern political parties voted upon the names of five candidates for the two places to be filled by Sudanese on the Governor-General's Commission. Of these five candidates, Mohammed el Hassan el Diab received three votes, I brahim Ahmen two votes, and the remainder one vote each. The parties sent the Governor-General and the Egyptian Staff Officer in the Sudan a formal letter informing them of this. On March 2 Her Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo formally proposed to the Egyptian Government the nomination of the two candidates who had received three votes and two votes respectively. So far as I am aware the Egyptian Government have not formally nominated any candidates. Meanwhile, however, the Egyptian Government have been seeking to promote the candidature of a new candidate, Dardiri Mohammed Osman, who I understand supports a closer association between Egypt and the Sudan, and one of the candidates who had received only one vote stood down in his favour. No votes have yet been cast for him by any of the Sudanese political Parties.
"It will thus be seen that Her Majesty's Government have throughout supported the wishes of the Sudanese themselves and we hold the view that,

1301
unless the representatives of the political Parties inform us that they have altered their decision of February 25, the candidates who then received most votes should be nominated. Far from any delay having been caused by Her Majesty's Government, the delay over the appointment of the Sudanese members of the Governor-General's Commission appears now clearly to be due to Egyptian unwillingness to accept the candidates proposed by the Sudanese themselves.
"I would like to add that Her Majesty's Government strongly deprecate this attempt to conduct diplomacy by means of inflammatory statements to the Press. If the Egyptian Government have complaints to make, they should be made either to the Governor-General of the Sudan direct or to Her Majesty's Government through normal diplomatic channels. I have this morning made strong representations to this effect to the Egyptian Ambassador in London, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo has also beer, instructed to do the same to the Egyptian Government.
"I would recall the statement"—made in this House on February 12 by my noble friend Lord Reading —
"to the effect that it is the resolve of Her Majesty's Government that the Sudanese shall freely decide their own future. That statement stands, and we are determined to ensure that the Sudanese shall have the right to express their views free from interference or unfair pressure from any quarter."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount, first, when we shall have a copy of the report from the Governor-General relating to events in the Southern Provinces? Secondly, may I ask him whether this matter is likely to delay the Elections until the rainy period?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In reply to the noble Viscount's first Question, I should be glad if he would put a Question on the Order Paper. I cannot answer a supplementary question on a matter about which I have nor the faintest idea and which concerns another Department. It does not, I think, seem unreasonable that I should ask him to put a Question on the
1302
Order Paper. As regards the second question, there has certainly been no delay on our part. How much delay is going to result from the action by the Egyptians I cannot say.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not intend to press the noble Viscount. I ask this question because it is obviously vitally necessary to have information as soon as possible about these events in the Southern Provinces. I did not ask who was responsible for the delay but whether the delay would be such as to postpone the Elections until later in the year.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If it were possible to say how much further delay the Egyptian Government are going to impose I should be able to answer the question. As regards the other question, I have given to the House all the facts I. have at my disposal, and I will certainly give to this House—as am sure my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will to another place—any further information as soon as we have it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, on a matter of procedure, may I ask the noble Viscount whether in the reply he gave just now he was giving a direct quotation from a Question and Answer made in another place?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes. I was following the procedure which, as the noble Viscount was informed by myself as leading the House, by the Leader of the Opposition and by his own Leader the other day, is a recognised practice which has obtained in this House for as long as any of us has been here.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: But is it not a fact that when I made a quotation recently from a Question and Answer given by the Minister in another place I was told by the noble Viscount that I was out of order? Is there one law for a Minister on the Front Bench and another law for Back-benchers?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is no different law for anybody in this House, but, in time, if the noble Viscount survives long enough, he will learn the very simple procedure and practice of this House. There are few rules, but one is that you do not quote from speeches made in another place unless those

1303
speeches contain a statement of policy by another Minister. It is an accepted exception, and it has also been a recognised practice, which is for the convenience and courtesy of both Houses, that when an important statement of fact is going to be made on behalf of the Government, or a statement of policy, that that statement is made concurrently and in identical terms in both Houses. I hope the noble Viscount will grasp that.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is the noble Viscount aware, while he is throwing bricks at my noble friend, that my noble friend's parliamentary experience is far longer than his own?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Not in this House, I think.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would it not be the correct procedure to arrange for someone to put a Question to the Minister?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The normal procedure would be to put a Question, and if necessary I should be glad to make a statement.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 14:
Re-organisation of railways
14.—

(1) Within twelve months from the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may allow, the Commission shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the re-organisation of that part of their undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways.

(2) The said scheme shall provide—

(a) for the abolition (if it has not already been abolished) of the Railway Executive; and

(b) for the setting up, for such areas as may be specified by or under the scheme, of such authorities as may be so specified; and

1304

(c) for the delegation to those authorities of such functions of the Commission relating to that part of their undertaking as may be so specified in relation to those authorities respectively.

(6) The scheme may—

(a) entrust to any authority set up under the scheme, or otherwise deal with, functions of the Commission not concerned or directly concerned with the operation of the railways if it appears to the Commission or to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that those matters should be entrusted to those authorities or so dealt with by the scheme;

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert the following new subsection:
"(1) The Minister shall appoint a committee of not less than six persons who after hearing evidence from the British Transport Commission and other suitable bodies will submit to the Minister a scheme for the reorganisation of that part of the undertaking which consists of the management and operation of the railways."
The noble Viscount said: I fear it is going from the sublime to the ridiculous, after the very important discussion we have had on constitutional procedure, to turn to the railway provisions of this Bill, though they are, of course, very important indeed. Even so, perhaps they are not so important as the matter which we have just been discussing. Clause 14 is the railway clause of this Bill and it is. I think we shall all agree, of enormous importance because on what happens to this clause will depend the future management and control of the great railway system of this country. I am certain that all your Lordships are most anxious, whatever is decided, that the railway systems should be of the best. The Bill lays down that the Minister is to consult the British Transport Commission as to the best way in which the railway organisation can function in the future. I wondered when I put down this Amendment whether that really is the best way of arriving at a satisfactory arrangement as to how the railways are to be run.
We must remember what the position is. In 1947 the Act was passed setting up the British Transport Commission. Under the Act was set up also the Railway Executive. The rest of the picture was not filled in at all by Her Majesty's

1305
Government. Those two bodies were given pretty well carte blanche to design and lay out the future railway organisation of the country. They get together, and as a result of discussion and consideration they came to the conclusion that the way in which the railway systems of this country should be run was by a highly centralised functional organisation. We have now had considerable experience of that decision and I think there is no doubt that in the opinion of a great many people in this country far more capable than I am of judging, this functional organisation has been far too centralised, and that it has had a cramping effect and an unsatisfactory reaction on the running of railways in this country.
Therefore, one questions the wisdom of Her Majesty's Government in inviting the British Transport Commission to set up arrangements again whereby a new organisation should be established for the railways. We know already what their views are, and a good many people think that those views have not been satisfactory. Therefore it would appear that if anybody is to be asked to advise the Minister on the organisation it should be another body, not the body—the British Transport Commission—who have already tried and, in the view of many people, failed. It seems to me then that we should ask the Minister to set up a Committee of not fewer that six persons, who should examine the British Transport Commission and find out from them what their views are as to how the railway management should be modified. They would also have the opportunity of talking to the Railway Executive, who are still in existence, and of discussing the matter with the various regional managers of the different railway systems. An independent body would be able to approach this matter with a new outlook and get the views of all the people who are most closely interested in the matter. This Committee would then be able, in an entirely unbiased manner to advise the Minister.
We are not the only country that has had railway difficulties. As we know, France has had them, and I think I am right in saying that they had a deficit last year of something like £ 90 million. We do not want to copy that deficit of £ 90 million but, at the same time, there are many interesting developments going
1306
on in France which it might be worth while examining here. There is also an interesting example in Holland at the present time. The Dutch railways are practically the only railway system in the world that is paying. It seems to me that if we could set up a Committee of this kind to examine the position in this country, with the help of the bodies I have already mentioned, we might look a little further a field, not to be too insular, and find out what other people are doing. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider accepting the Amendment which I have down. It would enable fresh minds to view these intricate and complicated problems without any biased views, and would probably enable us to come to a right conclusion as to the best way in which this extremely important organisation could be run in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 22, leave cut subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not know whether this course would be convenient, but there are two Amendments here which are almost, though not exactly, the same: one is mandatory and the other is permissive. I propose to deal with both Amendments together, because I cannot deal with one without dealing with the other. I thought it would be for the convenience and expedition of the House if the two Amendments, that is Nos. 55 and 56, were discussed together. Would that be convenient? They seem to raise exactly the same issues except that one is mandatory and the other is permissive.
LORD WOLVERTON: One relates to the Minister and the other does not. They are not quite the same.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am afraid I must deal with both Amendments in any answer I give, because I could not make an intelligent answer on one, but I will do whatever the House wishes. I do not want to be thought to be anticipating. On the other hand, I cannot make an intelligent and responsible answer to the Amendment which is now before the House without dealing also with the reasons why I think the next Amendment is not very helpful.
EARL JOWITT: The normal practice would be that the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, should speak now and embrace this Amendment with the first; then that other noble Lords should speak; then, after they have all spoken, the noble Viscount should speak generally on the discussion; and then, if necessary, we could probably deal with the two Amendments in one. There is only one Amendment before us at the moment, I agree.
LORD WOLVERTON: May I speak on my Amendment?
EARL JOWITT: Yes.
LORD WOLVERTON: I am moving it on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, and I do not want to do it wrongly.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord cannot move his Amendment; but he can speak on it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord can speak as if both Amendments were before the House.
LORD HAWKE: The two Amendments are really quite different. The convenient procedure for us, whose names are attached to the second of these two Amendments, at any rate, would be to hear the Deputy Leader's answer to the first Amendment and then, if he accepts it, we may even not move the second Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am entirely in the hands of the House. If the House would like me to speak now, I will gladly do so.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Is the noble Viscount going to deal with this Amendment or would it be proper to say something about it later?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should not be closing the debate in any way. If I may speak now, I will give the general view of the Government. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, has explained this Amendment clearly. The Bill provides that the Commission is to prepare the railway reorganisation scheme and submit it to the Minister. The Minister, before he comes to a conclusion and
1308
submits the scheme to Parliament, is bound to consult the appropriate bodies about it. Long before it comes to the Minister, the Commission will have been studying all the time the needs of its customers. After all, the main object of reorganisation is to give the best service, in tune with local needs. No doubt, the Commission will be taking soundings from traders all the time they are preparing their scheme. Finally, of course, the scheme is laid in draft. We have then to debate it; there will be a full debate upon it, and ultimately it has to receive an Affirmative Resolution,
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, proposes to substitute for the Commission as the preparers of the scheme an independent committee. The Amendment which is going to be moved presently does not impose a duty, but says that the Minister may, if he pleases, appoint, as an alternative to the Commission, an independent committee; so I think I was fair in saying that in one case the Amendment is mandatory and in the other case it is permissive. Whichever course is adopted, I think that the method of an independent committee would result in a long delay, and I am sure that none of us wants that. Indeed, great emphasis has been laid on the importance of getting decentralisation as quickly as we can. Suppose we appoint an independent committee. It would have to learn the whole of the complex problems of the railways, the central problems and the problems in every region. It would also have to learn and consider the reaction of other forms of transport on the railways, and it would have to make itself familiar with a mass of information and evidence which has accumulated and is accumulating all the time with the Commission and the Railway Executive, bearing on all these matters.
Suppose we appointed a committee of this kind. What are going to be the relations of that body to the Transport Commission itself? Either it will have to be working with them all the way through, indeed sitting in with them, or, without continual contact with the Commission, it will arrive at tentative conclusions which may be vitiated by information which the Commission then produce. Certainly the Minister would need to have the views of the Commission as well as the views of the committee of inquiry.

1309
Unless this body, this independent committee, was working with the Transport Commission day by day, there might easily be a situation in which the Transport Commission was, so to speak, put on the defensive. We come to the conclusion—at least, those who have examined this point afresh with the Ministry and all the other advisers feel certain that it really is essential that the Commission, working all the time, preparing its schemes in the interests of the passengers and traders it has to serve, is the right body to do this.
I have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and I have tried to apply to it all such experience as I myself have had and have seen in the reorganisation of businesses. Let me put this to Lord Falmouth, who I am sure has had this kind of experience in business. If he wants to reorganise a business of which he is chairman, surely he would say, "This reorganisation must be carried out by the board of the company, and by the whole executive and administrative machine working under it," though of course there would be broad directives as to the object to be attained and the general principles to be followed. Not only must you have the experience which resides in the board, and in the company itself, but if you are going to make a reorganisation successful, you must carry with you, in all the work involved, the experience of the board and the company, coupled with the good will and the keenness of those who have got to work the plan. They must be imbued from the start with the right ideas, and they must work keenly as a team to make those ideas effective in action. We all want the same thing in regard to this—at least, most of us do. But for all those reasons, I feel sure that the Committee would be right in saying that the people who should frame this scheme and submit it to the Minister are the Transport Commission.
I am not casting aspersions on committees as such—often they are very good bodies, and are satisfactory in the right place. I think it was Dr. Johnson who said: "A cow is a very good animal in a field, but we turn her out of a garden," and Boswell, commenting on this, said, "Lord Elibank used to repeat that this was an illustration uncommonly apt."
1310
I do not think that it is altogether inapt here. The Committee will have seen that, if I am right in all the reasons I have adduced as to why this inquiry should be conducted by the Commission, and the work done by the Commission, those arguments apply equally whether the Amendment is obligatory or permissive. It would not be honest of the Minister to accept an Amendment, saying, "I can delegate the whole of the work of the Commission in this respect to a Committee," if in his heart he knew that he had no intention of doing anything of the sort. I feel that it would be the wrong thing to do. It would be easy to accept this Amendment but, quite frankly. I do not like doing business that way. If the Minister does not mean to do this, then I do not think it would be right or proper to accept an Amendment which says that he can do it. Of course, both the Commission and the Minister can bring in to help anybody they wish, but for the reasons I have given I hope the Committee will feel that the Commission are the right people for the job.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I begin by saying that I was touched by the reference of the noble Viscount to my ancestor, the fifth Baron? He was the only Scot for whom Dr. Johnson had any real respect or regard. But now let us see where his arguments have led the noble Viscount on this particular Amendment. He has suggested, equivalently to the experience of a commercial company, that it is far better in this case to let the board settle the matter—the board being the Transport Commission. But yesterday or the day before, when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas moved an Amendment to disallow the Disposal Board to operate in place of the Transport Commission, the noble Viscount turned him down—I think I am within the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that respect. The noble Viscount has said that it would be difficult to get together a body such as is suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in this Amendment. I do not think so. I think there are men of experience among some of the old railway company chairmen, and men like Mr. Roger Sewill of the road haulage set-up. They would be perfectly willing to sit on such a committee.

1311
On the other hand, I am rather disposed to agree that the Transport Commission is the right body to settle this particular question. Whilst I agree with the noble Viscount there, I do so with this reservation: I think it is a great pity that before this Bill was drafted the Transport Commission were not consulted. Had that been done, I think we should have had an infinitely better Bill. On this Amendment, I think that, on the whole, the best thing is to let the British Transport Commission get on with the job. They will, of course, take advantage of all the experience outside, as well as inside, the Commission.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Speaking on this Amendment, I would venture to disagree, to some extent, with the noble Viscount, the Deputy Leader of the House, when he put forward his illustration for reorganising a company. He said that it was a matter which could be referred to the board of that company, who would have a clear indication of what they were to do. Had we in this Bill a clear enough indication of how this was to be done, I should have said that that procedure would be right. But I feel that the whole of Clause 14 is far too indefinite. There are references to three different kinds of possible authorities; there are references to working out the system of the co-operation of those three bodies. I do not think that is a clear enough line to work on. It has been said that the Minister, by close collaboration with the Commission, can from time to time discuss the progress of the investigation. No doubt he will. But from what we see in the Bill, what I fear is that there is no very clear idea in the mind of the Minister as to what organisation he wishes to produce. I feel, also, that the Transport Commission cannot really be expected to think up an idea for him.
One must be realistic in these matters. The Transport Commission (I am not, of course, referring to individuals, but to the body as a whole) were appointed by the late Government to work out and operate the highly centralised system set up by the 1947 Act. It seems clear to me that that is how their minds have had—and under the law, rightly, to be focused on the problem before them. When the 1947 Act was passing through
1312
this House a number of noble Lords said they felt quite sure that the question of who owned the railways was not so important as that of how they were run. Here we are back on this problem. As I have said, the Commission were instructed to weld together into one unit the whole of the railway system, and within the limitations of the system which they have had to work they have done it remarkably well. Is it fair to ask them to take it all to pieces again? I do not believe that it is.
I think that it is perfectly possible to collect together six, eight or more people to apply to the railway system methods of administration which can be copied from results. It is not entirely a technical problem in relation to railway operation. It is a question of how to apply to a railway a system of devolution such as would be applicable to a very large industry, with modification as it goes along. That is why I think the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, is right in saying that the committee should be an outside body composed of men of experience in every direction—no doubt including one or two members of the Commission, and possibly, also, a member of the Railway Executive, who have actual experience of railway operation. By that means I feel that we shall get a much clearer view of what is required. It has been suggested that there will be delay. We shall certainly have some delay, because this clause is indefinite as to what it is wished to deal with and how it is to be achieved. But, to come to the problem of the reserved subjects—financial control, control of wage negotiations, control of general policy on rates—these are some of the things which may be reserved to the Commission. But having reserved particularly the question of finance, it is surely possible to conduct a system whereby those who undertake part of the running of the system proposed are given responsibility for what they do. I think that is a new idea, and something has been evolved in that direction. That is why I support the suggestion to have people outside who would be best equipped to reach the most acceptable solution.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Our position on this side of the House with regard to the Amendment is this. The Commission enjoy the confidence of the Government. In point of fact, since

1313
this Government has been in power their friends of the British Transport Commission have been singularly embarrassing in their attitude towards it. It is a case, in reverse, of hate being turned to love. The Commission have done an exceptionally good job of work. The only handicap which the Commission suffered in the past was the unfortunate system they had to operate; there was nothing wrong with the Commission itself. Who does the noble Viscount think are these people outside the Commission who will tell the Commission how to reorganise their business? I suppose that, apart from the noble Lords sitting in your Lordships' House, the Commission contain people who know most about the running of railways. They have the best brains in this country, when it comes to the running of a railway system. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment which the Opposition have put down later in the Order Paper. We are seeking to amend the constitution of the Commission, but we on this side of the House are quite satisfied that the best people to reorganise the railways of this country are the people who have the responsibility of running them at the present time.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I have listened with great interest to the various speakers. There seems to be an opinion that there will be unnecessary delay; that under the proposal there will be a great deal of passing backwards and forwards, the Minister sending it back and saying, "I cannot accept this" and that this result may go on for a long time. The present idea is to do away with the Railway Executive. But the Railway Executive can easily be telescoped into the British Transport Commission, and under another name we may get exactly the same functions performed by the same body. I do not want to press this Amendment. I am sorry that the noble Viscount will not accept it. Another point I would mention is that under the present scheme the Transport Commission are to be judge and jury in their own case. It is not as if the Transport Commission are going out of existence: they will still be in a very important position. It is for somebody else to say what their functions shall or shall not be under this Bill. It is not right that they should be judge and jury in their own case when this Bill becomes law.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure the solution which depends upon the bringing in of an outside body is not right, but—and I am saying nothing at all derogatory of the Commission—there is a feeling that if the Commission or the Executive have conducted their business in a certain way they will not be overenthusiastic about conducting it in a different way, and they may not be the best people to make the plan. If one wanted to reform the Church, one would not select as reformers those who were dogmatically wedded to a particular practice which was under consideration. The noble Viscount has said that this is left rather vague. I admit it is; and it is easy to found a little more than a dialectical argument on that point. But at the same time you may get into great danger if you lay down principles too definitely. Under the literal structure of the Bill the Commission, first of all, will do something, and then the matter will go to the Minister. And it is said that there may be much cross-reference and delay. But those of us who have been Ministers—and there are many in this House—know that that is not the way the thing works in practice. A good deal of informal talk goes on which is not strictly, so to speak, within the constitution. That is the way the thing works.
I would add this. I have no authority for saying what I am about to say, and I am frightfully indiscreet at times. It may be found, on examination, that my remarks are not all sensible, or at any rate not all agreeable. But, after all, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, so often used to say, in this place we act on instructions. At any rate, the Commission is to be enlarged and a good deal of new blood will come in. That, I suppose, will take place at some time about August. We do not want any unnecessary delay. The Commission, as I say, will be enlarged, and we shall come later to consideration of the question as to whether it ought not to be a bit larger than is now laid down in this Bill. But we shall consider that matter hereafter, and I shall approach it with a perfectly open mind. So there will not only be new blood, but more people to do the job.
In my view, without our putting anything fresh into the Bill, the Commission

1315
have power to bring in anyone they like to help them on this. I have an idea—I do not know whether it would work at all well—that it might be a good thing particularly before the Commission is enlarged, if that power were exercised. The Minister might say: "I think you are going to be rather overworked. Would it not be a help to bring in two or three people who, working with you—not working opposite to you, but working with you—would help you in this task?" It may well be that two or three people working in that way, working in the spirit of the machine, would be very useful. I do not know whether I am indiscreet to throw out that idea, but I throw it out for what it is worth. And I am ready to discuss it with the Minister and his Department without any sort of undertaking that they may not reject it completely. We are trying to carry out this task without any preconceived ideas. The noble Viscount kindly said that he would not press this Amendment and that he was prepared to withdraw it. I should like to consider the matter a little later on, on these lines, and see whether we could reinforce the Commission—of course, you would have to be sure of the good will of the Commission—so that the Commission could be fortified to do their work in the best possible way.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.23 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and" and to insert "or cause to be prepared, and shall." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, who has asked me to offer his sincere apologies to your Lordships for not being able to be here to-day to move this Amendment, I beg to submit it for the consideration of the Committee. The object of this Amendment is to give the Commission a discretion in delegating to some other body a proportion of the work connected with the reorganisation scheme. If the Amendment is accepted, the passage in the Bill will read:
"Within twelve months of the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may
1316
allow, the Commission shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and shall submit to the Minister a scheme for the reorganisation of that part of their undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways."
In view of what the noble Viscount, the Deputy Leader, has said on the last Amendment, perhaps we can have an assurance that it will be possible to bring in outside people to help the Commission. That would go a long way to allay our fear.
My noble friends and myself feel strongly that if you are going to do away with the Railway Executive, the chief regional officers should come in and help in the preparation of any scheme of reorganisation. If there is going to be reorganisation of the railways the work should be delegated down on a regional basis. We think these experts are the right men to come into a Committee, to help plan and put to the Minister, after consultation with outside bodies, a scheme of reorganisation, which will be the subject of draft regulations to be submitted to Parliament for approval and adoption. We did not feel that the Commission were entirely the right people, as a body, to do it. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said, there was a tendency to over-centralise, and now we should try to decentralise the railways into regions. This is an entirely permissive Amendment. It does not go half so far as the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth. That seemed to my noble friends and myself to go too far, as it put a duty upon the Minister, whereas this Amendment, as I say, is entirely permissive. We thought that without an Amendment of this kind it might be found that the Commission had not the necessary powers of delegation to set up an outside committee. For those reasons I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 24, leave out ("and") and insert ("or cause to be prepared, and shall")—(Lord Wolverton)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I trust that my noble friend will not think me discourteous if I do not repeat in reply to him all that I said in the course of the discussions which we have had on the previous Amendment. I do not think that in the circumstances the noble Lord will want to press this Amendment. If I find that there is any via media, or any way in which we can help, we shall no doubt have to return to the point at a later stage.
LORD HAWKE: I am perfectly satisfied with what the noble Viscount said, because I gather from it that the Commission can well form what might be called an inter-departmental committee of themselves, and include employees of the Railway Executive, to prepare this scheme. If that is the case, I would not advise my noble friend to go on with this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure the Commission could do that without any Amendment being made at this point.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do not know that it is clear that that is so. I do not quite agree with the noble Viscount. This Amendment is very different from the first Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, it is a permissive Amendment. In fact, I should have thought that it would strengthen the Commission's hands to have the power to set up a committee of experts to help them to prepare a scheme of this importance and magnitude. The noble Viscount quoted commercial experience. The board of a company, if they were envisaging a scheme of development for their works, or an alteration scheme, would not prepare the scheme themselves; they would delegate the task of preparing it to a committee of experts. When the scheme had been prepared they would carefully study it, and then, presumably, would submit it or would not submit it to their superior—in this instance the Minister. I feel that this Amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill, because it would strengthen the hands of the Commission and allow them to set up a departmental committee if they wished to do so.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May we be told whether any effect is achieved by this Amendment at all? This subsection as amended would say that:
"the Commission shall prepare or cause to be prepared and shall submit to the Minister a scheme.…"
Is there any real difference between preparing a scheme and causing it to be prepared? I should have thought that under the Bill as it stands the Commission could set up a departmental committee, if they liked, and take the scheme to the Minister when it had been prepared and approved. I think the noble Lord,
1318
Lord Wolverton, will find that this Bill provides all he wants without the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think there is the least doubt on this matter, nor do I feel that there is much difference between the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, and myself upon it. The responsibility for submitting a scheme must rest with the Commission, just as in the case of a reorganisation of a business the ultimate responsibility must rest with the board, whoever had done the actual work of preparation. Under the present clause there would be the necessary power to have two, three or four committees, with people working on them from the Railway Executive or some other Executive. Without any extra power being given, there is clearly power to bring in any experts you might want to do this or that job. There is ample provision in the Bill for that. The one thing that I do not like about this Amendment is this—either it does not mean anything, as the noble Viscount has suggested, or else it means that the Commission are able to "pass the buck." I do not want them to be able to "pass the buck"; I want them to remain with the ultimate responsibility and a continuing watch upon it.
LORD WOLVERTON: In view of what the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.32 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2) to page 19, to leave out "shall" and insert "may." The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) at present says the scheme "shall" provide. My Amendment seeks to substitute the word "may" for the word shall. "On the surface it appears to be a very simple Amendment, but it would be wrong if I were to try to persuade your Lordships that it means little or nothing to us on this side of the House. This is a very important Amendment. If your Lordships will examine Clause 14, you will see that there are nine subsections. Seven of these use the word "may" and not "shall." I think the Bill has been properly drawn in this respect, because when the Bill was drafted, the Government did not know what they wanted and the Commission did not know what they wanted. There-

1319
fore, it was important that the hands of the Commission should not be unduly tied. My Amendment would have the effect of bringing the other two subsections, which hang together, into line. It would not deprive the Commission of the right of pronouncing judgment on any proposal in subsection (2) but it would give them liberty to decide what they should do about it.
Before I open out on where this is taking us, I want to draw attention to two other simple facts. Under subsection (3) the Commission are to retain the final power. Whatever organisation is established, whatever committees or authorities are appointed, the final power rests in the hands of the Commission. Then again, the Commission need not delegate the whole of their powers either to the area boards or to any other kind of authority. Indeed, if they once delegate any powers, they can resume them with the consent of Parliament. Perhaps I had better recite subsection (2). Under paragraph (a) it is stated that the scheme shall provide
"for the abolition (if it has not already been abolished) of the Railway Executive;"
I am not sure what these words mean. I should have thought the Executive would not be abolished until some new scheme had been approved by the Government or by Parliament, and some new authorities had been established for the purpose of carrying on. So what these words mean in this subsection I do not know. Paragraph (b) provides that under the scheme area authorities may be appointed. I assume that noble Lords who believe in decentralisation are of the opinion that these area boards will be the new authorities which will largely run the railway system. I have looked through the Bill carefully, and fail yet to understand what the real powers of the area boards are to be. I think I have said sufficient to indicate that we had better go cautiously, and that is why my Amendment seeks to substitute the word "may" for "shall." But if there are any ideas as to what the boards are going to do, it would seem that now is the opportune moment to put them before Parliament.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord be good enough to repeat that?
LORD SHEPHERD: What I have said is that if there are at present any ideas about the functions of the area boards, then it is time those functions were mentioned in Parliament, so that before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, Parliament, which is the chief authority, may know exactly what it has been doing. I am afraid that there is little we can fix on as describing the duties of the new authorities. In another place, the Minister himself said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 509, col. 1055):
"The Bill provides for are organisation scheme which shall reserve to the Commission the general control of charges, but a scheme which may also provide for a substantial measure of elasticity in regard to detailed control, and I think it would be very unwise of me to attempt at this stage to tie the hands of the Commission in this field. But interesting possibilities, not without hope in some parts of the United Kingdom, may spring through this new freedom."
I confess that after reading that extract from the Minister's speech I know less than I thought I did before he spoke, because, from what the Minister has said. I cannot see what the area boards are going to do in connection with the job of running the railways.
When the Bill came before your Lordships' House, one period of the Second Reading debate was devoted to the situation which would arise in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Home, made a statement which went a little further than that made by the Minister. I think it is important that we should realise that in England the area boards will not be given more authority than the Council which is to be established in Scotland, and I cannot understand how Scotsmen can be pleased that there is to be decentralisation of the railway system.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, we still do not know what the powers of the Scottish Council will be.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount will realise that the noble Earl, Lord Home, made not only certain statements but also one or two reservations of importance. First of all, he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 697):
"I think there is a fair degree of agreement that executive authority in Scotland should lie as far as possible with the different branches of nationalised transport,…"

1321
So it is clear that the Scottish Council that is to be established as the area authority for Scotland will not have an executive position. The noble Earl went on to say:
"But because of Scotland's distinctive geographical position it can be argued that there should be some machinery over and above a consultative committee to ensure, first, that the public is served by the most appropriate form of transport.
That seems to mean that the authority of the Council in Scotland will be greater than that of the area boards in England, because in England some of the transport is to be taken away from the hands of the Commission, whereas apparently in Scotland it is to be left there.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord where he gets the information from, that things are being taken away in England which are not being taken away in Scotland?
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to finish my remarks, and then he will see what I am getting at. The noble Earl went on to say,
"that the public is served by the most appropriate form of transport, and secondly, that Scotland's transport needs are constantly understood and appreciated. For this reason the Government have decided to set up a Scottish Transport Council."
In Scotland, therefore, the Transport Council are to concern themselves with all methods of transport. In England and in Wales, the transport system is taken away from the Commission—that is to say, the road transport system is taken away—and since the civil air lines are not connected with it, it means that in England the powers of the area boards, as it seems to me, are less than those of their counterpart in Scotland The noble Earl, Lord Home, said, lower down the column:
"I think it is too soon to define the duties of the Council in great detail. We do not want to tie the Council to a rigid list of functions, which might be restrictive, but here are some of the functions which we think the Council may have: To review together the work of the different transport authorities set up in Scotland; to consider matters of common interest; to formulate joint schemes for the future; to make proposals for the development of joint services in Scotland….It follows from what I have said earlier that this Council will not, and should not, weaken the executive responsibilties of the different transport authorities.…"
1322
It therefore seems clear, from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Home, who was speaking from a brief, that the area authorities which are to be established are not to be bodies in which there can be a great deal of decentralisation; they are to be bodies which may be able to talk about things, but not actively to exercise control. That is why I move my Amendment: if these things are in doubt, it is better that: the word should be "may," instead of "shall."
In addition to the area boards, as has already been mentioned, there are to be other authorities—that is the only title I can apply to them. Presumably those authorities will be more or less of a national kind. Then there are to be co-ordinating authorities, and presumably those co-ordinating authorities will be connected with all the area authorities surrounding. It is difficult to see how these authorities will get on together, unless a large number of regulations are passed by Parliament in order that their relationship, one with the other, is kept in proper form. I do not yet know—and I do not think noble Lords opposite know—what the responsibilities of these area bodies and other bodies are going to be. But I should like to ask a few questions. Under the new dispensation, who is going to control the main line services? Are the main line services to be run by one authority, or by a co-ordinated authority representing the area authorities through which the lines pass? Which authority will deal with the extensive and growing excursion traffic of the country? Surely, that will not be within the responsibility of the area authorities; it will undoubtedly be national in character, and will, therefore, need national supervision. There is the parcel service, the normal goods traffic and the traffic of minerals, and there are the workshops which turn out the railway engines, and the various coaches that have to be used in the course of service. I cannot see that any one of those important activities will devolve on the area authorities. If they are to be organised at all, they will need to be organised on a national basis, and any scheme or body which is going to make them successful—even if it is not the Commission—will have to be of a national character. That is another reason why we should be careful and not

1323
bear the Commission down by using the word "shall instead of the word "may."
Further, we are told that the object of the Government in this clause is to establish a kind of rivalry between various authorities, in order to improve the railway services. I myself cannot understand a national system of railways, all interlocked, being improved by rivalry between the various sections that control it. I should have thought it much more important that we should secure co-operation between the authorities. Let us assume an extreme case. Suppose that the area authority for the York area wanted to establish a train service to Birmingham. How would they accomplish that? Would they claim running powers over the Midland railways? Or, if the case were reversed, would the Birmingham area authority claim running powers over the area coming within the Yorkshire system? Surely, the answer is "No." Surely, the answer is that, if there is to be such a service, and there are two area authorities who are going to deal with the matter, there must be a co-ordinating body—there must be co-operation and not rivalry.
I would conclude by mentioning one other point. It is sometimes suggested that if we have a kind of competition on our railways, instead of co-operation, it would be an improvement for the railway user. If the services which run on the two coasts of England down to London were practically the same, no inducement would take the Glasgow man by the East Coast to Euston—naturally he would take the West Coast. A Scotsman living in Edinburgh who wanted to come to London would not go round the West Coast merely because it was a longer journey, or for some other inducement, but would come down to London by the East Coast.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No doubt the noble Lord is aware that the shortest journey is through Carlisle, on the West Coast.
LORD SHEPHERD: That may be. But in point of time the Blue Rib and has usually been held on the East Coast. Perhaps the noble Earl is not old enough
1324
to remember the days when there was a rivalry between the railway companies running express trains between London and Scottish places. My recollection is that the Blue Rib and always went to the "Flying Scotsman," because it had the most direct route and it had the easiest gradients. In other words, even if there is that competition between the railways, it will not change the habit of a Scotsman: he will still use the line to which he has become accustomed. Therefore, I urge that, before we agree to a clause of this kind, making it compulsory for the Commission to do these things, we should make sure that we know exactly what we want. Alternatively, we should permit the Commission to submit their Report and then make our decisions upon what that report may be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, for a very brief period in my younger days in your Lordships' House, I frequently moved an Amendment of this nature, only in the opposite sense—for "may" read "shall." I invariably received the same reply, which was that the word "may" in a Parliamentary Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament is interpreted to mean "shall."
4.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We seem to have entered into discussions upon railway administration about which I think my noble friend Lord Ridley and I could have a great deal to say. But, on the general question, I do not think it matters whether it is "may" or "shall" when it comes to the final working out. So far as I can see, the only substantive thing to which the word "shall" applies is to the Railway Executive; it is to make it quite certain that the Railway Executive is abolished. As to all these other clauses and subsections, I do not think it means very much. After all what is going to happen? The Transport Commission will present a scheme to the Minister. I do not think the Minister wants to be bound by all these things. He wants to present what he considers to be a practical scheme, and it is up to the Minister to consider that scheme. We are coming to a very important Amendment in the name

1325
of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and a subsequent Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bilsland, both of which are particularly applicable to Scotland. Those important Amendments provide that the scheme shall be amendable by this House. That is what we want; but otherwise I think that we might just as well have "may," for all the practical results that are going to come out of it after the scheme is produced.
LORD SALTOUN: I am a little uneasy about the set-up with regard to Scotland, because this island is so much longer than it is broad that any properly organised scheme of transport must work as a whole from north to south. You are doing a trader in Thurso a very great injury if, in addition to the disadvantage he suffers, it is added to at points like Inverness, Perth and so on, all the way down. I realise that one must have a special scheme to co-ordinate internal traffic in Scotland, but I think it would be a great injury to Scotland if we did not have the system working in the main as part of a great whole, extending from north to south.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: As a footnote to the speech of my noble friend who moved this Amendment, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 14. In examining it, I tried to relate it to the intentions of the Government as they were set out in the speech of the Secretary of State, Lord Leathers, on the Second Reading. The noble Lord talked a great deal about decentralisation—that he thought the time had come for the tide of centralisation to ebb, and that the tendency ever since 1921 should now be reversed. He wants to decentralise. But what do we find in this clause? There are the area authorities set up to deal with such of the railway functions of the Commission as are specified; then there is the permissive clause that other authorities may be set up, not for areas, but to undertake functions other than railway functions as delegated to them, and then we have the co-ordinating authorities to co-ordinate the various areas and other authorities. The scheme may also provide for regulating the relations of these authorities with each other, with the Commission, and with other persons, and for giving the Commission financial
1326
control. Then the scheme may entrust to any of the authorities any other functions, if they appear to the Commission or to the Minister to be necessary or expedient. They authorise any such authority to operate outside its own area and in the area of another. Finally, it is not necessary for the Commission to delegate all their railway functions through these authorities; they may apparently keep some.
To my mind it is a positive nightmare of organisation. I cannot see how an organisation such as is sketched out can provide adequate decentralisation. After all, the Railway Executive which exists now is the body which co-ordinates the work of the different regions. If the Government are going to abolish the Railway Executive only in order to set up another co-ordinating authority and possibly several others, I cannot see that the clause contributes to their objects. Indeed, the noble Loaf, Lord Leathers, said that he relies a great deal on the decentralisation scheme to give more power to the man on the spot to take quick decisions. With all that forest of authorities and co-ordinating authorities, how can the man on the spot have any more freedom to act than he has at present under a perfectly clear system of command? I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will find that the streamlined railway system which he envisaged can come about by these means.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This discussion has spread over a fairly wide area, but the point we are at is really an exceedingly simple one, and is the only one which the noble Lord has asked: that is, whether the word "shall" should be turned into "may." The other circumstances referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the other matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, do not arise on this Amendment; and if the noble Lord wants to discuss Scotland, then the clause on which to do so is Clause 9. Scotland comes under this clause only in that the subsection insists on areas, and subsection (9) says that one of those areas shall be Scotland; otherwise Scotland does not come in at all.
Anybody who has listened to this debate so far will have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, say that the railways are far too centralised, and

1327
other remarks of the same character have been made all the way through. There is no doubt in the minds of most railway men to-day that a great measure of decentralisation is required. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, comes along and says, "Oh, but we must know exactly what we want." Is the noble Lord seriously saying that he should write into the Statute exactly how he wants the railways run? Because, if I may say so with great respect, I think such a policy would be insane. What we have done is to lay down quite broadly certain principles in subsection (2) which shall operate—principles of decentralisation; and, having done that, we are then leaving the Commission free to make such proposals in regard to their organisation as they think fit.
The noble Lord does not think there should be any decentralisation at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said that this clause is not clear enough. I agree it is not very clear, but the noble Lord's Amendment would make it less clear, because one thing that is definite is that there is going to be decentralisation. This was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, in his opening speech. This is a fundamental matter. He insists on decentralisation; and we cannot give way on this in any circumstances.
LORD SHEPHERD: I very much regret the attitude taken by the Government towards this very simple Amendment in terms. But I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that "may" and "shall" are the same thing. I know that if there were a law which said that I might do a thing if I liked, and on the other hand a law that I should have to do a thing whether I liked it or not. I should think there was a world of difference between the two.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: There is a world of difference between the personal activities of an individual and the reactions of a Government Department to the wording of an Act of Parliament.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not believe that any Minister faced with these two words would have any doubt as to what his powers really were. He would say at once, "That particular clause says I may
1328
do it if I think fit; it does not say that I shall do it whether I think fit or not. "The Minister, therefore, has a perfect right to decide that the word "may" gives him liberty of thought and action, whereas the word "shall" binds him down. It is on that point that we have raised our Amendment. I have brought in the Scottish aspect, not to discuss Scottish conditions but to show the muddle which this clause is in. I thought there was certainly a muddle in this clause, and that it was essential that we should not compel the Commission to do a thing, but that we should say that it may. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has suggested that noble Lords on the other side of the House believe in decentralisation whereas we do not. That is not accurate. Noble Lords on this side do not believe in overdecentralisation—a very different thing. What I am pointing out is that although this Bill professes to decentralise, the real power is not going to be decentralised at all; and the Council which you are going to establish in Scotland may review, may discuss, may make proposals, but will not be able to interfere with the executive authority of the services which come under the Act.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Lord would not make the elementary mistake of confusing the Scottish Council with the Regional Board.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am only pointing out that in subsection (9), there is a proviso that for the purposes of paragraph (b) in subsection (2) the Scottish Council shall be taken as the area authority. So in that sense the Scottish Council is to be the area authority for Scotland. I am saying that if that is an example of what these area authorities are going to be like, then decentralisation as understood on the Benches opposite is not going to work.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think the noble Lord said that the Scottish Council was the same as the Railway Authority.
LORD SHEPHERD: I never said that. I have been trying to make the matter distinct in quoting the noble Earl's speech to the effect that there is a distinction between the Scottish Council and the executive authorities of the transport world. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (2), to omit paragraph (a) The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my noble friends on the Marshalled List. Noble Lords will see that this deals with a very narrow but specific point—the abolition of the Railway Executive. I submit, first, that the subsection is quite unnecessary, and secondly, that it is needlessly hurtful to men who have carried out certain duties in the public interest. As to its being unnecessary, may I refer your Lordships to Clause 4, subsection (1) of the 1947 Act which says:
"The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest, and the Commission shall give elect to any such directions."
Now, that is a very wide enabling section, and I suggest gives the Minister all the powers he requires for working out in conjunction with the Transport Commission any general scheme of reorganisation.
I ask your Lordships to consider for one moment how the present position has arisen. That takes us back to the first Report of the Transport Commission. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to read some of this Report because it is of vital importance in order to make the point which I am trying to submit to your Lordships. Paragraph 3 says this:
"At their first meeting the Commission considered what form of organisation they could most suitably adopt for the conduct of their internal business and for the devolution of authority to the various Executives which would be appointed to assist them is the discharge of their duties. The Commission proceeded upon the view that they are a policy-making and directing body which should act collectively and should not discharge executive functions, or be charged as individuals with functional responsibilities."—
and so on. Further on, on page 6, paragraph 11 of the 1948 Report states:
"An Executive are thus free o maintain their contact with the public and their workers and carry on all day-to-day business without the Commission being brought in; but as between the Commission and Executive directions may be given by the former by which the exercise of their delegated powers by the Executives may be regulated."
1330
It is quite clear, then, from the Report of the Transport Commission in their earliest days, that full and complete delegated powers were given to the Railway Executive—I am considering only the Railway Executive at the present moment. Further, it is clear that the British Transport Commission, along with the Railway Executive—and ultimately, of course, the Minister of Transport—have responsibility for the form of organisation which has been evolved—a form of organisation which, broadly speaking, is the centralised pattern of the old London, Midland and Scottish Railway. At the present stage and in the consideration of this Amendment I would suggest that the question of whether or not this organisation is the correct form of organisation really does not arise. Nor does the question of whether or not there should be a decentralised form of administration similar to that which the old London and North Eastern Railway had. I want to make it perfectly clear that at the moment we are not concerned at all with that issue.
Now may we recall the names of those who were appointed to serve on the Railway Executive Committee in the first instance: Sir Eustace Missenden, formerly general manager of the Southern Railway; Mr. W. P. Allen, well-known in trade union circles as the one-time Secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen; Mr. Barrington-Ward, formerly divisional general manager, Southern Area, L.N.E.R.; Mr. David Blee, formerly chief goods manager, G.W.R.; Mr. R. A. Riddles, formerly Vice-President of the Executive, L.M.S.; and Mr. J. C. L. Train, formerly chief engineer of the LN.E.R. I will not bring in Sit William Slim or the two part-time members. There have been changes since the early appointment of the Executive. Mr. John Elliott has replaced Sir Eustace Missenden as Chairman of the Railway Executive. There are other changes which have been made but which I need not particularise.
The point I wish to make, however, is this, and I am sure that it cannot be disputed by noble Lords opposite. The names in 1948 and the names to-day are the names of first-rate railway officers, men of outstanding administrative ability, men who have devoted the whole of their working lives to the railway

1331
service and, above all, men honoured and respected in the railway service. In view of the expressed desire of the Deputy Leader of the House that the new arrangements, when they come into operation, to receive the maximum of good will, energy and enthusiasm on the part of the staff, the point I have made that those railway men on the Railway Executive are honoured and respected men in the railway service is a most important one. They were given a job to do. Again, I am not saying whether they have done it well or done it badly—that is not the point at issue. Personally, I think they have done a very good job, but that does not arise.
Her Majesty's Government have decided that it would be better to have another type of organisation than that obtaining on the railways at the present time. Again, I am not quarrelling with that decision. The Government are perfectly entitled to make that decision and to come to this House and the other place in order to get legislative sanction or approval for it. But what treatment is meted out in this Bill to those men of first-rate railway business experience and ability? The Bill says that their posts, their jobs, their responsibilities are to be abolished, if they have not previously been abolished, when the scheme comes before the House for consideration. I am not overstraining it when I say that they are publicly sacked by a clause in an Act of Parliament. The humblest junior clerk in the railway service would have been treated with greater consideration, would not have been subjected to—I was almost going to say—the public humiliation to which these men, who have endeavoured to serve the public in the national interest, have been subjected.
LORD TEYNHAM: May I interrupt for a moment? I suppose the noble Lord is aware that, apart from anything that the Government may think, the Transport Commission themselves are anxious to get rid of the Railway Executive.
LORD BURDEN: That, I understand, has been stated by the Minister of Transport in another place, but, curiously enough, the same secrecy is maintained in regard to the documents stating that as the secrecy maintained regarding another document which my noble friend
1332
Lord Lucas wished to have produced. I have never seen the thing in full. Has the noble Lord, Lord Teynham? Having been referred to, why is the document not printed in full and made available for members of this House?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I hesitate to interrupt, but I would point out to the noble Lord that, so far as I understand it, the Railway Executive themselves are not greatly perturbed at their possible demise.
LORD BURDEN: They may not be. They may be happily fixed up in another direction; I do not know. I am not in the inner councils and I have not consulted the Railway Executive Committee in regard to the speech I am making—far be it from me to seek to aspire to such high circles! I am approaching this matter only from the point of view of the feelings of one who has served the railways towards the men who have been in command in the railway service. I am expressing the feelings of the rank and file of railway servants, salaried and otherwise, in regard to what is virtually the dismissal of those to whom they have looked up as their chiefs. Is there anything wrong in a feeling of loyalty amongst the staff to those who have been leading the industry? I have been trying, no doubt imperfectly, to give expression to that feeling of loyalty amongst the members of the staff.
Let me go on to say this. I should like the Government to accept this Amendment, for this reason: that then, in consultation with the British Transport Commission, they can bring forward a new type of organisation which may or may not (I am not saying that it should) include a railway executive. But is there anything really far-reaching or wrong in suggesting that a scheme of railway organisation, involving far-reaching changes in the railway service, should first of all be considered by railway men and, as one railway man to another, at the highest level? If the new scheme comes forward without a railway executive, all well and good. But there is nothing in any Act of Parliament which provides that the leaders, the men in whom those in the railway service have placed their trust over a number of years, are to be given their part in the new set-

1333
up. It is because I want to put the point that this clause is straining the loyalty of the staff of British Railways, that I ask Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 28, leave out lines 28 and 29.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps I might wind up this very interesting discussion on behalf of the Opposition. I think my noble friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Burden, have made a case comprising two halves which together make a very good whole. The reason for putting down this Amendment and the last was to express our dissatisfaction with Clause 14 as it now stands. First, we say that it is not necessary to have this Bill in order to achieve the Government's purpose as outlined by Clause 14. It is quite possible under the existing Act of 1947 for the Minister, if he so desires, to say to the British Transport Commission, "Will you please submit to me a scheme for the reorganisation of the railways, and take into consideration all the factors set out in Clause 14." Proof of what I say is given by the fact that, without this Bill, the British Transport Commission have already submitted a scheme to the Minister for the reorganisation of the railways—a scheme which, like many others, is wrapped in mystery and will, I expect, be revealed at some future date, suitably amended by the Minister. I make no complaint about that, because I think I am right in saying that we already have an assurance from the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of your Lordships' House that, before any scheme is finally put into the Statute, it will be submitted to your Lordships' House for discussion. So Clause 14 is not needed; this straitjacket, saying in one part that they "may" do this and in another that they "shall" do that, is not needed. I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, about this matter: my experience of working in a Government Department is that the Minister's principal advisers can make black white and white black as easily as they can make "shall" "may" and "may" "shall."
One does not need this Bill in order to abolish the Railway Executive. Under the powers vested in him by the 1947
1334
Act the Minister can do away with the Railway Executive. He could have done away with it months ago if he had so desired. The appropriate Minister in the late Government abolished the Road Passenger Executive quite easily. Why does not the Minister carry out this operation in that way? He can do so. He does not need the power in this Bill. We say that it is unnecessary. We say that we would rather the Commission drew up their own scheme. Probably the Commission are as anxious as anyone else to reorganise. Probably that has always been the case. Not for one moment would I claim that all the wisdom in transport management was included in the 1947 Act. Experience has taught us a great many things. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in the interesting speech which he made on Second Reading, said that very likely the Commission had interfered too much with detailed running; very likely the Railway Executive had interfered too much with policy. It may have been our fault in not making their duties more precise. Bat even if the Railway Executive is abolished, it will not mean marching all the members of the Railway Executive on to the street and telling them, "You must now find a job somewhere else." They are the only people who know thus mechanics of running the railways. The Railway Executive will have to be re-born in the form of an operational management committee or something like that. But we do not know anything about that; we have not been told anything about that. I fully trust that one day the Government will tell us.
May I echo Lord Shepherd's question—namely, what are all these authorities? The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in his interesting speech, said that unnamed powers will be delegated to these authorities. He went on to say (OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 180, Cal. 651):
"I think it would be interesting to know the extent to which Her Majesty's Government think delegation can go, because subsection (3) (a) provides for setting up other authorities (I hope noble Lords wilt note the plural)…"
The noble Earl has stressed the plural all the way through. We are not against decentralisation, but no Government spokesman has ever told us what is meant by it. Without dotting the i's and crossing the t's, and telling the Transport

1335
Commission what they have to do, would it not be as well to have a simple direction from the Minister, go through the mechanics of Clause 15, and then come to this House with the scheme? We shall then know what we are talking about. We shall ask the Committee to express their opinion on this particular Amendment in the Lobby, thereby registering our dislike of all the provisions in Clause 14.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is hardly worth while to reply at length to the matters which have been put forward by those who moved this Amendment, though I might at least commend them on their expedition. I should add, with respect to Lord Burden, that I know he meant to express appreciation of the Railway Executive, but I think it a pity he used some of the words he did. We all have the highest regard for those who are running the railways. There is not one word that I have said about them which is not in terms of praise. But this Executive was set up by Parliament, and therefore is it not equally dignified that it should be abolished by Parliament?
LORD BURDEN: It was set up by the 1947 Act.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I say that having been set up by Parliament it should be abolished by Parliament. I would emphasise that there are real objections to the Executive system. The appointments to the Executive are made by the Government and not by the Commission, yet none the less the Executive is responsible to the Commission. We thought it wrong then, and we think it is wrong now. Another thing which we think wrong is the three-tier system. We have no doubt that the Commission will, in fact, abolish it. But it may well be that the Executive stage was necessary for one period, in order possibly to draw together the standardisation of the best practice. I am not saying that it has not served a useful purpose.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have been listening to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to see whether he had some real reason for abolishing the Railway Executive
1336
under this Bill. I cannot find it in the Bill itself. He has referred to the three-tier system. But whatever area of organisation you have, it is necessary to have a co-ordinating authority at the top. Such an authority is essential. So far as I can see, you may have some kind of co-ordinating authority which it may be left to the Transport Commission to work out before the Railway Executive is abolished. What is that co-ordinating authority to be?
LORD WINSTER: I have listened with the greatest care to what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, for I have been wondering what was the crime of the Railway Commission that they were to be abolished in this manner. I do not think the noble Earl has made out a really good case for abolition, but at least I am glad to learn that this decision is not due to any shortcomings in the performance of the Railway Executive's task. He has said that the Government have the highest regard for the manner in which the Railway Executive have carried out their duties. If that is the case, I should have thought that two curt lines in the Bill abolishing them was rather a poor reward for their services.
I want to refer to a remark by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I believe he has now left the Chamber, but I hope he will not object if I raise this point. I understood him to say that a letter issued by the Commission with regard to the Railway Executive had not been published, and, as I gathered, he added that the Railway Executive might possibly be very glad that that had not been published. I am bound to say that that is rather a slur by innuendo upon the Railway Executive. The only inference I could draw was that the letter from the Commission had been very adverse to the Railway Executive—so adverse that it was a lucky thing for the Railway Executive that it had not been published. That is a slur by innuendo and I regret very much to have heard it. But while I understand that the reason now for abolishing the Railway Executive is an administrative reason, and not due to any defect in its work, I am bound to say that the noble Earl did not really make out a case for the administrative change; and I shall support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I be allowed one brief observation following upon what Lord Elibank has said? It relates to the regional system and the effect of decentralisation. I recall the system on the old London and North Eastern Railway. Instead of what really was three areas, we now have it on a larger scale of four or five areas with a Transport Commission and a Co-ordinating Committee. The point of this clause seems to be to get rid of the third authority of the three.
5.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2) (a) after "Executive" to insert:
"and of the Hotels and Docks and Inland Waterways Executives."
The noble Viscount said: This clause, as we have already heard, provides for the abolition of the Railway Executive. There are two other Executives which were set up under the 1947 Act and which, it seems to me, should be abolished at the same time: I refer to the Hotels
I cannot believe in the suggestion which has been made that because one of these authorities is abolished, it is the intention of the Government under the Bill that the services of those on that authority shall be lost to the railways.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L, [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Calverley, L

Lucas of Chilworth, L

Elibank, V.

Chorley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Stansgate, V.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Hare. L. (E. Listowel.)

Silkin, L.

Amwell, L.

Inman, L

Uvedale of North End, L.

Archibald, L.

Kenswood, L.

Winster, L.

Bingham, L (E. Lucan.)

Kershaw, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Furness, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Goschen, V.

Fairlie, (E. Glasgow.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Monsell, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Exeter, M.

Ridley, V.

Freyberg, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Swinton, V.

Gifford, L.

Willingdon, M.

Trenchard, V.

Hampton, L.

Waverley, V.

Hawke, L

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Llewellir, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Lloyd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ashburton, L.

Milne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Baden-Powell, L

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Bilsland, L.

Remnant, L.

Grey, E.

Blackford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brand, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Munster, E

Carrington, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cherwell, L.

Teviot, L.

Rothes, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Selborne, E.

Dormer, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Selkirk, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Waleran, L

Falmouth, V.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Executive and the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. The Hotels Executive, in my opinion, is a wholly unnecessary body. It is quite unnecessary to have dining cars and refreshment rooms run by entirely different staffs from the rest of the railways. If you complain about the state of a refreshment room to a station-master he says, "It has nothing to do with me or the railways. The responsibility rests with the Hotels Executive." In my view if ever there was a redundant body it is the Hotels Executive.
With regard to the other body set up under this Act, the Docks and Inland

1339
Waterways Executive, your Lordships will remember that the original intention was that there should be a grandiose body which should run all the docks in the country—that is to say not only railway docks, but the docks which were controlled by the big public authorities at ports like London and Liverpool and so on. Of course, that scheme fell through. The only things left for the Executive to control were the railway docks and also the canals. Surely, at this time, when we are considering modifying this Act, we should also abolish the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. These railway docks, before the war, were run by the railways quite efficiently. They did not require any extra staff. The same engineering departments which looked after the railways looked after the railway docks and harbours. At the present moment, I understand that in the matter of trucks which are shunted into the premises of docks and harbours there has to be a certain amount of clerical work which is quite redundant, and would not be necessary if these docks and harbours were looked upon as part of the one organisation.
Therefore I ask the Government whether they will consider including in this clause not only the abolition of the Railway Executive, but the abolition of the other two Executives, which seem to me to be redundant. There is another executive which deals with the canals, but it is a very small body. Your Lordships will understand just how small and insignificant this executive is when I say that the total tonnage carried by the canals under this executive is about 12 million tons, compared with 300 million tons by the railways. Surely we could telescope the duties of this executive with those of another department and do away with a great deal of extra labour and costs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 29, after ("Executive") insert ("and of the Hotels and Docks and Inland Waterways Executives").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
LORD BURDEN: First of all, may I say a word on the composition of the Hotels Executive? In the earlier stages the work of developing and co-ordinating the duties imposed on the Hotels Executive was carried out by my noble friend
1340
Lord Inman. To-day the Chairman is Sir Harry Methven, who is connected with the catering and hotel trade, and who, I believe, is giving his services without pecuniary reward in order to help develop this service. On the Executive there is Mr. F. G. Hole, who was chief hotels superintendent of the L.M.S. As an L.M.S. man, I know that he would never have risen to that position in the company if he had not been a man of outstanding ability. Thirdly, there is Mrs. Gaskin. I have some knowledge of her work through my connection with Sheffield. She built up from scratch in Sheffield an extremely successful business. Then, as part-time member, there is Mr. Ernest Wimble, who in the 'twenties started the Workers' Travel Association, which now is an organisation of great strength. Mr. Wimble has a vast experience of catering and hotel problems. Surely it must be agreed that catering in refreshment and dining rooms, together with the satisfactory running of hotels, is a highly technical and specialised industry, and that the proper co-ordination and running of railway services, goods and passenger, and catering activities are poles apart. I think it would be just as reasonable to argue that the Hotels Executive should run the railways as to argue the other way round. Surely it is only common sense to recognise that these are two separate businesses, which require quite different techniques. In my view, it would be simply disastrous if we reverted to the pre-war pattern of organisation.
I am confident that in a short space of time we shall see the fruits of the skill and knowledge of the Hotels Executive in the business for which they are responsible. Twelve hotels have already been disposed of—the details are given in the Annual Report of the Transport Commission—and my information is that there are now only one or two which are likely not to be remunerative in the near future. I believe it would not be hazarding too risky a guess to say that the hotels which are retained will soon be making a good return to the net revenue of the Commission.
I should like to say a further word in regard to dining cars. I think there is evidence that the public demand is changing, and the Hotels Executive are shaping their policy accordingly. They have a hundred or more buffet cars to cope with

1341
the increasing public demand for later meals on the trains. Soon, the stock joke of alleged comedians about the antiquity of the railway sandwich will become a thing of the past. Anyone who cares to look at the refreshment rooms at some of our larger termini must agree, unless there is a jaundiced, biased, prejudiced vision, that great changes to the good have been effected—what might in fairness be described as a revolutionary improvement. Bearing in mind the capital restrictions, the good work will be continued. If the organisation which is now working so well is broken up, I submit that it would be a most retrograde step—indeed, nothing short of a disaster. Generally speaking, station refreshment rooms, and for that matter, some hotels, were not the most creditable of the pre-war performances of the railway companies.
May I add a word about the attacks, or rather reflections, upon the efficiency of the present set-up? I would not have spoken this evening on this Amendment but for what was said in the course of the Second Reading debate. These reflections are having a most unsettling effect on the staff. As I have already suggested to your Lordships, the excellent work started by my noble friend Lord Inman and continued by the present Hotels Executive is likely to bring satisfactory returns. The staff at the Executive's headquarters number 268, and if the Executive is abolished someone will have to do the work.
With regard to the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, I have only one word to say in relation to the suggested break-up there, and that is to answer in the words of the present Minister of Transport. He said, in another place:
"I have been asked also about the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. I want to join in the tribute paid both to the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. I should like, if I may, formally for the record, to say that there is no intention to hand to the reorganised railways the docks now administered by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. Special consideration may arise in particular cases, but the general intention is that they should be administered separately, though, of course, under the Transport Executive."
It may be taken as a sign of grace that for once I quote the Minister of Transport in support of my case. I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment.
6.2 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: As my name is connected with this Amendment, I should like to say a few words. I will start with the Docks and Inland Waterways. As I understood it, when the Act of 1947 went through, it was the intention to bring the whole of the docks in the country under this Executive—the Port of London, Mersey Docks, Glasgow and Clyde Navigation, and so on. That has not been done, and only the railway docks have come under this organisation. I was credibly informed the other day that one of the most paying parts of the Southern Railway was Southampton Docks. Those docks in the early days were created by the old South Western Railway. The graving dock, which I had the pleasure of seeing constructed between the two wars, was laid by the Southern Railway, and their ingenuity, money and staff went into its erection. If we are to try to make these railway regions pay again, I cannot see that it is necessary to run separate executives. The railways did this work efficiently before, and I am sure they could do it efficiently again. In many cases they created these docks, and they are part and parcel of the railway organisation.
With regard to the question of hotels and restaurant cars, between the two wars they were most efficiently run. Mr. Arthur Towle was a most eminent controller, and under him was Mr. Hole of the L.M.S.; they ran their hotels and restaurant cars extremely well—if I may say so, without casting too much reflection, a great deal better than they are run to-day. The other day I travelled on a train to Liverpool. It was a very clean train, but in the restaurant car they came round and said: "Will you have soup or fish, meat or chicken, or cheese or sweet?"—there was no bill of fare. I think that is general with all the refreshment cars now. We are trying to set Britain up as a worthwhile country to visit, and we have many interesting things to show. But one thing the foreigner wants to know when he arrives on these shores is what he is going to eat—what sort of soup, what son of fish, what sort of meat, and so on, he, is going to get. Six years after the war, I feel that there might be an improvement there. I feel that if these services were handed back

1343
to the railways, who ran them most efficiently in the past, we should get a better service.
There is another important aspect. In the past, the hotels were run as part of the railway service, and you could often book a ticket for a week-end, with hotel accommodation thrown in, at a fixed price. If we are to do away with the Railway Executive, I should very much like to see these two Executives abolished as well, their jobs given back to the Commission and delegated to the railway authorities. I feel strongly about the railways. My family have been connected with them for many years and I, like the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and others, want to see them prosperous once again and doing their job. They are by far the most important part of the financial side of this Bill, representing a capital expenditure of something like £800 million, although the road is important and represents about £100 million. I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment, which I regard as an important one.
LORD INMAN: My name has been mentioned, and I think I ought perhaps to say that for the first three years I was Chairman of the Hotels Executive. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, desires to be fair in his comments, but he seems to have forgotten the fact that there has been a war since the time he talked of. In pre-war days good quality food was available in quantity. Let me give one concrete illustration. In pre-war days the good old roast beef of England could be obtained in any quantity. Today, owing to rationing, all that is available is two-thirds of one pennyworth of meat for each person served with a meal. What can you do with two-thirds of one pennyworth of meat? The same is true of the other items of diet—I do not want to weary your Lordships with the details, although I could give them. We must remember that in our own homes and in the hotels we cannot to-day have the food we had in pre-war days. The railways have suffered in the same way as other catering establishments.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, suggested that the Hotels Executive was redundant. With all respect, I should like to ask one or two questions. In spite of
1344
the fact, as my noble friend Lord Burden has said, that some twelve hotels have been sold—and there are good and sufficient reasons why they were sold—there are still forty-five hotels left. Any man who has been associated with hotel work will tell you that the running of hotels is an experienced job. I may be told that they were run by the old railway companies. I agree that since 1947 great schemes have been carried out, schemes which have, in the opinion of many people, enormously improved the services rendered, and also greatly reduced the cost. For example, there are laundries established for the hotels, not of one region, but of various parts of the country; there are bottling cellars; there are workshops and various other phases of life which cater not for two or three hotels but for all the hotels. I do suggest that if the Hotels Executive is to be abolished there will have to be set up some kind of body of experienced caterers and hoteliers to deal with these vast undertakings coming under the control of the Transport Commission.
LORD GIFFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Inman, has told us about these laundries and other ancillaries. May that not be part of the reason why the costs have gone up? I always understood that in many cases it was much better to do work of that kind by contract, than to go into a large business knowing little about it. That is the general experience throughout business. With regard to improvements, everybody has said bow greatly improved the hotels have been. I suggest that the L.M.S. hotels were well run in the old days, and were known for their good food and everything else.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: So were the L.N.E.R.
LORD GIFFORD: Of course, there have been improvements. There have been improvements in refreshment rooms, but those of us who know Victoria Station know well that there has not been the slightest alteration in the refreshment rooms there; even now the only sandwich obtainable is one made of spam. I think forty-five hotels are far too big a unit. It is bigger than any hotel unit in the

1345
world. The experience of managements like the Savoy is that the running of hotels is a highly personal thing. Unless the Executives can visit very frequently those hotels in their own chain, then they fail. I would suggest that forty-five hotels are far too big a unit. It would be much better to break them up into smaller units, under their particular regions, which could be personally supervised much better by their executives.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There has been a rather interesting division of opinion on this subject, and I do not think there is any harm in that. I am going to say something which is in the opposite direction to what I said in the last Amendment. In regard to the railways, we think that reorganisation is something to be carried out at once, and we think it should not be held up in any way. So far as the other Executives are concerned, we think that it would be wrong to specify any change at all for the time being. Frankly, we are not enamoured of the statutory Executives appointed by a Minister. We have powers, if necessary, to abolish all Executives.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And also under the other Act.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Not all. We take powers under this to abolish all Executives. May I reply to a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden? There are certain things we fear in regard to the docks. One is that the docks should not be placed under a regional railway organisation. We also hold the same view in regard to the canals and inland waterways. Equally, they will not be put under the railway regional organisation. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in moving this Amendment, mentioned that the canals were not carrying a very great deal of traffic. But I understand that it is the policy of those in charge—the Railway Executive—to maintain and develop those parts of the canals which showed commercial possibilities. That was the policy which they were pursuing. The Docks and Inland Waterways Executive have come in for some criticism, in view of these schemes which have not been very popular in various parts of the country. Let us face it frankly. So far as running their inland waterways and their docks is concerned,
1346
they have done a very good job. I do not think there are two opinions on that subject, and we should pay full regard to the nature of their duties.
I should like to say one word about the Hotels Executive, very much on the same lines as what I have already said. In both cases we are leaving it to the Commission to say what sort of relationship should exist. But we have a clear idea—as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Inman—that catering and hotels must be run by hoteliers, and not by railway men. I think that is fundamental, whatever the control may be, one way or the other. If there is one subject in the world of which people will always complain it is the way they are fed. Anybody on the Kitchen Committee of this House is fully aware of this fact. I happened to be forced down in an aeroplane in Manchester, and I entered the Midland Hotel at one o'clock in the morning. One o'clock is a severe testing time for any hotel, and I will say that the night staff could not have taken more trouble about looking after me—they had no idea who I was—whoever it had been, or at any time of the day. I pay my full respects to the right staff.
I would agree, on the whole, with the noble Lord, Lord Inman, that progress is being made in the catering services and hotels under the Hotels Executive. Al the moment we do not intend in any way to disturb that, but will await whatever advice, guidance or request may be made from the Commission in regard to the relationship which exists between it and these two Executives.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am sorry indeed that the noble Earl does not think the Hotel Executive is a redundant body. Surely before the war the hotels, the refreshment rooms and the dining cars were all run by the railways and they were all run extremely well. With regard to the question of the Docks Executive, there also, it seems to me, is a case of redundancy. The railways were running these docks before the war and they did not have a special staff to do it. They had the same engineers and when wagons and carriages went into the docks they did not have to pass under different administration. Now all that has changed. What I have been advocating is an attempt to

1347
reduce some of the cost of running these services by cutting out unnecessary duplication.
LORD INMAN: The noble Viscount talks about reducing the costs. I should like to point out that the cost of running the Hotels Executive is less than the cost of running the catering service on the old railway companies.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I know nothing whatever about the figures, but there is redundancy by having a special body dealing with hotels—the noble Lord cannot get away from it. It was done by the railways before. I do not propose to go to Division on this Amendment and I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNTSWINTON: Before the noble Viscount moves to the next Amendment, may I say that I think it would be convenient if we took Amendments 60 and 61 together? They are very similar, and I suggest we might debate the whole issue on the two combined.
6.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) to insert as a new paragraph:
"(d) for the ascertainment as far as is reasonably practical of the receipts and expenditure of each area and for the results to be included in the annual accounts of the Commission."
The noble Viscount said: The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggests that we should take these two Amendments together. They are similar in some respects, but in other respects there is quite a big difference. The object of this Amendment is to add a subsection to the effect that the railways should ascertain as far as is reasonably practicable the receipts and expenditure of each area. If the railways are to be divided up into areas, it seems to me essential that the different bodies—the management and the board, or whoever they may be—should know the result of their operations, and the only way they can do that is by knowing what are the receipts as well as the expenditure of their area. The figures of receipts are not so easy to get as they are in the
1348
electricity or gas undertakings. There, as your Lordships realise, the different gas and electricity boards in the areas are responsible for presenting a statement to Parliament, giving receipts and expenditure. What I a masking for is that the Railway Boards, when they are set up, should also be responsible for the same duty.
It is difficult to collect railway receipts. In the old days the railways had the clearing house organisation which enabled them to know how much of any particular service went to each individual unit. It is said that that service was very expensive. The other day I was looking up the figures, and it appears that just before the war there were something like 500,000 railway men, and of that number 2,000 were occupied in railway clearing activities. That is not a very large percentage of the whole. But I am not asking for a very detailed statement of receipts, because during the war, as your Lordships realise, a great reduction had to be made in manpower which was employed in unnecessary services, and one thing which was cut down was the railway clearing house. I am only asking that this matter should be very carefully considered, so that each area of the railways should, if possible, know what are their receipts; otherwise I do not see how the managements will be able to know how the railways stand.
There is another Amendment to be moved like this one. I am afraid I do not agree with what has been said concerning operating statistics and costs. There are numerous operating statistics given out by the Executive, but as the system exists at present the different regions do not know what their receipts are. The system is that when you send something by rail, the amount of the charge is credited to each particular area in which the goods are received. Those goods may be transmitted over several other areas, but those areas get no credit for them. So of course it is quite impossible for any area manager to know where he stands. I hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to consider the question as to how areas are to be established, and more detailed matters in connection with the administration, will see that a big attempt is made to enable the

1349
receipts accruing to the different areas to be credited to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 36, after subsection (c) insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
LORD WOLVERTON: As my name is coupled with this Amendment, I rise to support my noble friend, Lord Falmouth. I think this is one of the most important Amendments we have had or these railway clauses. If we are going to decentralise our railways, it is very important that the decentralised regions should know approximately how they stand with regard to their income and expenditure. We have not been told very much, but as one visualises the organisation it will probably not be run by one man, but rather by a committee or a board. If we are going to get the best people possible for these bodies, we must give the new boards or committees a good deal of delegated responsibility. Personally, I visualise that as with the Electricity Board and the Gas Board there will probably be a number of capital schemes put up to the Commission, who will study these capital programmes very carefully and say "Yes" or "No"; and then, if the Commission's assent has been given to the scheme, the necessary working capital will be provided.
It is vital that these regions should know how they stand—whether they are making or losing money on these projects. Unless some form of regional accounts is kept, I cannot see how that is to be done. It may mean setting up some form of modified clearing house so that there may be, if necessary, some form of pooling accounts, some central accounting system whereby they each get a share of the receipts according to the size of the region. Unless something of the kind is done, I cannot see how we can proceed with the decentralisation of the railways which is necessary. I heartily support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
LORD GIFFORD: Although I was able heartily to support my noble friends in their first Amendment, I cannot agree with them on this one. I think the cost of setting up again even a modified form of railway clearance would be most excessive. Moreover, it would involve a tremendous amount of work of classification which had to be carried on in the old days by the railway agents; and this
1350
would inevitably lead to a great many extra accountants having to be employed. If there is some arbitrary way of getting the results which the noble Lords want, I am in favour of it; but I am not in favour of setting up any large and expensive clearing system once again.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, are very sound. There is a further point. This Bill does a great many things, but it does not denationalise the railways. In the old days, when there were, as the noble Lord has said, bur main-line railways, the railway clearing house or something of that nature was essential because the boards of those companies had to go before annual general meetings and justify their existence or defend themselves against criticism. There is no need now for individual areas to do that, and therefore no need for the expenditure that would be necessary to carry this through. Moreover, I do not see exactly what help it is going to be to the efficiency of the railway companies. I suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, that if this organisation were set up now, the Southern Region would come out top of the class., followed fairly closely by the Great Western; the London and Midland area would be trailing a little behind; the London and North Eastern would probably be hovering between black and red; and Scotland would be permanently in the red. I do not think it is going to encourage the various areas to know exactly where they are going to be in the list—especially those which inevitably, by reason of their geographical situation and other factors, are going to be near the bottom of the list. I hope, in the circumstances, that Lord Falmouth will not press his Amendment.
6.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have some sympathy with the ideas behind these Amendments, because we all want, when we get decentralisation, to have some sort of yardstick by which we can measure effort, stimulate the successful ones and also get some standard of comparison. But I must say, echoing what has been said by the last two speakers, that so far as costs go there are enormous practical difficulties. Freight trains, for instance, may pass through any number of regions; freight rates may be fired at one end or

1351
the other or intermediately. How are you going to apportion between regions the use of rolling stock or of repair facilities? You may, for instance, take on coal in one place or another, and you may have additional wagons hitched on half-way through the journey. How are you to allocate overheads—track, stations, signalling, et cetera? Before the war separate accounts had to be kept because there were four separate railways. We are not denationalising railways but even when those separate accounts had to be kept the financial results of individual companies were never regarded as a basis for charges. I do not think they were ever considered as a true index of comparative efficiency as between one railway and another. Those factors are brought sharply home when we remember that the financial results of the railways were struck only after extensive pooling arrangements.
Take one example—the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, will correct me if I am wrong. All parcel receipts up and down the country were completely pooled as well as the great proportion of passenger and freight receipts. It is true that some of that pooling was to avoid wasteful competition, but, in the main, it arose out of the fact that a great part of the traffic receipts was identifiable in reality only with the total network and not with the individual items which composed it. Tonnages and the range of haul are known. Those, no doubt, can be recorded and costed, to some extent, but that is not everything, because they are not always the main constituents of the costs. There are many more constituents: there are terminal charges, handling charges, marshalling operations, which vary, and a number of other factors as well. In fact, the network became so highly developed that you would never have subdivided, or attempted to subdivide, these pooled receipts unless you had had separate ownership or separate financial interests. As has been said, that was accomplished only by the maintenance of a clearing house.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, said: "Let us get back something like the clearing house." It was a very costly business and I am advised that at present-day costs—if you like, even more economically run in regard to staff, though I doubt whether it would be—it
1352
might easily cost £1 million a year to set it up and run it. Let us see what would happen. Every single ticket and consignment note with freight—and there would be millions and millions of them—would have to be checked through and allocated as appropriate, and even then the figures very likely would not be a proper reflection of the regions' efficiency. You may say that a manager cannot manage unless he knows not only his expenditures but whether his earnings cover his expenditures. Broadly, that is true, but it would not be a fair test, in the case of the regions, as has been pointed out. The rich regions would be subsidising the poor regions, as has always been fundamental in railway operations. If you are a bad region—I mean "bad" in the sense of "expensive to run"—you must not be unduly despondent because you are "in the red." Equally, the local management of a lucrative region ought not to be complacent because it sees that it has an excess, and probably a fairly good excess, of receipts over expenditures.
Let us take Scotland. As has been said, it really would not stimulate Scotland at all to be given an elaborate costing system which proved that it was making a heavy loss. It might be running more efficiently under its local management with local knowledge, and giving a better service to its people, than an undertaking in a densely populated area with much valuable freight and passenger traffic. Then there are things like central wagon pooling. They produce enormous economies. You certainly cannot get away from that. Even now, the Commission has, I believe, never found it practicable in its published accounts to apportion the central charges among its various activities, even among railways, docks, ships, road haulage, road passenger services and hotels. It would be much more difficult to try to apportion it by regions. I appreciate Lord Falmouth's experience with his Electricity Board, but there he has an incomparably easier proposition. He has his problems, and no doubt they are considerable, but, after all, it is a self-contained entity. He gets his electricity and he sells it in his own region, and he has not a great deal that goes outside.
When we come to statistics, as apart from costs, there is a great deal more to

1353
be said for it. The railways produce very useful regional statistics. It is quite possible that something more in the way of providing statistics of operations by areas could be done. There is power under Section 94 of the Act of 1947, to enable the Minister to direct the form of accounts and statistics. Very likely—in fact, I am fairly sure—theCommission would want to do that, and every region would want to have it so far as it can be done in the decentralisation scheme. I am certainly ready to look at this matter and see how far the figures could be broken down by areas to meet the points made. The existing section may be adequate—it probably is. It may be said that that is a permissive power. I am quite ready to see whether some form of words can be devised. For reasons which have been given by others as well as by myself, I cannot pretend that it is likely to come very close to what the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, indicated, because we cannot face the vast cost of a clearing house without getting even the old results from it. But when it conies to statistics, and maybe certain other things, in operation—and this concerns more closely Amendment No. 61 than Amendment No. 60—I should be quite ready to see whether we could devise some form of words which would usefully meet the case. If we can, then we will put them down on Report.
In conclusion, I would say this: do not do something which is expensive and which will not really give you good results. But, equally, do not try to impose a straitjacket and devise, or try to devise, some form or formula to which you are going to tie both the centre and the regions in the future, because I am sure that in a matter like this you are going to learn as you go along. Nothing is worse than to put into a straitjacket some organisation not yet born and which has its growth before it—growth which will be different in different region, to meet their varying experience and needs. Let us be careful, if we do have a form of words, to make it elastic and not to put it into a straitjacket, an action which we should afterwards regret.
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope that the noble Viscount will leave the matter where it is. Even in the old days the railway companies were unable to divide
1354
up their area receipts and expenditures in the way suggested. Nor were the figures publishable. For the Transport Commission to try to divide up area expenses and receipts will be a quite impossible task, having regard to the overlapping that has taken place. The noble Viscount's own Amendment in-chides the words: "as far as is reasonably practical." Either the figures which he suggests should be published have to be completely accurate, or they must not be published. His own words "as far as is reasonably practical," show that he himself does not hope to arrive at really accurate figures.
LORD HAWKE: Many of us regard this as a very important Amendment—I am speaking in support of the second of the two Amendments, that standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and myself. Lord Bridgeman very much regrets that he cannot be here because he would have supported me strongly in what I am going to say. We all agree on the fundamental point of organisation, which is to decentralise. But from that springs a certain matter of psychology. We believe in the doctrine of giving maximum authority to the man on the spot. There is no politics in this. Probably, many people on all sides of the House agree with that view. All thinking men are beginning to realise that the defects of the nationalised industries may well spring from the fact that, first of all, they are centralised, and, secondly, that it is a functionary centralisation—in other words, the board of functionaries has authority over functionaries at the lower level, and thus override the men on the spot. So what we stand for is regional control of operation, with centralised overall control of major policy, together with the centralised control of functions where the advantages of the centralised control more than outweigh the disadvantages of taking away the control from the regions
Of course, there is room for a difference of opinion in the drawing of the frontiers between the centre and the regions. That is a matter for the Minister, the Commission and the scheme-framers to consider. My greatest fear in regard to this Bill and to the railways in general is that the railways may become a permanent burden on the taxpayers of this country. If the railways

1355
are to pay, we believe that regionalism is absolutely essential, with an esprit de corps among the staff including the regional general manager. If you give the regional general manager maximum authority, how can that authority possibly be complete unless by a monetary yardstick he knows where he stands from year to year? How can he see what the results of his decisions are, except in cash? Unless you find some way of apportioning that cash to him he loses interest in his decisions. In Russia he pays with his head when things go wrong. In this country, he should at least pay with a red figure somewhere in his annual report. We think it is absolute necessary that he should know how things go.
The statistics which are promised are not the same as the figures we have in mind. One must remember that railways are a disease. One can see hundreds of small boys writing down engine numbers, and I know two general managers whose delight is to play with toy trains. Without some monetary yardstick there is inevitably a tendency in all railway operators towards perfectionism regardless of cost. If you remove the monetary yardstick the general manager will be a producer of services and good statistics; he will not regard himself primarily as a producer of new revenue, which is what we want him to be. Lord Wolverton made very well the point about capital expenditure. The sky is the limit to the amount of money that can be spent upon railways, and proved to be more or less profitably spent. But there again this is a wholesome corrective. If the regional general manager knows that he has to produce a return on his money, he will be much more careful with the types of scheme which he is willing to sponsor. As an example, there is not an Eastern regional manager who would not like to tear down Liverpool Street Station to-morrow; but if he has to earn interest on the million or two pounds it would cost to build up a new station, his outlook is going to be a very different one. If all money is centralised, the demands for capital expenditure will be far greater and far less sound than they otherwise would be.
The arguments against this proposal are twofold. One which has not been deployed by the Government may, I
1356
suspect, influence their minds in the background. It is that they fear that if it were possible to show that some regions were profitable and others were not, it might hinder them in bringing in overall fare adjustments. I do not think that that need worry us very much. It happened often before the war. Then there is the question of cost. I believe there is some misapprehension as to what we want. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Falmouth is asking for a little more than I am. He is asking for a railway clearing house, which is a very elaborate organisation, though the percentage cost of that railway clearing house as against railway receipts is not a very formidable amount. But I am told that an arrangement could be made without a railway clearing house—a method for the nominal apportionment of receipts and for the cost of such centralised subjects as the law department, the police, wagon control, advertisements, perhaps some repairs, and soon, and also for the working expenses of through traffic. We do not demand that these figures should be absolutely exact. We demand a notional arrangement for distribution.
These things would provide a most valuable comparison from year to year, because once the system had been established the regions could see whether or not they were improving on the previous year. Moreover, they would be able to study the results of other regions and learn thereby. We believe that some such arrangements are essential if the railways are to pay their way. Whether the assurance of my noble friend the Deputy Leader is sufficient to cover those points, I am not quite sure—I should have to study it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not give any precise assurance. I said we should see what we could produce. It may be that what we produce will be so unhelpful that it will not satisfy anybody. As Lord Elibank has said, it might be better to leave it where it is. I do not want to stop my noble friend but, quite frankly, I should not go in for spending even a sum short of £1 million for a clearing house to produce costs which really are not going to be any good to anybody, and indeed might be misleading.
LORD HAWKE: I am assured that there is no question of the necessity for producing a clearing house, and I am

1357
glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank has been able to be prayed in aid by my noble Leader—he does not always agree with him. I would ask my noble Leader, when he gives further consideration to this matter, to try to arrange that the auditors of the Commission shall have an opportunity of stating their views.
LORD TEYNHAM: If we are going to have decentralisation, area managers should be allowed to know the financial position of their area. With regard to the wording of the Amendment, we have had certain assurances from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that he will show the working results in each area, and I hope the noble Viscount will devise some words which will be effective to that end. That is all we are asking. I consider that this is a very important Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It is essential to have the costs of management. I hope that under the scheme when it is brought about those who are responsible for the running of the transport will be enabled to have some contact with their expenditure and their returns.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I cannot go further than I have done. If we put in certain words it will be as an indication of what we should like to see come about. We are extremely anxious that we should get what I have called this yardstick. That is why I say that if I put some words into this Bill, I do not want to be told afterwards that, having put them in, I and the Minister of Transport are making ourselves responsible for producing a scheme which will give a detailed system of accounts, showing the results as between each area. On that understanding—and I do not go further than that—I am prepared to ask the Minister of Transport to consult the experts on the way in which it could be done.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I wish to suggest that some form should be got out whereby the receipts in the different areas could be properly shown. That is what I am asking for. I am sure the noble Viscount will consider this w quickly as possible and put down an Amendment for the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (6) (a), the first being after "directly concerned," to insert "either." The noble Earl said: I think I ought to explain, before moving this Amendment, that I am a director of a transport company. This part of the Bill comes under the heading of the organisation of railways. If your Lordships will look at subsection (6) (a) of Clause 14, I think you will agree that under the arrangements set up by this clause there is a possibility that road passenger transport may also come in. This subsection seems to me wide enough to permit the transfer to this authority, whatever it may be, of the control and management of bus companies. In other words, it might be used as an undesirable extension of the principle of the same board exercising control and management over both road and rail transport, and thus preventing healthy and reasonable competition between the two. That is my fear; and if that fear is not to be realised then my Amendment, or something like it, should be accepted. A possible case in point is the closing down of a branch line, or something of that kind, and the problem of supplying alternative road transport. That would be not a fresh conundrum but one that has been solved in practice without invoking any statutory power. In the unlikely event of its being necessary to invoke statutory power, this could be done under Sections 2 and 14 of the Act of 1947. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 25, after the second ("concerned") insert ("either").—(The Earl of Rothes.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: May I add a few words? I do not want to say much because I shall have something to say at a later stage on a similar subject. When I first read the clause it seemed to me that under it the Commission could run road passenger transport, In my own view this is simply a tidying-up Amendment in a clause which by itself must come up at this stage. I will not say any more at this point, except that I agree in general that the railways should not have anything to do with the running of road transport.
LORD GIFFORD: May I say that it seems to me that if this is not altered, there would be a danger of other areas' schemes coming into existence under this section?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lords for the brevity with which they have spoken on this Amendment—a most refreshing quality which the whole House enjoys. Noble Lords are correct in saying that if this Amendment were carried it would remove the possibility of the railway scheme including any reference to road passenger transport. Frankly, we are put in this position. We do not want, of course, to resuscitate area schemes as such, but there are a number of occasions when joint action may be necessary, particularly in the case of closing down branch lines, where it may become the duty of the Commission to supply a bus service of one character or another. And we are not able to say at this stage that we can avoid this. In fact, I think that at no stage can we say that entirely. I would remind noble Lords who have spoken that there is a considerable measure of safeguard in the Bill itself, particularly on the bus side.
In the first place, the Commission cannot acquire any additional companies except with the permission of the Minister. That is laid down in Clause 16 (5). Moreover, the passenger transport schemes laid down in the 1947 Act will be abolished or withdrawn under Clause 16 (1), if the Committee agree to that when we come to it. What I think is much more important is that the Commission now come under the licensing system and they cannot run buses except by means of a licence—we shall be discussing this later. The Minister has also power to require the Commission to dispose of the majority holding which gives them a controlling interest in bus companies. I would add this point, which I think is germane to what Lord Gifford has said: that the Commission have not the power to dissolve bus companies. Therefore, these companies, such as they are, will continue to exist, unless they are brought to an end with the permission of the Minister. I say, with reservation, that I think it would be very difficult to form an area scheme without dissolving companies which exist at the present time.
1360
I would add that we are anxious—and I think we are in entire agreement here—that the bus organisation, the road passenger organisation, should be run by bus men who understand it. We feel that that is important, and we should like to have something which we could put into the Statute which would ensure that. I am, however, a little at a loss to know precisely how that can be done. It may be that noble Lords will prefer to examine this matter more closely when the scheme comes along. The scheme will, of course, be in greater detail, and it may be that that will be a more appropriate time to make this point. I say, with respect, that we cannot at the moment exclude the Commission from running bus services in certain places where other people, for one reason or another, may be unwilling to do so. A full opportunity will be afforded, at the time when the scheme comes forward, to discuss this in greater detail. At the moment, I would ask noble Lords to let this Bill go forward now and see how matters go when the scheme comes along.
LORD HAWKE: With regard to the chief disquiet which I had in my mind, I gather from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that our views are shared by the Government. We certainly do not want to see railways operating buses. We should rather like them to own shares in bus companies, but we do not want to see them operating buses. It seems to me that subsection 6 (a) of the clause opens a very wide door for the Commission of the day, taking their policy from the Government of the day, to start operating buses, which is a thing the Government of the day do not want, and we do not want. So I should have thought that between now and the Report stage the noble Earl might manage to find some formula of words which would cover what we want and at the same time leave open his little loophole for use on the very rare occasions when the railways might have to own buses to replace a railway where no one else would operate a bus service.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply, but I confess that in some respects I am rather disappointed. He says that the Government view is that power must be

1361
retained for road passenger transport to be included in a railway scheme. I cannot understand why he is not content with the power that already exists under the 1947 Act, which enables them to run a road service if it is necessary to do so. He cited the illustration of the shutting down of a branch line, or an extension of a railway service. I would remind him in that connection that under the Road Traffic Act, 1930—I think I am right in saying this—licensing authorities have the right to direct, as a condition of the licence, that certain services, even if they are unremunerative, shall be run. It therefore seems to me that, there are already ample safeguards: either some other firm will do what the railways require, in the event of the closing down of a branch line, or, if resort has to be had to statutory powers, there is the power under the existing Act. So I do not see quite why the noble Earl says he has to have this power under the railway scheme. If he will tell us that he will think about this matter further I will withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to put this point to the noble Earl. It is true that Section 2 of the 1947 Act includes the power of which he speaks. But if we are making a scheme for the railways should we not make a comprehensive scheme? Are we going to make a scheme which will suddenly pull powers out of another Act? We think it better to produce the best possible complete scheme. There is no suggestion of reintroducing area schemes, so I think we should be able to make our scheme a complete one.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I should like to ask the noble Earl what he means by a complete scheme. Presumably he means something which will cover feeder services. Does he mean running services instead of railway lines that are closed down? Does he also mean running feeder services throughout the area as a whole? I wonder whether the noble Earl can give me some sort of information about that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not intending to give the noble Lord much information about this scheme at present.
1362
The noble Lord talks about feeder services, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, speaks of operating buses. I should like to remind the noble Lords that the whole of this proposal is subordinate to licensing under the 1930 Act. If the Commission wish to start up anywhere, they must first get a licence. If they do not, they cannot start. We merely reserve to the Commission the right to operate in the event of their getting a licence. I suggest that that covers the point which noble Lords have in mind.
LORDHAWKE: I am not sure that it does. What we have in mind is trying to keep the railways from operating buses. We do not mind their owning shares in bus companies. I do not think the noble Earl has been able to satisfy us on that. I understood that the noble Earl who moved the Amendment thought Lord Selkirk might like to look again at this matter.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Approval and Amendment of reorganisation schemes
(5) The power conferred by this section on the Minister to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no order shall be made by the Minister under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
7.10 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert:
".Any power conferred by this Act on Her Majesty in Council shall be exercisable only by Order in Council, and subject as hereinafter provided, the Minister shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend Her Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act, and no further proceedings shall be taken in relation thereto except in pursuance of an Address presented to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Order may be made either in the form of the draft, or with such amendments as may have been agreed to by Resolutions of both Houses."
The noble Earl said: I believe that I am raising here an important Parliamentary point. I hope it is a point which will appeal to some Members on this side of the House and to some of those Member son the other side of the House who are conservatives with a little "c," as one noble Lord said yesterday. There really is no "catch" in it, and I assure the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House that I do not want to delay this Bill by introducing this matter.
Let me say at once that I am in favour of the system of statutory instruments. I do not believe for a moment that the complex system of government as it is to-day could be carried on without that system. I believe that the Negative Resolution procedure, or, in more important matters, the Affirmative Resolution procedure, is necessary and right, and that we could not carry on without it. There is a Committee sitting in another place now discussing this matter, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House contemplated summoning a Committee here. I know that he had this intention because he told me so; but it has had to be postponed during his absence. I do not want to pre-judge the matter, but it is my belief that no Government in modern conditions could go on without this power. They would become completely cluttered up. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that the procedure I am suggesting here would be adopted.
I believe that Parliament must legislate in the future on the line of laying down the skeleton of a scheme, leaving the sinews and muscles to be filled in more and more by means of statutory instruments. I do not want anybody to represent that I am not in favour of that view. But there may be rare and exceptional cases, of which I think this is one, where we are dealing with such an important matter and where the outline of the proposals is sketchy and indefinite, in which this procedure will be quite inappropriate. I will give your Lordships a simple illustration. The Government are confronted now with the difficulty of considering the Reform of the House of Lords. This is to be made all the more difficult because, unfortunately, the Conference, which I say frankly I had hoped for, does not look
1364
like taking place. Suppose the Government, confronted with this difficulty, came forward and said they were introducing a Bill, not to reform your Lordships' House but to give them power to promulgate a scheme which they could present to Parliament and which, if Parliament accepted it by an Affirmative Resolution, would become the law. There is not one of us who would not say that that would be an absolute abuse of the powers of legislation by statutory instrument. I purposely put an extreme case. I am perfectly certain that the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House will agree with me that no sane Parliamentarian would ever contemplate such a scheme as that.
What of the present scheme? Is it simply a scheme for adding by statutory instruments the sinews and muscles to a skeleton, or is it something much more than that? I maintain that the project in Clauses 14 and 15 is not a skeleton at all—it is a boneless wonder. We know absolutely nothing about it at all. The Government have come to Parliament and are asking for powers to promulgate a scheme, defining it in the most vague way—the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, actually said he was not going to air his views about it—and no one knows what the scheme is going to be. The Minister will decide who are the appropriate people to consult. Probably he will consult representatives of the employers and the trade unions, and he may consult all sorts and manner of authorities—the Band of Hope and the Band of Brothers, and anybody else he thinks suitable. Having heard their views, if he is a wise man, as he is, he will try to meet them. He will then promulgate his scheme. He has the right to put forward the scheme, with or without modifications. So far as I know, there is no legal limit to what is a modification. It will be his scheme. Having consulted all these eminent authorities, he will then come to Parliament and put forward his scheme, saying, "There is my scheme; take it or leave it." In other words, although the Minister will put it much more politely, there is no opportunity of a Committee stage. That seems to me the fundamental objection to this project.
When we look at his scheme, suppose that, on the whole, we like it, but that

1365
we think it has this, that or the other defect. Ought we not to be in a position to say that, while on the whole we think the scheme good, we should like one clause altered and another modified—that we should like an opportunity of moving Amendments? If the noble Viscount who is going to speak in opposition to me can give me an assurance, either in meal or malt, that we shall have an opportunity to move Amendments, so that the House can make their views felt in this way, I shall be happy and content. I am not trying to take a Party point of view but a Parliamentary point of view. I believe that it is essential that, when it looks at this scheme, Parliament should have an opportunity of amending it as it thinks necessary. I have put down my Amendment for this purpose. I have borrowed my words from the India Act of 1935, but I am not wedded to these particular words. Indeed, may be that the words in the next Amendment are just as suitable as mine for this purpose. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment and consider what to do about it on Report stage if the noble Viscount can assure me that when we get this scheme we shall have an opportunity of moving Amendments to try and hammer out a better scheme. One illustration I may give relates to Scotland. On Second Reading there was considerable discussion on Scotland and obviously Scottish Members are deeply concerned about this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Home, did his best to give them some assurance, but he was making bricks without very much straw, because he did not know any more than anyone else what this scheme will contain. That is a perfect illustration of the argument that when we see the scheme we should have the right to move Amendments. Unless we can have this assurance I shall seek to adopt a much more drastic course at a later stage.
I believe that what ought to be done is this. Under the existing Act of 1947 there are complete powers to do everything in Clause 14 without any act of Parliament at all. But the Under-Secretary stated, I think rightly, that this was such an important matter that it ought to be done by Act of Parliament. It is obvious that the whole future of the welfare of our railways is an immensely important matter from every
1366
point of view. I believe that it would have been better not to try to deal with this in this Bill—and I am honestly not seeking to delay the Bill. I should have asked these people to present me with a scheme; I should have had my consultations; I should have come to Parliament with that scheme and I should have had a Bill, so that I could bring the whole matter before Parliament in the usual way. I believe that it would be better, therefore, to leave Clauses 14 and 15 out of this Bill. But I do not want to make this a controversial or partisan speech. I thought it might be easier for the Government if they would accept some scheme on the lines of the Amendment I have indicated, to be sure that we shall have an opportunity—and that there will be opportunity in the other place—in this wholly exceptional case, of being able to consider this scheme in detail, and, if necessary, to move an Amendment to this, that, or the other section of it.
I am sorry to have been as long as I have, but this is an important matter. I emphasise again that I am a believer in this delegated legislation, and that I feel it is essential. But where there is a matter of exceptional importance—and this is a matter of exceptional importance—where no details at all are given by the Government (and I do not complain), where they really do not know What they are going to do (they cannot know at the present time), I say that to propound a scheme in the sense, that the Commission merely consult with people, and then present it to Parliament as a fait accompli, is quite unsatisfactory. It is, of course, the fact that Parliament can refuse to accept the scheme. But any Parliamentarian knows that that is a very different proposition from moving an Amendment. If the noble Viscount can satisfy me (I speak for myself, at any rate) that he will devise some method so that we have what is, in substance, a Committee stage, at which we can move Amendments, then I shall not press this matter further. But that is the minimum I want. I believe that it would be better to leave these clauses out of the Bill, and I do not think that would cause any delay. The Commission could at once get busy with their scheme. If you have a Committee stage, as I have often said, it is desirable to have a Report stage,

1367
and all the machinery that we have, and you would attain the end if you left out these clauses and did it the alternative way. For myself, I am content to meet the noble Viscount by an Amendment on these lines, or on the lines of the Amendment following, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, and the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron—I am not tied to a particular form of words. However, I do not think it is fair to ask Parliament to accept a scheme now, subject only to the right when they see the scheme to say: "We do not like it." There must be the right to move Amendments. I am sorry for the length of time I have occupied, but for those reasons I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Jowitt.)
LORD BILSLAND: I think it will save the time of the Committee if I speak now on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, which has a certain similarity to the next Amendment in the Marshalled List standing in my name. I want to ask the noble Viscount who will reply for an assurance on this matter, and if he is able to give that assurance I shall not then move my Amendment. I will not pursue—indeed I am not qualified to—the argument on procedure of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I want to be sure that there will be a full and free discussion on the Order when it is laid, so that if points of substance are raised, as may well be the case, the Order may be withdrawn, reconsidered and relaid in the light of the criticisms that may be made with regard to it. In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I submitted in detail the provisions which the Scottish Council, with which I am associated, considered as the minimum necessary to meet the primary needs and requirements in Scotland. They are, first, real devolution in the operation, maintenance and development of nationally owned transport services, and secondly, effective co-ordination of all forms of transport. The noble Earl, Lord Home, in his reply, while, I think, agreeing with the principle of devolution and co-ordination, said very little about the
1368
means by which these objectives were to be obtained. I appreciate that it was difficult for him to be explicit in advance of the submission by the British Transport Commission of their scheme for the reorganisation of the railways. But we in Scotland are left in a state of real concern that the scheme to be detailed may not meet what we conceive to be the Scottish need, and, in particular, that it may not provide for an adequate measure of devolution. It is for that reason that I ask for an assurance that there will be a full and free discussion when the Order is laid.
7.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is indeed an important Amendment, and the noble and learned Earl who moved it certainly has no need to apologise for having addressed the Committee at excessive length. I thought he addressed us concisely, and put the case, as one would expect from him, as well as it could be put. I should like to meet it equally fairly. The Committee will, I am sure, appreciate that procedure by a draft Order, subject to Amendment, is a very exceptional procedure. Indeed, I have been unable to find any case in which it was used except on the Government of India Act, 1935—and I expect the pundits on one side or the other would have turned another one up if it existed.
"Unique" is an adjective which is often misused, but I think I am right in saying that this was a unique procedure, devised on that particular occasion because the Government of India Act, 1935, was itself unique. It had features which had never been seen in any piece of delegated legislation before—inevitably, I dare say. I agree that you must have delegated legislation to-day, but I hope that Parliament will never be asked by a Government of any colour to carry delegated legislation to the extent that it was felt necessary to carry it in the Government of India Act, 1935. The amount of work in that Act which was left to be done by Orders was unbelievable. That Act was, in effect, a new Constitution for a sub-continent containing 400 million people and eleven provinces, and the intention was that the Act should, so to speak, be a foundation instrument through which India would develop to the same constitutional status as that of other members of the Commonwealth. It

1369
provided for a federal type of Constitution, but it included the most elaborate safeguards both for Indian minorities and for European servants of the Crown in India.
Although the Act contained, I think, 320 or more sections, it was felt necessary that in such a complex and important piece of legislation a vast amount of matters must be left over to be dealt with by Orders in Council, which were of enormous importance and which, in any other piece of legislation, would certainly have found their place in the Act itself. The Orders in Council not only covered matters relating to appointments in India, such as the salaries and emoluments of the Governor-General and judges of High Courts, but included provisions in regard to the franchise and the elections.
As the noble and learned Earl said, just imagine having a reform of the House of Lords and saying that it could be done by an Order in Council under an enabling Bill. But, as a matter of fact, that exactly what the Government of India Act did for India, because it left over the whole question of franchise and elections. Nothing could have been more difficult or more contentious, having regard to all the different communities in India and all the argument on one side or another whether and how far you were to have communal representation; how any system should be weighted, and so on. It was quite an amazing thing to put into an Order in Council. Inevitable it may have been, but it is, oddly enough, the exact counterpart of what the noble and learned Earl said. It would be an outrageous thing if we came and said, Let us legislate for the Reform of the House of Lords by an Order in Council under an enabling Bill."
It was because the India Act was so unique that, some provision had to be made by which these Orders in Council—every one of which would have justified a full dress Bill—could be dealt with in a way in which they could be debated clause by clause and amended. So this procedure was devised of having an Order laid which would be debatable in both Houses and amendable in both Houses. It was a procedure which I think noble Lords who experienced it—the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will remember it—will agree was cumbrous and complicated, and certainly the
1370
officials of both Houses will recollect that it was extremely complicated to work as between the two Houses. There was a Committee in one House which got to one stage, and, then moving, so to speak, in echelon, another Committee here moved forward then that halted and somebody overtook, and there was a "to-ing" and "fro-ing" between the Houses. Anybody who had experience of that, either as a Member of Parliament or as an official, will pray Heaven that they will not have a complex procedure of that kind again. A great deal of good will was exercised but, of course, that procedure could easily take as long—and, indeed, longer, if people wanted to hold up something—as an Act of Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Bilsland said very fairly that he wanted to be sure that there was an opportunity for both Houses to discuss the railway scheme, not just as a general proposition, but to look at all the details of it before an Order was made. He said something about freediscussion—that, of course, there will be. I am not quite sure whether he was asking that there should be a free vote. He is a good enough Parliamentarian to know that, as in the case of some things I was asked about to-day, I am not prepared to deal with a hypothetical case by giving an unqualified undertaking in a matter of this sort. But, this procedure which we have laid down, and which has been used in the House before, has been particularly devised so that without running through a Committee stage, or having a special Bill, both Houses of Parliament can consider not only the general principles as on Second Reading debate, but all the details. That is accomplished by laying an Order in draft, and Parliament has found it a very practical way.
It is quite true that we cannot formally move an Amendment, but when a scheme comes forward, both Houses, I should imagine, would first of all say, "Well, broad and large, we think it is a good scheme"—because if everybody thinks it is a thoroughly bad scheme, then the Minister will have to take it away. But as very likely may happen, both Houses will express the opinion, "it is a good idea in principle. We like it, but here and there we think it goes wrong—may be over a Scottish thing We think you have overlooked this, or this would be better than that." I remember that we.

1371
had long discussions over details of regulations which were laid in draft about compensation. It will be open to everybody to express their opinion on the general and on the detail. Then it will be for the Minister to consider, but, after all, for the Minister to consider whether he should invite the House to accept or reject an Amendment. It will be for the Minister to consider whether he should ask the House to take the scheme as it stands or whether, having heard the debate and the criticisms of details, he thinks it would be wise to take the scheme back.
May I put the matter in this way? If the Government come to the House with a measure like this Transport Bill and move the Second Reading and they are beaten on Second Reading, that is a vote of confidence, and the Government have to go out. I do not say you could not come down with a tremendously important Order in Council and put it before the House, and say, "Well, if I am beaten on it, it is a vote of confidence." But generally the whole of this procedure by which the Order is laid in draft is in order that it may not be treated in any sense as a vote of confidence, but may be treated as giving both Houses of Parliament the opportunity for full, frank and detailed discussion on it.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Viscount is saying something important. There is nothing in the Bill which provides for laying in draft. Am I wrong?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, indeed. Subsection (5) says:
"The power conferred by this section on the Minister to make orders shall be exercise-able by statutory instrument, and no order shall be made by the Minister under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved…"
EARL JOWITT: This is so important that the noble Viscount will forgive my following it up. Is this the procedure: that there is, first of all, a draft laid, and then we can have a discussion on it; that document is taken back by the Minister, and then he proposes a new document or, at any rate, a document which is no longer a draft, and on that second document we have the discussion as to whether or not we give it our affirmative approval?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is laid in draft in order to make the distinction. We have done it before with regulations. I want to be absolutely fair with the House. Suppose by some miracle everybody thought that this was an inspired document, and everyone in both Houses rose up and called the Minister blessed and said this was a lovely scheme, it would go through with acclamation. It would then be all over bar the shouting and the scheme would come into effect. But there might be criticism and it is quite true that it would still be open to the Minister, if he liked, to ride roughshod over all criticism and to say, "In spite of all that, I ask the House to approve it." But the very fact that you lay the thing in draft in order to invite a discussion on its merits and not, as I have put it, in a sort of Second Reading, vote of confidence, atmosphere, makes the Minister, if he is wise, pay a good deal of attention to what is said in the House.
I have known several occasions where an Order has been made in draft. I remember a case in which the noble and learned Earl withdrew a regulation laid in draft because we were not sure whether we had given legal effect to the scheme. He said, rightly, "I think this is right, but I am not sure: it has been criticised by great lawyers and I should like to look at it again." There was another case where we had some difficulty in trying to gauge how we were to give compensation to people who had reasonable expectation that their job would go on for some time. There was no Party issue involved, and we discussed it at Great length. My recollection is that a regulation, as it was in this case, which could have been made under the Order, was laid in draft in order that the House might have just that kind of discussion.
It is perfectly true that if the Minister were foolish enough and got the support of his colleagues—and a foolish Minister would not always get the support of his colleagues—it would still be competent for him to say, "In spite of all criticism, I am going ahead." I may say that we do not have foolish Ministers in a Conservative Administration, or at any rate Ministers as foolish as that. The very fact that you submit this as an instrument laid in draft invites just that kind of

1373
criticism. It may be that as a result of future deliberations of Committees we may evolve some other procedure by which statutory instruments will be subject to some form of amendment. The more we have considered this the more difficult we have found it. I will tell your Lordships why. If both Houses were entirely composed of single-minded people who wanted to get business done in a business-like way, we could probably proceed quickly. But when there is a possibility of filibustering and you produce a statutory instrument of perhaps twenty pages, it is like giving the canary to the cat; it is an invitation to anybody to make trouble. But this is the way we propose to proceed; and our Parliamentary system being what it is, I think it is giving a real chance to the House.
Play has been made with the statement that we are not telling your Lordships in advance what is going to be in this scheme. It is said to be a "Boneless wonder" and so on. But we do not know, and that is why this procedure is devised. The noble Lord says it is so unique that it requires very special treatment, but that is not so. I must in fairness say that the late Government under their Act did nothing of this sort at all. Under the Transport Act of 1947, which has been so stoutly defended by its authors opposite, no opportunity of any kind whatsoever was given to Parliament to consider a scheme. Let me just refer your Lordships to Section (5) of the Act. I do so because Section (5) was the section which gave the Transport Commission and the Minister power to make any sort of scheme of delegation that they liked. Subsection (4) of Section 5 says:
"Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by or under a scheme laid by the Commission and approved by the Minister."
Subsection (6) of the same section says:
"Any delegation effected by or under such a scheme may be expressed by the scheme or by, the relevant instrument issued there under to be subject to conditions and limitations and…every Executive shall…give effect…"
and so on. What does that mean? It means that under the 1947 Act, the Act under which we work at present, the Commission and the Minister could organise and reorganise, delegate, take
1374
back and re-delegate, without any reference to Parliament at all. Frankly, we should think it wrong to follow that precedent, which I do not think is very democratic.
This is rather interesting, because if we had had to rely on the powers under the Act, which I think we could have done, the noble and learned Earl would have had no chance of moving the Amendment he has introduced this evening. Therefore I venture to say that the proposal to lay this Order in draft in the way we do provides a happy mean of practical procedure; and for that reason I ask the House to accept the proposal in the Bill.
7.48 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have listened with great attention and interest to what the noble Viscount has said. Of course it would be improper at this stage for me to suggest an Amendment to a later part of the clause, but as the noble Viscount has referred to this part of the clause I should like to point out that I think that on no occasion when referring to it did he refer to the precise words. I think he reversed the order of the words. He said that an Order made by a Minister under this section has to be laid in draft. That is not what the clause actually says. If the noble Viscount says it is the same thing it may be so, but I suggest that he may consider, either before we reach the other part of the clause or on the Report stage, a slightly different wording as follows:
"No Order shall be made by the Minister under this section unless such Order has been laid in draft before Parliament."
If that is what he intends to do, I do not think we shall press this Amendment to a Division.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will certainly consider this point. What it says is that the draft is laid and Parliament has the chance of improving it. Suppose there is universal approval, I do not think there is much point in taking it away and laying another. I should like to consider what the noble and learned Earl has said. In our opinion, this is done in this form because we want to have both the general and the detailed discussion. I am not sure that I appreciate that there is a distinction, but I should like to be advised on that. The noble and learned Earl appreciates that this is a legal drafting point, in the

1375
sense that a legal draftsman must be concerned with it. I will certainly consider that.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should have thought that Parliament had got all it wanted in the Bill as we have it in draft before us. The Minister, by the terms of the Bill, has to lay his Order in draft. As I understand the difference, if you lay an Order not stated to be in draft, that Order operates from the time that it is laid; but if an Order is laid in draft, it does not operate so long as it is merely a draft Order. Under subsection (5) in the Bill the draft Order has to be laid in draft before Parliament, and it is not until the draft Order has been approved by both Houses that the Order is effective. I should have thought that we had a greater measure of Parliamentary control over this by subsection (5) than we are normally blessed with in most Bills that come before us.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does that mean that the Minister would come back with a revised Order if there were objections?
LORD LLEWELLIN: He could.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the Minister was impressed by the criticisms made, then he would say, "I will take this away; I am going to pay attention to those criticisms, and, so far as I feel that they are well advised, embody all or some of them." If he took that view, then he would have to take his draft back. That is the value of it. It would not be revoking an actual Order. And then he would lay another draft, and the same procedure would be followed.
EARL JOWITT: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. I say, frankly, that although I do not think he has always done so in our discussions, on this occasion he has given us a closely reasoned answer. I venture to think there is not very much between us. We both want to preserve the sovereignty of Parliament in this matter. The only problem is how to do it. I shall certainly consider this matter further between now and the next stage in the light of what the noble Viscount has said, and I may perhaps have an opportunity of discussing it with him. I am inclined to think that we might do it in this way: we might have
1376
an arrangement whereby, let us say, on a day—for the sake of argument the first of the month—the Order is laid in draft and the House then has an opportunity of discussing it; then the Minister takes it away and comes back a week later—we will say, on the 8th of the month—and then promulgates the Order which is going to be the effective Order. That would mean that before promulgating that Order, which is the effective Order, he will have had the benefit of the criticism of the House. I am inclined to think that it can be done in some way like that—it need not be stated in the Act of Parliament itself. If we have an undertaking from the noble Viscount that that is what the Minister will do, then, speaking for myself, that will be good enough for me. I think we may be able to hammer out something on those lines. It is a matter of such importance—a Minister must do it by act of Parliament—and so much hangs and depends upon it, that I think something of that sort is necessary. In due course, I propose to withdraw my Amendment—I will not do it just now, because there may be other noble Lords who desire to speak on it—but I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the line he has taken and the way in which he has dealt with this matter.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I want to ask the noble Viscount one question, because he said that the defeat of an Order would be a matter of confidence, and the Government would have to resign. But, according to the Bill as it stands—I am not quite clear about the procedure—the draft Order has to be approved by Resolution of both Houses—that is to say, the Government have the opportunity to withdraw the Order, presumably without loss of confidence. But suppose that the Government choose to force it through, or tried to force it through, and the draft Order was defeated: would that be a vote of confidence?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must not be pressed too far. All through the debate on a variety of subjects I am asked to say what the Government will do in an hypothetical eventuality which has not yet arisen. What I did say was that this form of laying the Order in draft and inviting full and unprejudiced discussion

1377
was quite unlike moving the Second Reading of a Bill where the Government were committed to a tremendous principle and where, if it were defeated, that obviously would be a major defeat and, I imagine, the Government would resign. I must not be asked to say in advance, if it were a draft, what line would be taken in any particular case.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: A draft?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: When it comes to voting upon it, there really is not much difference whether it is a draft or an actual Order. In fact it must be a draft, because if it were already an Order, then it would already be effective, and if it were negatived it would be by a Motion to revoke it—that is, like a Prayer.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am afraid that I am even more in a fog as a result of that explanation, because it would appear that the draft Order is in fact the Order.
EARL JOWITT: That is it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: And becomes the Order.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It may become.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The draft Order becomes the Order if and when the Minister has asked both Houses of Parliament to pass an Affirmative Resolution to the effect that that shall be the scheme. Then it becomes effective.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It becomes the Order?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But, when the draft Order is put on the Paper of the House, something must happen. You cannot take notice of a thing on the Paper unless there is a Motion, so the Government are bound to move that the draft Order be approved, and there will be a Motion.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly there must be a Motion, The Order is put on the Paper and then the Minister comes down and moves that it be approved; but he moves that it be approved in the spirit that he wants a full discussion upon it, not in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said, "I move the Second Reading of this Bill."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But supposing the Minister is rather impressed by arguments advanced by Members of the House, what does, he do then with his Motion?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: He takes it away. He says, "I withdraw my Motion that the House approve this Order. I want to take away this draft and I am going to produce another draft which will be in conformity with the criticisms which have so impressed me."
EARL JOWITT: I do not think that has ever been done. That would rather smell of a Parliamentary defeat, and Parliamentary prestige might be thought to be involved. Could it not be clone in a different way? Why cannot the Minister lay something and then have a discussion on it—call it "draft" or what you like; but, it would not be the actual document, which the House would be asked to approve. After the general discussion on the whole thing, there being no Parliamentary prestige, loss or defeat, let the Minister promulgate some document and let that document be the definitive Order which the House is to be asked to approve. It is a very complicated matter and we should both like advice about it; but, if the noble Viscount can meet me in some way of that sort, I shall be happy to meet him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will certainly have a look at this. It may be that it could be done in a sort of combination of methods—that there could be a debate on the draft; then an Order could be made which might even be prayed against. On the other hand, if the Minister is impressed by the objections which are taken, I think I am right in saying that he then has to withdraw it and return with another draft. I think we had better have a look at this and see how we can get the maximum of Parliamentary debate and consideration without, as I see it, embarking upon the impossible task of having a draft which is subject to amendment and a long Committee stage.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I suggest that there is possibly some analogy in the case of redistribution, when a Report is laid and discussed by the House; and it is only after that discussion has taken place that the final

1379
decision is put forward, which must be voted for one way or the other. I think the noble Viscount will find some analogy in that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will certainly look into it. On the face of it, I am rather attracted to the idea of a general debate, then a little gap, and then something happening. It may be that an Order will be laid, and if people do not like it they can pray against it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I believe we did something like this in the case of the Highway Code. That was certainly fully discussed in the House. I am not sure whether or not we had to approve it, but it was laid and we had a long discussion in your Lordships' House. It was then taken back to the Ministry, where, following our discussions, I believe that some alterations were made. Some sort of procedure like that is what I think we all envisage.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: As I am associated with Lord Bilsland in an Amendment to this clause, may I just say that I am most impressed by what the Deputy Leader of the House has said. But before this discussion took place it occurred to me that possibly our Amendment, or the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Earl, might not be the right way to go about this. I was going to suggest that a White Paper, or something like that, embodying the terms of the scheme, might be laid before the House, and then it could be debated. Now this discussion has arisen, and as the Deputy Leader is going to look at this again, may I suggest that something in the nature of a White Paper might be a way out of the difficulty?
EARL JOWITT: That is a good idea. I have no doubt that that is one of the things which the noble Viscount will consider. I think that, so far as is possible, we all wish to preserve effective Parliamentary control. That we shall not do if it becomes a question of the prestige of the Government, or anything of that sort.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I quite agree.
EARL JOWITT: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion and have made helpful
1380
suggestions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BILSLAND LORD BILSLAND had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (5), after "approved" to insert "with or without amendment." The noble Lord said: In view of the course of the discussion on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Earl. I will not move the Amendment standing in my name.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Repeals and amendments relating to the Commission's functions with respect to road passenger transport
16.—

(1) Sections sixty-three and sixty-four of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relate to area schemes as to passenger road transport services), are hereby repealed.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which relate to road service licences). shall apply to passenger road transport services provided by the Commission as they apply to passenger road transport services provided by other persons, and subsections (1), (3) and (4) of section sixty-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which exempt services of the Commission from the said sections seventy-two to seventy-six and impose and confer on the Commission certain functions in respect of road passenger transport services provided by them), shall cease to have effect:

Provided that—

(a) any passenger road transport service which is being provided by the Commission at the passing of this Act shall be exempt from the operation of the preceding provisions of this section for three months from the passing of this Act and, if within the said three months an application for the grant of the necessary road service licence is duly made to the licensing authority for public service vehicles, until that application and any application for any necessary backing of the licence have been determined by the licensing authority or authorities concerned;

(b) any enactment in force at the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven which authorised any of the bodies mentioned in the Third Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947, to construct and maintain shelters, buildings or barriers shall have the same effect in relation to the Commission as it would have if subsection (4) of the said section sixty-five had not been enacted.

(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, it shall not be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply so as to prevent the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage to carry

1381
a pleasure party consisting of persons employed by the Commission, with or without their families or friends.

(4) The following provisions (being an adaptation of provisions contained in section fifteen of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, which, until the coming into force of the Transport Act, 1947, applied to the London Passenger Transport Board)shall apply to the Commission—

(a) it shall be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage on roads within the London Passenger Transport Area and roads outside that area within a radius of ten miles, or, in the County of Kent, five miles, from any point on the boundary of that area;

(5) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section two of the Transport Act, 1947—

(a) the Commission shall not have power to acquire (whether absolutely or for any period) the whole or any part of any undertaking of any other person if the activities of that undertaking, or that part thereof, as the case may be, consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services;

(b) except with the consent of the Minister, the Commission shall not acquire or cause or permit any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by them to acquire any securities if the acquisition thereof would bring under the direct or indirect control of the Commission a body corporate which is carrying on or is about to carry on an undertaking the activities of which consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services.

(6) Where—

(a) the Commission directly or indirectly control a body corporate which is carrying on or is about to carry on an undertaking the activities whereof consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services; and

(b) as a result of the Commission or any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission disposing of any securities the Commission would no longer control the first-mentioned body corporate, whether directly or indirectly,

then, without prejudice to any other power of the Minister to give directions to the Commission, the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, direct the Commission to dispose or, as the case may be, to cause the second-mentioned body corporate to dispose of those securities at such times and in such manner as may be specified in the direction, and it shall be the duty of the Commission to comply with that direction:

Provided that the securities required to be disposed of shall not be more than is necessary to divest the Commission of control of the first-mentioned body corporate.

(8) Passenger road transport services provided by any body corporate which is directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission
1382
shall be deemed for the purposes of section six of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to Consultative Committees), to be provided by the Commission.
8.5 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: In view of the very long discussions that we have had, and the great distance that we have to travel before we adjourn to-night, I will endeavour to be very brief with this Amendment. The first subsection of the clause provides that Sections 63 and 64 of the Transport Act, 1947, shall be repealed. Noble Lords on this side of the House are somewhat concerned about the repeal of those two sections, although they are prepared to admit that when the new Bill becomes an Act some amendment of those sections will be necessary.
As we see it, this is the position. If road passenger transport in any area, or in all areas, is to be completely unregulated, then we may have cases where some areas are over-supplied with omnibuses or trams, and other areas have scarcely any at all. Moreover, we may find that in areas where there is a lot of transport running, the services will operate to the great inconvenience of the public. Therefore, we think that the Government should retain the powers given in the Transport Act of 1947, which enable the Commission to provide schemes for the co-ordination of the passenger transport services, in order that the interests of the public are fully served.
Section 63 of the 1947 Act provides for the schemes, and Section 64 provides for the things that can be put into the schemes. For instance, it may be necessary to decide which persons or interests should provide the services in a particular area. Where there are no services. arrangements can be made for services to be supplied. Thereby, everything possible is clone to ensure that the public interest is served. We feel that if the Government's proposal to amend those sections is carried, there will be no regulation to speak of, and the public interest will not be sufficiently well looked after. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): I thank the noble Lord, not only for the brevity but also for the clarity and manner in which he has proposed his Amendment. The Government's intention to repeal the power of the Commission to prepare area schemes for passenger road transport is clearly expressed in this Bill. The purpose of the Opposition in proposing this Amendment is to continue that power in operation. I cannot help feeling that they are really considering this matter in a state of slight misapprehension. After all, this scheme has never worked. Only one proposal has been put forward under the scheme, and it brought forth such a storm of protest from local authorities, users of road transport, and operators, that the late Government's Minister referred the scheme back to the Commission and never proceeded further with it. It is true that two further schemes were proposed, but because of the unfavourable reception which was promised for them, they were never proceeded with. This power has never even looked like a starter. Even if it had started, what is the need for it? The noble Lord speaks as though, without this power, there will be no regulation. But what about the licensing provisions? All road transport has to apply for a licence. Therefore, on behalf of the Government I would say that the Commission already have immense responsibilities of their own. We already have a system for licensing road transport, and I see no reason at all for adding what is really a fifth wheel to the coach. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry that the Minister has given such a short and unkindly reception to this proposal. I think that he and the Government are wrong. If, for example, in an area to-day there is no road passenger transport service at all, it is not the business of the licensing authority, or, so far as I know, of any authority, to take steps to see that the matter is put right. So long as the powers are absent or not fixed upon someone as his responsibility, then, where there is a shortage of transport, that shortage will continue. Where there is a surplus of transport it may be true that the licensing authorities will be prepared to consider whether further licences should or should not be granted.
LORD TEYNHAM: I may be quite wrong, but I would suggest that under the previous clause, subsection (6) (a), the power of which the noble Lord has just spoken is already provided. Therefore we have discussed it on a previous clause.
LORD SHEPHERD: It seems to me that you are in some danger of mixing two things together. I would submit that if you have a Commission with authority to arrange details, especially where there is competition, it would make a great deal of difference to both the pleasure and the convenience of the public. I admit that a good deal of opposition is met with or likely to be met with in operating these two clauses. But I am not surprised at that because there has been at work in the country a powerful organisation which has been engaged not in providing a multiplicity of services, but in eating up the services around it. One organisation at the present time runs 11,000 vehicles. The Government will undoubtedly meet with opposition and they have got to decide whether the service of the interests of the public is greater than the trouble of dealing with this opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if in fact he will give us the name of the organisation which as he has just said is running 11,000 vehicles. My second point, which is more important, is that he has raised the question of the power of the licensing authority to go into the matter of public convenience and the timing of bus routes. In my experience the licensing authority takes good care to go into those questions. It has the power to stop certain surplus services which are in its opinion not necessary. It has the power to say to an undertaking, "No; because you would not take on another means of service in that area we cannot allow you to take on this." In fact there are hundreds of licensing authorities all over the country which have a most responsible attitude towards the services which are provided.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Marquess has asked whether I would furnish the name of the organisation which at the present time is running 11,000 vehicles. I will not do so in open Chamber—that is the rule I have always followed—but if he will approach me personally later I will undertake to give him the name.
EARL DE LA WARR: It has been asked what happens if an area has no service. The Minister could issue directions and a service would have to be provided. The power is there.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.17 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Lord said: A great deal of what the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow said now comes under this and subsequent subsections of this clause. We are going right through this clause, subsection by subsection, and this particular subsection deals with the question of licences. The arrangement under the Act of 1947 will be done away with, and three months after the passing of this Bill these passenger vehicles operated by companies owned by the Commission will come under the licensing authority in the same way as all other passenger vehicles do now. The Minister has appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole operation of the licensing provisions of the Road Traffic Act. I am going to suggest that this particular subsection might be strengthened in this respect.
I know the Minister has given an undertaking that he does not intend to enforce some of the provisions in this clause until the Committee has reported, but, as I said on Second Reading, something will have to be done sooner or later concerning the charges, or the arriving at what are fair and equitable charges, to the public for road passenger transport. This is operated to-day under twelve licensing authorities, all with their varied philosophies of what should be charged. Here can be seen two or three yardsticks. There are three systems of arriving at fares, forcing the passenger transporting concerns to have a variety of fares for their services under the road passenger transport system. One system is applicable to buses, and that comes under the licensing authorities; another to trolley buses and tramcars operating under a different system, and that comes under another authority; and London transport, in the last analysis, under another, the Central Transport Tribunal. It is possible under this system for road passenger transport to be a very unfair competitor of the railways.
What I had in my mind—and I shall return to this point when we are discussing
1386
a later clause; leaving out the reference to road transport—is that the Minister, or the Government, purports to be now setting up a scheme by which there will be a free and fair field for all, But there never can be, because while you have the railways under public control, running a public service, a service which the public demand, the fares of the people who travel have to be spread over a nation-wide structure. It is useless for noble Lords or anyone else to think that the railways can ever compete with road passenger transport unless the country is prepared to throw overboard the whole system of universal train fares. It has sometimes been asked by members of the public, who are excusably ignorant in this matter: "Why is it that a coach can run from London to Edinburgh and carry me at about a third of the price which I have to pay if I travel by rail?" Of course, the fact is it does not. The railways could take any noble Lord from London to Edinburgh profitably at a rate, I should think, of well under a halfpenny a mile—and they would make a lot of money—if the public would pay about two shillings and two pence a mile for travelling from Slopcombe-on-the-Slush to Biddecombe on the Moor, or wherever it is. You have to appreciate that the railways have to run a timetable service with great regularity.
The operator of buses, on the other hand, chooses his load, chooses his time, and chooses his timetable. Something must be done sooner or later so that all these considerations can be taken into account. It is possible under the present licensing system for a bus service that runs parallel and in competition with the railways to charge a very low fare, and for the same bus company to run buses on a route where there is no competition with the railways and charge a higher fare. Is that the sort of competition that you want? Then you find that the philosophies of licensing authorities vary in this connection. I do not speak without experience in this matter, because it happens that I spent some very interesting years of my life in the Ministry of Transport and I was the unfortunate member of the Ministry to whom appeals against awards of licensing authorities had to come. You found one licensing authority whose philosophy it was that sub-normal

1387
fares and concessional fares should never be charged, and their idea was to do away with them as soon as possible. Another philosophy was that expressed by a licensing authority in words something like this: "I want to see it taper"—that is to say, the further you travel the less you pay. Yet another authority, apparently, had the idea that there should only be return fares and no single ones.
The charging system is—if I may use such an expression in your Lordships'House—simply cockeyed. I think the time has arrived when this matter has got to be gone into. As I have intimated. I am going to return to the wider aspect when we discuss another clause of the Bill, but I thought that I would raise this particular matter on this particular clause, because this is where you are dealing with the licensing provisions of the Road Traffic Act, and you are seeking to alter to some extent what is laid down in the Road Traffic Act. You have appointed a Committee to advise the Minister on the operation of the Act. Therefore, you will not do very much under this clause until you get his report. What does this clause do in effect? Nothing very much. So I ask: Why not wait till you can do something and have some really successful approach to this problem?
Be sure you are going to get upheavals all over the country. Look at the trouble in London—and that, too, is a matter with which I am going to deal. The Government will only add fuel to the fire by this Bill. Already there is outcry in every town. But I am not going to waste any more time on this now. I am not disposed to "die in the last ditch" upon this matter. I simply thought it was worth rising to speak upon it, and I hope that I shall get a sympathetic reply from the noble Earl. You are setting up a new philosophy in the transport of this country. You are doing a lot of things under this Bill. We have had a very interesting discussion between the respective Leaders in this Chamber upon a railway scheme. You are doing a lot with road transport, both passenger and goods—at the moment, of course, we are dealing with passenger transport, not with goods. Why not try and do as much as you can successfully? Do not tinker. You are tinkering with the problem now.
1388
You are not going to cure the trouble this way. You are patching up; you are sticking on little bits of plaster here and there, but you are not taking steps to cure the basic trouble. The basic trouble is that there is no co-ordination in this country to-day between the various authorities who have responsibility for fixing the fares to be paid by people who use the various methods of transport. In some cases there is no tribunal. In some cases there is a loose tribunal and in some cases there is a cast-iron tribunal. Why not look at the whole thing and see what you can do? I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 22, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I would venture to make a few remarks on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that there were twelve licensing authorities to decide fares throughout the country. I think that is right. But I think all those authorities do proceed on a case law that has been built up over a series of years. I think that coach fares are fairly consistent throughout the country. The noble Lord, I believe, will find that that is a correct statement. But with regard to the principle which he enunciated so clearly as regards competition between road and rail, I do not think anyone could deny for a moment that buses can go wherever there is a road and a train can go only where there is a track to take it. So there must be certain advantages under certain conditions in favour of road transport.
That difficulty, I think, was fully appreciated before railways were nationalised. Certain railways entered into partnership with the bus-owning concerns—incidentally that happened in the case of the company with which I have the honour to be associated—and they did own shares in many cases in numbers equal to ours. In many cases, too, the general public joined as well. There was co-ordination in running those services and the railways did get the benefit of the profit made by the bus companies, so that, to a certain extent, they were able, as it were, to make up on the swings what they lost on the roundabouts. I think, on the whole, that was a fair and sensible way of dealing with the problem. But what

1389
does present a far greater problem is when you have road and rail under the same authority, road being the junior partner of the concern, always having to defer to rail, and not being free to develop a bus service in the way it should develop, because I maintain that buses should be managed by busmen who are anxious not only to develop their business but also their bus routes in order to serve the public. That does not happen when they are under the dual ownership of the railways; many instances of that can be quoted. I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord. I am all in favour of partnership, but, above all, I am in favour of healthy and reasonable competition between the two. If there is some reasonable way of partnership or other method of sharing profits, by all means let them have it. I hope the noble Earl in front of me will not accept this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not find myself in agreement with all that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, but I agree that he has put his Amendment in an extremely interesting manner. I think he has been led away by his great knowledge and experience of his subject, which has led him into the mistake of introducing the whole question of road-rail competition. Perhaps he will be satisfied with my assurance that I have taken considerable note of what he has said and that I will convey his arguments to the Minister. I feel it my duty to deal with the limited point raised by this Amendment. It is not really a question of justice between road and rail, but of justice between different sections of passenger road transport.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If it would help the noble I will accept his assurance. I do not want to waste his voice.
EARL DE LA WARR: I prefer not to accept this Amendment, but if the noble Lord will not press it—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I made my speech in order to register the position in his mind and in the Official Record of this Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
8.33 p.m.
LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Earl will be able to help me, because here I am in a difficulty. Subsection (3) says
"Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, it shall not be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply so as to prevent the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage to carry a pleasure party consisting of persons employed by the Commission, with or without their families or friends."
At the present moment the Commission do not run any contract carriages. The Commission's road passenger fleet is organised into companies, and the companies can run contract carriages. That has been decided in law. The Commission hold the share capital of their companies, amounting to £ 73 million. In this clause the Government seek to give the Minister power to dispose of the majority interests of the Commission in the forty separate companies under their control. There may come a time in the evolution of the system which this Bill is going to set up when the Government will want to run a contract service; but according to this clause, they cannot do it. Either the clause has some meaning that I do not understand or it is redundant. The clause refers only to the provinces, because all the buses in the London area are run by the London Transport Executive. Strictly speaking, the Commission do not run any contract carriages, but under the Bill they may wish to do so at some future date. Is it wise to have this in the Bill?
LORD GIFFORD: The noble Lord has mentioned the companies but he has omitted altogether the London Transport Executive, which is on a different footing.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I thought I said "with the exception of the London Transport Executive." I am leaving them out and dealing with the provinces. The British Transport Commission's wholly-owned road transport services are run by fort) companies and they run contract carriages; the Commission do not. I think I have said enough to explain my mystification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 42, leave out subsection (3). —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am not sure whether the noble Lord appreciates that this subsection does not operate against the companies of which the Commission have control.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it cannot do that. It is not the Commission who run contract carriages.
EARL DE LA WARR: I have a note here informing me that the Commission are not making use of the powers which the noble Lord is anxious to keep for them. I should like to give the noble Lord the reason for this subsection. It is a question of fairness. The Commission are in a position to operate as amonopoly. The noble Lord wants them to have power to run contract services in competition with private operators. With a background of monopoly, obviously, the Commission will be in a position to make conditions of unfair competition against a company who have not that background of monopoly.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am mystified. The Commission own the whole of the shares in forty provincial and Scottish bus companies to the tune of £73 million. But we have not seen "B.T.C." painted on any bus in this country. We see the S.M.T., and that of all the concerns owned by the Commission. They are all legal entities which have the power to-day, under the law of this country, to run contract carriages. That has been established. Until the Commission own physically a fleet of their own, or one bus of their own—which is not the case at present—how can they want to run a contract carriage? The monopoly to which the noble Earl has referred—which, in effect, is not a monopoly—comes about by the owning by the British Transport Commission of the shares in forty different bus companies. The British Transport Commission by themselves, in the name of the British Transport Commission, cannot run a contract carriage. They do not own a bus.
LORD TEYNHAM: I may be wrong, but I would say that under Clause 14 (6), which empowers the Commission to own
1392
buses to put on a particular road, in the event of a branch line being closed down, and so on, they could equally use that power to own buses and run contract carriages. I think the power is there. The noble Lord is arguing that the Commission have not the power to run contract carriages, and that only the London Transport Executive have such a power.
EARL DE LA WARR: And the London Transport Executive are already there.
LORD GIFFORD: As I see it, subsection (3) applies only to the London Transport Executive.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it does not.
EARL DE LA WARR: It applies mainly to the London Transport Executive. There are these other services, of course.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Would the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, not agree that where the Commission are holding the entire share capital of the forty companies, they are in control of the management; and that, in fact, although legally you may say the Transport Commission are not going to run this or that, they are in a position to tell any company they like, of which they own all the shares, to do exactly what they want them to do at any time they want them to do it?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I should like to ask this question. Does it mean that this clause ought to read: "It will not be lawful for any bus undertaking owned by the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage"? If it means that, then I am in violent opposition straight away, because the bus companies do operate in this way at the present time.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord withdraw the Amendment?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in the proviso to subsection (3) to leave out "Commission" and insert "London Transport Executive." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the proviso to the subsection which we have just been discussing and relates to pleasure parties. Whatever may be the future, at present the organisation concerned is the London Transport Executive. This Amendment, which among some noble Lords has been known jocularly as the "Picnic Party Amendment," deals with what is, on the face of it, a quite harmless concession, and one which perhaps a normally good employer would make. But, as the clause is now worded, I think it is open to abuse. There is nothing to prevent, say, two drivers from a depot meeting friends in a social club, and a London Transport vehicle being used for a club party with no employees of the Transport Commission in the party except the two men, who might be getting the vehicle at a concession rate and taking their friends down to the seaside free. As worded at present, it would also allow, for instance, the staff of Gleneagles Hotel, or the bargeman of the Crinan Canal Company, to go outside the London Transport Executive area on a party, which I do not think is the intention. If I could have an undertaking that this concession would be strictly watched, and not abused, that would be a great help. In any event, I think it should be confined to employees of the London Transport Executive, who are really the direct employees working the vehicles concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("Commission") and insert ("London Transport Executive").—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD BURDEN: Could the noble Earl say what is his understanding of the words "employed by the Commission"? It could be construed as only employees of the headquarters of the Commission at 55, Broadway. Or has it a wider connotation? I am merely seeking information.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord ought to know the 1947 Act better.
EARL DE LA WARR: It will be the Commission in the widest sense. It will be people like the railway employees.
LORD BURDEN: That is all right.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope that the noble Lord is not going to press this Amendment, because I think it would restrict too much the use that the Commission are able to make of their transport for this purpose. As the noble Lord knows, it is merely a matter of contract carriage for their own staff. He wants to restrict it purely to the employees of the London Transport Executive. I understand his fears of abuse, but I think we must assume that a public body administers its business properly. It might be that in London the Commission would want to use it not strictly for those working for the London Transport Executive, but for railway men, and I think it would be unreasonable to stop them from doing so. I cannot believe that this is an important point, because I do not think it will arise a great deal. I suggest that the noble Lord is asking us to make this restriction too narrow.
LORD GIFFORD: I am sorry the noble Earl does not feel he can accept this Amendment. I should like to point out that if this privilege is used in a very general way it will adversely affect many small operators of contract vehicles, whose entire livelihood is derived from running these party trips, staff outings, and so on, to the seaside. I know that it is a difficult question. Perhaps my wording does restrict it in such a way that the noble Earl cannot accept the Amendment. But if I could have an undertaking from him that the Commission will be asked to see that this privilege is used only for what I might call genuine staff parties, and will not be a loophole for two or three employees of the Commission to take, say, thirty outsiders on a trip, I should be grateful.
EARL DE LA WARR: Speaking personally, that seems to be a very reasonable point, and I will certainly undertake to look into it.
LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Earl for his undertaking, and in view of it I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.50 p.m.
THE EARL of SELKIRK THE EARL of SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3), to add to the proviso:
"or to carry any party on any journey which begins or ends within the city of Sheffield, the county borough of Halifax, the county borough of Huddersfield, or the borough of Todmorden."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is something of an oddity, and arises from the historical position and the historical development of road transport in certain parts of the country. The parts of the country immediately concerned are the city of Sheffield, the county borough of Halifax, the county borough of Huddersfield and the borough of Todmorden. For a considerable time in those areas there has been a working arrangement between the railway companies and the local authorities. That working arrangement has gone on right through the period of the last seven years. We consider that the only satisfactory way to the people who live there is to permit this slightly unusual, but on the whole not very extensive, system to continue. We are proposing, therefore, that contract carriage which begins or ends in Sheffield, Halifax, Huddersfield and Todmorden should be permitted if carried out by the Commission. That is over and above an extension of the provision which we have just considered.
I should like to make this point. We realise that it might perhaps be possible to extend this provision further than it is intended, but we find it very difficult to be fair without putting it in the terms in which it is at the present time. I have to point out, of course, that whether the Commission had power to do this or not, their companies could certainly do so. In any case, any other bus company would be perfectly free to offer for a contract carriage of that character. I put this forward to your Lordships. I think it is the fair way to do it, and it will certainly be a considerable inconvenience to the people of those localities who have been accustomed to this form of contract carriage if it is not done. I may say that we are not being doctrinaire in our approach, but practical. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I do not quarrel in any way with the intention of this Amendment, nor do I wish to be a
1396
killjoy. I believe it is a fact that the noble Earl said that contract carriages are already run from these four places. I am rather concerned with the words "or ends," because it seems to me that if the Amendment is accepted you could run a carriage from the London Transport Executive area which would end in Sheffield, Huddersfield, Halifax or Todmorden, and, therefore, would come under this clause. From what the noble Earl has said, I do not think that was his intention. Would the noble Earl be so kind as to look at the wording again before a later stage of the Bill, with particular reference to the words "or ends"?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am very glad to accept the noble Earl's invitation. I thank him for what he has said in accepting the principle of this Amendment. We certainly do not intend this to be made use of, for instance, for special bus runs from London to see Sheffield Wednesday or some other sporting event. That is not the intention at all, and I quite agree that if there is a possibility that that might be done, we should see if it is possible to re-word it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.54 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The duty of the Commission under section 3 of the Transport Act, 1947, as amended by this Act to provide or secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area shall be discharged by the London Transport Executive in exercise of functions delegated to them by or under a scheme made under section 5 of the Transport Act, 1947, but notwithstanding anything contained in that section the London Transport Executive shall not under or by virtue of any scheme of delegation or otherwise be empowered to provide road services of stage or express carriages except on any of the following roads, that is to say—

(a) on any road within the London Passenger Transport Area;

(b) on any road outside that area being a road specified in Part II and Part III of the Seventh Schedule to the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, or on any road in that part of the Urban District of Thurrock in the county of Essex which formerly was within the Urban District of Grays;

(c) in accordance with working agreements made in pursuance of section 18 of that Act on any road outside that area within a radius of ten miles or in the County of

1397
Kent five miles from any point on the boundary of the London Passenger Transport Area:

Provided that—

(i) a service provided by the Commission within the London Passenger Transport area may for the purpose of reaching a convenient terminal point or stand be extended for a distance of not more that half a mile or in the County of Berkshire one mile beyond the boundary of that area, and

(ii) the Commission shall not both pick up and set down a passenger on any road specified in Part III of the said Schedule or within the Borough of Luton."

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the restricted area of operation of the London Transport undertaking (which is clearly set out in Section 15 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933) is in fact continued. I would point out that unless this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, it would appear that the door is wide open to further expansion by London Transport beyond what was possible under the 1947 Act. As the Bill is drawn, I think the Commission could in fact empower London Passenger Transport to operate outside their monopoly area and operate anywhere in the country, subject to obtaining an appropriate road service licence. This, of course, is something they could not do before the 1947 Act.
I would further point out that the duty imposed upon London Transport by Clause 23 (1) of the Bill, to provide for the London area a co-ordinated system of passenger transport, means, I would say, that they can pray this in aid to strengthen any application they may make to run buses outside their monopoly area. Again, I would say that the effect of Clause 16 (4) (c) appears to impose a statutory duty upon a licensing authority to show partiality towards an application for a road service licence by London Passenger Transport in preference to an application by a private operator for a route outside the London area. I must say that this is rather an amazing clause, because the dice is heavily loaded against the private operator. Yet I cannot help feeling that this is not the real intention of the Bill, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this Amendment very closely. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, after line 2, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has certainly put his finger on what is rather a question of principle. In the first place, this is nothing to do with contract carriage at all—it is ordinary passenger road transport. His objection clearly arises on this, and it is an arguable case. The Commission, through the London Transport Executive, is working from a monopoly, and from that strong monopolistic position can gradually spread outwards. I quite appreciate the noble Lord's point and I think it is a real point. I agree that, it is an extension of the 1947 Act. On the other hand, it is not true to say that the Commission can compel their own buses to operate because, as he said himself, they are entirely subject to the licensing authority. I know noble Lords opposite are not interested in this because they do not believe in licensing, and I have to be quite frank on this matter. This is where we do believe in licensing, and we believe that there can be a fair licensing system in which both the Commission and private organisations can take part. That is fundamental to the Bill, and the position is that, whereas there exists a complete monopoly inside what is technically known as the London special area, outside that area there is no operation except by licensing and, therefore, all organisations are free and appear on the same footing.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to Clause 16 (4) (c) as regards the duty of the Commission to "provide or secure." But the London special area is a pretty large area, and there is no doubt of the necessity for keeping the fringe area properly supplied. The London Transport Executive has, in fact, considerable responsibilities in bringing people daily to their work and their services must be closely co-ordinated.
We will look at these words and see whether the duty may seem to be put too high; but I am not inclined to think that it is in that respect. What, of course, remains is this: that outside the London area the Commission are free to supply services anywhere, and that is a considerable extension of the 1947 Act. That is always subject, however, to the licensing authority. I have tried to explain this point and, as I say, I will look at it. I must point out, however, that

1399
technically the Amendment is not satisfactory—for two reasons. First, it refers to the London Transport Executive, which of course is not really a statutory body. It may cease to exist as such and, indeed, may be abolished like other Executives. I am not saying that it will be abolished, but technically the words should refer to the Commission and not to the London Transport Executive as such.
Secondly, as the noble Lord has pointed out, under Clause 23 the Commission have power to provide services
"in such places…as may appear to the Commission to be expedient."
This Amendment deliberately schedules the area in which the Commission can provide services. We prefer to leave it to the decision of the licensing authority. We believe that that will be effective and that the authority will not act unfairly in the matter of the balance which we are trying to attain. In the circumstances, I suggest that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
9.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment, especially as my noble friend Lord Long is unable to be here. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said that he wants to leave this situation open to be decided by the licensing authority. If the London Transport Executive is to be allowed to enlarge itself, piece by piece, every time it seeks to enlarge itself beyond its present area it will have to go to the licensing authority and pray in aid that it has a statutory duty to serve an increased area because its passengers inside London want to get there. There is a great difference between a statutory duty and a statutory power; and it might well bring great influence to bear on the licensing authority if they felt they had to decide between someone who had a statutory duty, and a purely private omnibus company. The noble Earl says that he does not wish to confine the London Transport Executive because he wants a fluid situation so that he may alter his mind. Is that fair? Here is the London Transport Executive with a complete monopoly in the area, which the noble Earl will not define
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is no question of the monopoly being in any way changed. It is absolutely static in the London special area.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I quite follow the point, but the noble Earl does not mind the monopoly overstepping the boundary.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Not the monopoly.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: The vehicles are the monopoly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They can pick up passengers or set them down.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I ask the noble Earl to be kind enough to look into the matter, at any rate, for these are two important points.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I shall be glad to look at these points. The end of Clause 16, subsection (4), paragraph (c), talks about:
"…an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area."
There is no chance of that area becoming extended. On the other hand, I appreciate what the noble Earl says. We are anxious that the fringe traffic should be as valuable and as serviceable as it can be; but if the noble Earl thinks the bias is too heavily placed in the clause, we will certainly look at it again.
LORD TEYNHAM: We are grateful for the noble Earl's indication that he will look at this matter again. The point we are worried about is the word "duty" which appears in Clause 23, but in view of the assurance given by the noble Earl I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.8 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out "ten" [miles] and insert "seventy-five." The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment. With the Committee's permission I will deal with Amendments 71 and 72 together, since they hang together. I will try to be very brief, but I hope that my brevity will not be taken as an indication of any lack of importance in the Amendment. At the present moment, the London Transport

1401
Executive have the right to run contract carriages. I invite the Committee to consider that this is not a monopoly: they have no monopoly right to run contract carriages. The business they get from their contract carriage is in open competition with every other provider of contract carriage passenger transport, and it has proved a remunerative business. In point of fact, for this year, in the summer months they are fully booked for work for about 350 contract carriages; and I think they have inquiries for another 1,000 or more of these particular trips. This is a service which they can run until this Bill becomes an Act; they cannot do so afterwards.
If noble Lords opposite want to be fair in setting up this Eldora do of free competition, "where every prospect pleases" and only the British Transport Commission "is vile." why do they wish to deny to London Transport the right to enter competitively without monopoly and to secure this business? It is, to me, an amazing thing that at the present moment, in the middle of an outcry about the London fares, while the case is being argued and the London County Council are raising all this trouble about the way in which London fares are going up, this Government are proposing to rake from the London Transport Executive thousands of pounds which would go into their revenue to relieve the pressure on the ordinary payer of London fares. To me that is inexcusable. Why do the Government want to deny London Transport Executive the right to carry on this very valuable business, without preference or monopoly? Why do the Government want to deny them the chance of earning money which would go into their revenue to relieve the pressure on the ordinary fares which are the subject of such pitiful appeals to the Transport Tribunal? That is my simple case. This Amendment seeks to restore the position. The Bill seeks to restrict to ten miles from the London Passenger Transport Area, with an odd five miles in the County of Kent, the radius within which the Commission may operate these public service vehicles. That is my simple case. I beg to move.
Amendment Moved—
Page 23, line 11, leave out ("ten") and insert ("seventy-five").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
9.12 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think there is really only one point here which the noble Lord has made. He has used the words "open competition" It comes down to what is our definition of "open competition." If you are a great monopoly, with a turnover of £60 million a year, with the immense financial resources and funds that arise out of it, nobody can compete with you in your own area at all. It is suggested that this monopoly should be able to sally forth on to the roads, in competition with other operators who have not the benefit of that solid background of business. The noble Lord considers that "open competition." We do not. That is the difference. So far as I can see, it is a fundamental difference in point of view. Turning now to the details, the noble Lord made a great deal of this robbery of the London Transport Executive, of the immense source of profit that it made from this conduct.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not "immense." Let the noble Earl be accurate. I named a figure of a few thousand. I did not say "immense." I mentioned "thousands of pounds." Let us be accurate.
EARL, DE LA WARR: I apologise to the noble Lord. I misheard him. As a matter of fact, he is right: it is actually a matter of £ 40,000 on a total turnover of £ 60,000,000, so he will realise that it is not likely to have a profound effect on the London fares.
I should like to give the noble Lord one assurance on this. He referred to "existing bookings"—Iam not sure whether this can be done under the Bill as it stands, or whether it would mean looking at the Bill between now and Report, but I give him an assurance that we will certainly look into the point to see whether some special consideration cannot be given to existing bookings. Beyond that, I think there is a quite fundamental difference here between us. I am afraid I could not agree to accept this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There is not a fundamental difference because the noble Earl has padded his case. What he is really saying is that, because London Transport run all of London's buses and can live comfortably

1403
on that, they should not enter into any other branch of the road passenger transport business—that is, on contract hire. You might level exactly the same charge against any municipality in this country which runs its own bus transport in its town and runs contract carriages at the same time. You do not take away the right from the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, who has presented such a wonderful case for British Electric Traction this afternoon. He can run buses. He is the next biggest bus owner in this country, but he can run contract carriages.
LORD GIFFORD: They can run contract carriages in their own areas.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The others can run contract carriages outside their own area.
EARL DE LA WARR: They are not a monopoly. Could the noble Lord tell me any municipality which in fact has the power to run contract carriages outside its own area?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I can do that.
EARL DE LA WARR: Very rarely.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is very rare.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But they can do it. The noble Earl says "very rarely." This allegation of monopoly is not true. The noble Earl has very rightly—and I appreciate it very much—talked about making some concession for this year's bookings. That would at least allow the noble Earl and his colleagues a chance of discussing this subject with the powers that be. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (5). The noble Lord said: May I have your Lordships' permission to deal with Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 together? It will save your Lordships' time, it will save my speaking twice and it will perhaps save other noble Lords from speaking.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Which Amendments are you proposing to take?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Amendment No. 73—that is page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (5)—and Amendment No. 75—that is page 24, line 10, leave out subsection (6). The one leaves out subsection (5) and the other leaves out subsection (6). I can explain to your Lordships what they are. Subsection (5) says that the British Transport Commission shall not be allowed to acquire, in part or in whole, any road passenger company. Subsection (6) says that the Minister may compel the British Transport Commission to sell their holdings in their present road passenger companies so that they may at any time hold only a minority shareholding. I think I have correctly stated it.
LORD TEYNHAM: May my Amendment be taken at the same time? It is Amendment No. 74, page 24, line 10, and it deals with exactly the same subject.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I point out that my Amendment is a little different? We got into confusion yesterday afternoon when trying to do a similar thing. I should not like the noble Lord to add all my figures with his. It would be better if we dealt with these Amendments in the way I have suggested, if noble Lords agree. As I say, one subsection prohibits the Commission from any further acquisition of road passenger transport, in whole or in part, and the other subsection, subsection (6), says that the Minister may compel the Commission to dispose of all their assets in road passenger transport except that which will leave them with a minority shareholding.
My first point is this. The Commission now are launched upon this field of competition; why do you prevent their expanding as any other company can expand in industry? When you were dealing with road haulage, you did not say that the Road Haulage Executive or those companies that were formed under Clause 3 of this Bill in respect of the carriage of goods for hire or reward could not expand, amalgamate or purchase other companies. But, when you come to road passenger transport, you say that they must not. The second part of my case is this. You say that the Minister "may." To dispose of the argument as to the difference in meaning between

1405
"may" and "shall." the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, this afternoon said that he always thought that "may" in a Bill really ended up by being "shall." The Minister may say that the Government say only that he may do it. It is in the Bill and he can do it. I think that is a fundamental mistake in this Bill. It denies to the railways and the British Transport Commission such elasticity as will enable them to achieve economic working by at any time substituting road for rail transport.
In my contention it is useless to argue that this Bill says that the British Transport Commission may provide road transport, and that it may provide road passenger transport. It is no good the Government saying that they do not take away the right of any of the British Transport Commission's minority holding companies to put on road services in place of rail. You might just as well say that the British Transport Commission may pave the floors of their buses with gold. If you relinquish the majority shareholding in any company, how can you dictate policy in regard to the working of the company? I am going to anticipate what the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, is going to say, and demonstrate where he fell into error before. He said that a licensing authority had the power to say to a bus company that if they were not prepared to run services on an unprofitable route, they would withhold a licence to run on a profitable route. There is nothing in the Statute which says that.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I disgree with the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Marquess will have an opportunity of speaking afterwards. The licensing authority may use all their powers of persuasion, but what can they do if the company refuses to operate? How can anybody say to a private enterprise company that they must run at a loss? If in the future we are going to get down to the economics of transport and the economic running of the railways, this is one of the biggest problems the Government will have to face.
There is no better illustration of this than Scotland. I am going to take Scotland as my example because, when I was at the Ministry of Transport, I made a tour of Scotland, just to look at their
1406
transport problems, and I was staggered. To provide a transport system in some of the Western Highlands and to the Islands on the West Coast of Scotland is a gigantic and terrifying job for anybody without enormous resources. To give one example, it is necessary to provide transport in the interests of social welfare for people living in the Islands off the West Coast of Scotland. At present that is provided by a very well run company named MacBrayne's, in which, by the way, the British Transport Commission have a 50 per cent. shareholding. The company have an arrangement with Her Majesty's Government whereby they run these routes to the Islands, some of which are profitable and some of which must always be run at a loss. Some of their bus services run to delightful places like Ardrishaig—I must apologise if my pronunciation is not quite right because it is a desperate step for me, an Englishman, to enter into Scottish affairs, but I feel I must do so because Scotland provides such an excellent example.
In 1951 the Government subsidised MacBrayne's to the extent of £ 240,000 and in 1952 to the extent of £ 360,000—an increase of 50 per cent.—to cover their losses on running these unremunerative routes in the Western Islands and the Highlands of Scotland. I will not go into detail as to how this mathematical calculation is arrived at, but it is achieved by the Ministry on a very fair basis so as to allow Messrs. MacBrayne's a certain profit ratio. But the fact remains that £ 360,000 per year is involved. I do not know what private enterprise company would operate to such a disadvantage, and I have yet to see an enactment that would force it, or attempt to force it, upon a private limited company which is responsible to private shareholders. In 1951 the bus services in Scotland wholly owned by the British Transport Commission carried 775 million passengers. They travelled 168 million vehicle miles, of which 80 million vehicle miles, or 50 per cent., were totally unremunerative. That is a staggering figure. What private enterprise company, other than a combine as big as the British Transport Commission, which has the fat routes of the East to make up for the thin routes of the West, would carry on such an undertaking? To run an economic service in Scotland, practically the whole of your passenger

1407
transport has to be in the shape of one amalgamation. Which are you going to have—a public or a private amalgamation? That is the only answer to this problem.
Since 1948 fifty-eight branch railway services have been discontinued in Scotland. That involves 450 route miles of track and a saving of £ 250,000. In substitution for those discontinued services we have road passenger services, practically all of which are running at a loss, but not as big a loss as was experienced by the railway. Inevitably, however, that transport must be run at a loss. I could argue in the same way in regard to Wales, Cornwall or Northumberland, but Scotland presents a staggering example, and I have personal experience of it. If you take away the control of the British Transport Commission, via shareholdings and the dictation of policy, and if you sell all its holdings, as the Minister may, and leave it with a minority shareholding, how are you going to ensure that the people living in the remoter parts of Scotland will have an adequate transport service? This is a social problem. If you do not give those people such a service, you will find that they will herd themselves in the large cities of this country and add to our social problem. People will not live in remote parts without having the amenities of the town as near to them as they can get them. And transport is the biggest amenity.
I remember that when I was in Scotland I met a deputation on the quayside in Campbeltown who told me of the difficulties with which they had to contend. They told me how they had to make a long roundabout journey in order to get to Glasgow, and their only possible way of doing it was by motorbus or sea. That is my case against the provision in this Bill which says that the Minister may dictate the sale of all the holdings of the British Transport Commission in their motor services. As I said earlier, the figures are forty big companies and £73 million. And he may compel them to sell the whole lot, leaving them with only a minority shareholding. To whom is he going to sell them? Is he going to sell them to the noble Lord opposite; to the British Electric Traction undertaking? Is he going to sell them in the open market? Is he going to dictate who
1408
is to buy them? We find that British Electric Traction have seventeen companies and 11,000 vehicles. They are the biggest of the other combines in this country. The British Transport Commission have a 33 per cent. to 55 per cent. shareholding in most if not all of these companies. I speak here subject to correction. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, will put me right if I am wrong, but perhaps he will not mind doing so after I have sat down. There is not one representative of the British taxpayer among those in control, although the British taxpayer's money is in this to the tune of 33 per cent. to 55 per cent. of the capital. There is no representation.
I ask the Government to consider this. I know it is a permissive thing, but permissive things in Bills become compulsory things in Acts of Parliament. I do it because I really believe this is not a monopoly, although we have had talk of monopolies. The approximate number of road passenger vehicles operated in this country at the present time is 81,000. I am now leaving out London which has 10,000. In the Provinces and Scotland and Wales there are 71,000. The Commission run 14,300, British Electric Traction 11,000, the municipalities 20,000, small operators with more than five vehicles 18,000, and operators with fewer than five vehicles, 8,000. That is the make up of this country's road passenger transport. So the Transport Commission is not a monopoly. It has only 14,000 vehicles in the Provinces—to be exact 14,300 vehicles—against a total of 71,000, which, of course, includes municipal buses. I think I have said enough. That is my case on both of these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
9.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Lord Chairman is allowing these two Amendments to be discussed together. Of course the position as regards Amendment 74 will be reserved. It will be dealt with as a separate matter, and I shall ask leave to reply separately after it has been moved. So I will now confine myself to the general—I will not call them wrecking Amendments, but obliterating Amendments, by which the noble Lord seeks to

1409
obliterate comprehensively subsection (5) and subsection (6). It is reasonable that these two propositions should be put together because they do hang together. I shall unquestionably ask the Committee to reject these propositions, because if they were accepted they would be entirely inconsistent with the whole spirit of the Bill; indeed, I think I may say inconsistent with one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. We do not like monopolies; the noble Lord does.
We, equally, are quite prepared—indeed, ready and anxious—that the Transport Commission should have its interest in road undertakings. In appropriate cases it may well be a majority interest. But we have also to remember that we believe these road passenger undertakings should be run in such a way as to make them a success as road passenger undertakings. We also recognise, not prejudging the cases, that there has been a good deal of complaint and suspicion in Scotland. The noble Lord said that everything was perfect in Scotland. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, and the people he brought to see me when I was visiting Scotland, and it did not seem to me that there is such universal satisfaction in Scotland with the status quo as is suggested.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not say there was.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I do not understand just what the noble Lord was arguing. I thought he said what a marvellous job the Transport Commission were doing in Scotland.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not say anything of the kind.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If they are doing a marvellous job, then everyone in Scotland should be happy.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Viscount forgive me interrupting? All the way through this Committee stage, he has been prone to misquote and exaggerate what noble Lords have said. What I said was that the terrible difficulties facing transport in Scotland at the present time called for a large group so that the thin could go in with the fat.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I see then that the idea is that if a thing is difficult you must have something very large to
1410
tackle it. But sometimes most difficult things are not done by the largest animals. They are done by smaller animals quite well.
I take first the Amendment relating to subsection (6). We say that where there is a controlling interest, the Minister shall not be forced to make the Commission dispose of it, but that he may do so. There might be cases where it was appropriate that the Transport Commission should own 100 per cent. and operate the undertaking. But already, if the Minister is satisfied, he will not compel them to sell. If, on the other hand, he finds that a majority interest is being used in order really to stifle a service and to make the buses less successful, in order that the railways may be more successful, he will have the power to say: "Part with the controlling interest." He will use the power in each case to the best advantage. That seems to me to be a commonsense thing to do. To strike this power out of the Bill would be inconsistent with the objectives and the intention of the Bill. Subsection (5), which is the counterpart of subsection (6), says that without the consent of the Minister, the Commission are not to acquire a controlling interest in an undertaking. The two things must go together. It is perfectly logical. These two Amendments stand or fall together and I suggest that they fall. I agree with the noble Lord that we should take all possible steps to see that buses are operated in the interests of the public to make them a successful undertaking, and that is about the only thing upon which I do agree with him. I suggest that these Amendments fall.
LORD LUCAS OF CRILWORTH: May I ask whether I am wrong in my interpretation of subsection (5) (b)? Am I wrong in interpreting this subsection as a direction that the Commission are no longer to hold a controlling interest, directly or indirectly? That is what I gathered.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Lord will read the first part of subsection (5) (b) he will see these words:
"except with the consent of the Minister, the Commission shall not acquire"—
that means acquire some new undertaking. That was why I took the case of subsection (6) first, because that is the position which they occupy at present, I and the discretion of the Minister would

1411
require them to divest themselves of control. Subsection (5) is the counterpart which says that without the consent of the Minister they shall not acquire control of a new undertaking.
LORD MATHERS: The noble Viscount has made a speech which maybe looked upon as plausible, but taking the general purport of the clause as a whole I am certain that it does not meet the views of those of us who are apprehensive about the use which may be made of this clause. At the end of subsection (6) there is a proviso which says:
"Provided that the securities required to be disposed of shall not be more than is necessary to divest the Commission of control of the first-mentioned body corporate."
The clear object of this clause is to enable the Minister to bolster up the private enterprises he seeks to establish.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I gather the noble Lord does not like that proviso; am I right?
LORD MATHERS: I did not say that. I said that the proviso clearly shows the purpose of the clause is to deprive the Commission of the controlling interests they have at present or prevent them acquiring any in future.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before the noble Lord takes the proviso further. I think he should know that it was put in at the request of the Opposition in another place.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. The reason for that was that the original clause divested the Commission of every single share.
LORD MATHERS: It is a refinement of the cruelty that is perpetrated by this Bill. The noble Viscount said that the Amendments seek to obliterate the clause. The purpose of this Bill is to obliterate the services that are rendered by the Commission at the present time. Notwithstanding the plausibility of the noble Viscount's reply to my noble friend, I do not find he has answered the main charge levelled against these clauses and against the whole intention of the Bill. There is a real need in Scotland for the operation of large transport undertakings. The danger of the Bill, and of these clauses
1412
in particular, is that they will take transport out of the hands of those who at the present time are able to run unremunerative services because they also have control of services which are fully remunerative. Putting it bluntly, the present arrangement allows the fat to fry the lean. Under the arrangements in the Bill to dispose of transport units the likelihood—one might say the certainty—is, that only the profitable services will be bought up and continued in operation, whereas the need is to have unremunerative services run deliberately as unremunerative services in order to serve the public interest. The danger of these clauses to the public interest is that they will hamper and hinder the development and continuance of the work and life of those in the remote districts of Scotland. The Western Highlands and Islands have been mentioned. Only last week a protest came from my own part of Scotland, the Border country, where there is need for more transport services than exist at the present time. This Bill is looked upon as a menace to these services. That is why, on Second Reading, I said that I fear the consequences of this Bill; and here we are now dealing with clauses that show clearly the menace this Bill is to the welfare of Scotland. I regret to say that in replying to my noble friend the noble Lord did not remove any of my apprehensions.
LORD WINSTER: When the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was speaking about transport services in the West of Scotland which are essential but unremunerative, I was reminded of another service, the postal service, which has to run essential but unremunerative services. I can think of one place in the county of Cumberland, eight miles from the nearest telegraph office, where, at the time when a telegram could be sent anywhere for sixpence, a vehicle had to be provided to do the sixteen-mile journey in order to deliver a sixpenny telegram. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, now in charge of the Post Office, is not here, but if he were I am sure he would agree that the Post Office has to carry out these unremunerative services because postal communications are essential. I am sure he would be the first to agree that he could not carry on the Post Office if it were exposed to private competition which could cream off the remunerative

1413
services and perform none of the essential but unremunerative ones.
Let me take the case of the nationalised railways. They also perform essential but unremunerative services, as I mentioned on Second Reading. The railways perform services which during the war we found were absolutely essential to the safety and preservation of the country, services which they would have to perform again if war came once more; but they are exposed to competition from both coastal shipping and road haulage. I hope that the coastal shipping and railways will be able to come to an agreement so that they do not compete severely with each other. But the fact remains that the nationally essential railways are exposed to competition from shipping and road haulage. It seems to me that we have three essential national services; such road communications as we have just heard about, the railways and the Post Office. But all three of those essential services seem to operate under completely different conditions: although they are national, they do not receive the same treatment from the Government. I feel it is about time that where essential but unremunerative services have to be performed, the treatment of the industries carrying them on should be put on an equal footing.
9.51 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think in quoting MacBrayne's service the noble Lord went very far astray. MacBrayne's, to my personal knowledge, have carried on a service to the Western Islands for many years. I remember as a small boy the smell of the sheep which were crowded on to the decks of one of their ships as I came back from one of the Western Islands. Whether they were 50 per cent. or 51 per cent. owned by the railway company, they have always been paid a subsidy for carrying on that essential service. I do not see that this clause will affect that position one way or the other.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I never said it would.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Then I do not appreciate the relevance of the noble Lord bringing in the point on this Amendment. Perhaps I misunderstood him. Really it is a joy to follow these debates, whether in this House or reading
1414
Hansard afterwards, because every day we discuss this Bill the Party opposite is gaining for itself a new name: the Party of monopolists and in favour of monopoly; the Party that is not going to allow the consumers to have the benefit of a competitive service. That is the name the Party opposite are getting through every Amendment noble Lords move and every speech they make on this Bill. It is refreshing to hear the unanimity with which, on this Bill, they are supporting monopoly, when on other occasions one finds them rather holding up their hands in horror when they think there is a monopoly. They introduced the Monopolies Bill, but when there is a monopoly of their own creation, they are just like a mother losing a little child. They are really earning for themselves the title of "The Monopoly Party", and if they go on like this, that is, indeed, what they will be called.
LORD GREENHILL:The views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, indicate a real depth of ignorance as to what is meant by "monopoly". There is not one kind of monopoly. When you have a public monopoly you have the ownership by all of the particular service; when you have a private monopoly, then you have in a few hands the ownership at the expense of the rest of the population. That distinction should always be borne in mind.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? The other day I happened to be travelling in a train which did not allow a man and his wife in my compartment to alight. The man pulled the communication cord, and we stopped about 100 yards down the line. There was a great protest from the guard and everybody when they found the cord hanging in our carriage. The man said: "After all, this railway is mine. Cannot I do what I like with it?" It is not ours; it was not his; it does not belong to any of us. It just shows the very remote control, and how we do not own the thing at all.
LORD GREENHILL: That story really illustrates the difference between private and public monopoly. The fellow who pulled the cord thought it was his railway. It was not his railway; it belonged to all of us, and he had no right to take

1415
advantage of the rest of the passengers. That is the difference between private monopoly and public monopoly.
However, I want to direct my attention to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I think it is true to say that his description of the purpose of the Government in subsections (5) and (6) was stated quite frankly. Put into words which my noble friends on this side of the Committee would use, it may be summed up in this way: that the Government are anxious to destroy the value of the railways, which are publicly owned, and to enhance the value of the passenger transport industry, which they hope will become privately owned; and they do so by saying, in the first place, that the Commission shall divest themselves of any majority holdings in passenger road transport, and will be prevented from purchasing control in other undertakings in the road passenger industry. That is perfectly frank. What we are saying, however, is this—and I have in mind Scotland, particularly—that you have in Scotland a form of transport which could not possibly be run by the railways alone, or by the passenger road vehicles alone, and certainly not by the steamers. In order to have a transport system which will at least supply the needs of the Scottish people, you are bound to have it so integrated that railway, Toad and sea are combined in order to give the maximum service to those who need it. It has already been said by my noble friend Lord Lucas that, even to-day, in trying to provide that need, the Government are paying to MacBrayne's the tremendous sum of £340,000 a year: and even that is not sufficient to provide a wholly satisfactory service. What the Government appear to want to do is to make it even more difficult to do so. We naturally object to that.
It may be said that in Scotland a Consultative Committee is set up, which, unlike other consultative committees, will have direct access to the Minister; and if they go to the Minister with a demand for improvements in the service, it is unlikely that the Minister will withhold that better service. That may be. What I am asking is: Why should we go through this lengthy procedure, when we already have a system which works, if not wholly satisfactory at least sufficiently
1416
satisfactorily in providing the service which so far has been enjoyed, and which one hopes in the future may be increased to satisfy an even larger section of the people there. Do not put us in Scotland into a position in which we shall be worse off than we are to-day. I wish the noble Viscount would look into this matter with a view to seeing that Scotland does not suffer at the expense of the rest of the country.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I will gladly respond in a sentence or two to the request of the noble Lord. Lord Green hill. Certainly the interests of Scotland will be looked after. That is why particular arrangements are made for Scotland—indeed they are not made for any other reason. Scotland certainly cannot complain that it is not being looked after. The noble Lord has, I am sure unintentionally, completely misunderstood the purpose of the Government and myself, and the provisions of this Bill. Let me explain in a few sentences what they are. We do not intend to suppress the railways. On the contrary, we intend that the railways shall have the fullest power to develop. That is why, in clauses which we shall reach presently, we are giving them facilities and discretion which they have never before enjoyed. Secondly, we do not wish to suppress their bus services. On the contrary, we wish them to take part in omnibus undertakings. But, as I said on Second Reading, we not only wish, but are determined, that where they do take part in bus undertakings, they shall be run if possible at a profit and in the best interests of the public whom they serve, and shall not be suppressed in the interests of the railways.
In the same way, we intend that they shall have a fair say in road transport, again not to suppress road services in the interests of the railways but so that road transport may be efficient and make a profit. I do not for a moment expect the noble Lord to like that way of dealing with this nationalised industry, because the noble Lord believes in the loss motive and I believe in the profit motive—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Which noble Lord does the noble Viscount mean "believes in the loss motive"? I wish the noble Viscount

1417
would not draw quite so much on his imagination.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Arising out of the noble Viscount's statement on the loss and profit motive, may I ask him whether, under subsection (6), there is anything to prevent the Minister—I realise that the Minister may or may not direct the sale of securities—from directing the Commission to divest itself of its controlling shares in the profitable undertakings and directing it to retain its shares in the unprofitable undertakings?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, common sense.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Can the noble Viscount give us any guarantee that in a Conservative Minister that quality will be present?
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has given up all hope of being in Government again!
LORD ARCHIBALD: I said "Conservative Minister."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I shall respond to the noble Viscount's
10.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a question about the continuation of business to-night. When the matter was
undertaking. He says he does not want to prolong this debate.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Oh!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is what the noble Viscount said. I will resume my seat, because I am quite willing to sit here all night. Does the noble Earl say that I may not wind up?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: So long as I have the permission of the noble Earl, I will carry on. I am very dissatisfied with the noble Viscount's reply. He obviously did not know the Bill when he said that of course the majority shareholdings could be retained. They cannot. The Commission must divest themselves, so that their holding is only a minority one. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall have to ask your Lordships to express in the Division Lobby your opinion on this matter.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Stansgate, V.

Chorley, L.

Mathers, L.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Archibald, L.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Winster, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rothes, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Selkirk, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Exeter, M.

Freyberg, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Gifford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Furness, V.

Hawke, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Goschen, V.

Leconfield, L

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ridley, V.

Llewellin, L.

De La Warr, E.

Swinton, V.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Grey, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lindsay, E.

Bilsland, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Munster, E.

Carrington, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cherwell, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Waleran, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

put to me this morning, one of two sources suggested that we might go to Clause 22 or ten o'clock, whichever was the earlier. As it is now ten minutes past ten, I think that in view of the great amount of time we have put in to-day it would be advisable to adjourn. I think the noble Viscount should take

1419
into consideration that we have not had the whole of to-day to devote to this business. There were fairly lengthy discussions before we reached the Committee stage to-day, and I suggest that in view of the time put in and the time we have before us to-morrow, it would be advisable in the interests of everybody that we should adjourn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am absolutely amazed at that suggestion. I cannot believe the noble Lord has made it of his own volition. If he was here at the beginning of the Business he will know that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition said that he was prepared to make an arrangement. He said, "Of course I am not going back on the arrangements we made and I will accept whatever is reasonable. I suggest we go on to Clause 22"—knowing, of course, that immediately following those remarks he was going to speak on the Royal Titles Bill. So we arranged to finish Clause 22. And then he said, "If there is not very much in it, we might take Clause 23". I said that that seemed a very good arrangement and that going on to Clause 22 would enable us to devote the whole time to the railway clauses and dispose of them to-day. There was not much, I thought, in Clause 23, and I said that probably it would be agreeable to the House to take Clause 23 and see how we got on. The Leader of the Opposition's last words were, "That is an excellent arrangement: possibly Clause 23, but at any rate Clause 22 is the 'target for to-night'." Clause 22 is the "target for to-night" and we propose to reach it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope the noble Viscount is not denying what I said: that alternatives were mentioned to me this morning. Are we now to go back on that arrangement? Apart from the business of this Bill we occupied a good deal of time on other subjects. I suggest that we ought not to continue the debate to-night in the somewhat frivolous mood, if I may say so, which I observed as I came in. I think it would be better all round if we adjourned until to-morrow.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should really like to know who is leading the Opposition. I understood the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was the Leader of the
1420
Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was present at the beginning of Business, which is the time when Business arrangements are made. I know nothing about something which was said—I do not know by whom—to the noble Lord. Certainly no arrangement was made with him. I understand from the Chief Whip on this side that not even a tentative overture was made. The time at which Business is settled in the House is at the beginning of Business. The Leader of the Opposition made a proposition to me. I accepted it on behalf of the Government, and we will stick to that proposal.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In the absence of my noble and learned Leader, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. I happen to be leading on this Bill. Of course, if the Deputy Leader of the House wishes to go on we will certainly go on. My noble friend only made a suggestion—there is surely no harm in making suggestions—and the suggestion has not been received. Personally I am getting in form and enjoying myself.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to leave out subsection (6) and insert the following, new subsection:
"(6)—

(1) Without prejudice to any other power them enabling the Commission shall have power from time to time to sell or otherwise dispose of all or any securities which they may hold in any body corporate mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) (a) hereof on such terms as the Commission may think fit.

(2) Where—

(a) the Commission directly or indirectly control a body corporate which is carrying on or is about to carry on an undertaking the activities whereof consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services; and

(b) as a result of the Commission or any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission disposing of any securities the Commission would no longer control the first-mentioned body corporate, whether directly or indirectly,

then the Minister shall, as soon as may be and from time to time thereafter, review the position of each such first-mentioned body corporate and without prejudice to any other power of the Minister to give directions to the Commission, the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, direct the Commission to dispose, or, as the case may be, to cause the second-mentioned body corporate to dispose of those securities at such times and in such manner as may be specified in the direction, and it shall be the

1421
duty of the Commission to comply with that direction:

Provided that the securities required to be disposed of shall not be more than is necessary to divest the Commission of control of the first-mentioned body corporate."

The noble Lord said: The first part of this Amendment is to ensure that the Commission shall in fact have power from time to time to dispose of securities which they may hold in respect of the road transport companies. I am not sure that the Bill as drawn gives the Commission the necessary power. I will deal with the second part of the Amendment and say that if healthy competition is to be achieved, it is essential that the management of road and rail transport should be divorced, and that the management of road transport should be in the hands of people who really understand it. I think that that view has been endorsed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
I do not mean that all the shares held by the Commission in bus companies should be sold; but provided the Commission relinquish managerial control in the provincial omnibus companies they should retain substantial shareholdings corresponding to those of the former railway companies. I sincerely hope that in due course the Minister will, in fact, exercise his powers under this clause and direct the Commission to dispose of their control of provincial bus and coach undertakings—in many of which, in some areas, they have a complete control. On the other hand, I do not wish to disturb the efficient partnership between the Commission and private enterprise which already exists on quite a substantial scale; in fact I should like to see it increased.
The second part of the Amendment puts on the Minister a duty to review the position of each of these passenger road transport companies as soon as he may be in a position to do so. We want to make sure that the question of the Commission's control of these bus companies is not forgotten, and we want the Minister to review the position as soon as he can. I wish again to emphasise that when a bus company is under the same ownership as a railway company, healthy competition is unlikely to materialise. In fact I should say it is monopoly in its worst form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved,
Page 24, line 10, leave out subsection (6) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not wish to misunderstand the noble Lord who has just spoken. He said he does not want to divest the Commission of managerial control. But he does want, I understand, to divest them of financial control.
LORD TEYNHAM: The opposite. What I am anxious to secure is that the Minister shall direct the Commission to get rid of a sufficient number of securities, so that the managerial control will in fact pass.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do I understand that the noble Lord wants to stand by the Bill as it is at the present time, and that the Commission should divest themselves of securities except those that will give, them a minority shareholding? Is that what he wants?
LORD TEYNHAM: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought so. But the noble Lord does not want the managerial control to pass.
LORD TEYNHAM: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: You want both to pass?
LORD TEYNHAM: Yes, I want both to pass.
LORD HAWKE: I think Lord Lucas is under some misapprehension about the contents of the Bill. Just before he called for a Division, I think he was led to believe that this Bill tells the Minister that he must divest himself of these securities. In fact, it is "may" divest himself.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not under a misapprehension.
LORD TEYNHAM: You are repeating it again.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation.
10.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON:I have been invited on this Amendment to say where the Government stand. I think I can do that quite clearly. Under Clause 16, subsection (6), we take permission to direct

1423
the Commission to divest themselves of majority shareholdings in their companies. I think it is fair to the Commission to say that the situation which has developed since the 1947 Act was passed has really developed in a way which the framers of the Act did not envisage. When they passed it, their theory was that there would be a lot of road passenger transport schemes; but, whatever else may be said about it and whoever may support any part of that Act, there was not a single supporter anywhere in favour of these schemes. Everybody—local authorities. Socialists, Conservatives, private and public traders, co-operatives and everyone else—joined in opposing those schemes. Therefore they have been quite rightly wiped out. Where the Commission did develop its road passenger services was by voluntary acquisition. They acquired companies like Tilling's and S.M.T. They acquired very substantial interests. Indeed, they wholly own forty-two bus companies operating 14,000 vehicles, or 20 per cent. of all the buses in the country, excluding those of the London Transport Executive. The companies operate in all parts of the country, but in Scotland and East Anglia they have a practical monopoly of the road passenger services. So in these areas of Scotland and East Anglia, if you take together this monopoly of road passenger transport and the nationalised railways, it means that the Commission have a virtual monoply of all passenger services.
The whole question of road passenger operations and licensing under the 1930 Act is being considered by the Thesiger Committee. Their terms of reference are:
"In the light of present-day conditions"
—I stress those words—
"to inquire into the operation of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to the licensing of public road passenger services and to make recommendations."
Those words "in the light of present day conditions" give full power to the Committee under their terms of reference to look at the whole monopoly situation. Indeed, it is certainly time that the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which has attained its majority, should be reviewed; and in the light of the findings of the Thesiger Committee and of the whole monopoly position of the Commission, the Minister may
1424
come to the conclusion that the Commission's dominance is unhealthy. Therefore the power is taken in Clause 16 (6) to discontinue the majority shareholdings. The House has just decided that that is right. I am not really sure that this Amendment goes any further than the words which are in the Bill. It introduces words about the Minister, that
"if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest…"
I would strongly advise my noble friend not to press for those words. They are very natural words to suggest. But we have been up against these words on a number of occasions. They look very nice public-spirited and convenient words, but one finds in fact that they are words of limitation. Whereas we want to consider a particular situation—for instance, we want to consider East Anglia or two or three companies in East Anglia—if you insert the words "in the public interest," somebody will say: "You cannot decide the particular position in East Anglia. You have to take the public position in England as a whole." Therefore, whatever else we do, I strongly advise the noble Lord not to ask to insert those words.
Then the Amendment says: "The Minister shall review the position." Of course, the Minister will do that in any case, but I should rather not have that provision in. I will tell the noble Lord why. If you put in that provision to review, the conception of it is "once and for all review"—or, at any rate, it is a review that takes place and then, like a quinquennial valuation, after five years you may start another. That is not really what you want the Minister to do here. You want the Minister to have the position continuously under review and not to make necessarily a general review. Take some particular instance such as the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, brought forward, of a case in Scotland. He said: "This does not affect the general aspect. I feel that the service is inadequate—or the railway is really diverting my road passengers through its bus company on to the railways." You want the Minister to have a look at those cases, which I think do arise, then to exercise his powers. Quite frankly, we want it. I want to see these powers used to carry out what has been emphasised several times to-night is the policy of the Government—and that is

1425
not to prevent the railways from having bus services, but to ensure that where they do have bus services or have an interest in bus services, those will be run efficiently as bus services and run to make a profit as bus services.
I can easily conceive that the Minister may say: "I do not mind your having a 100 per cent. or an 80 per cent. interest in this concern, provided I am satisfied that you are running it in that way." If the management is a very good bus-minded management, there may be no reason for getting rid of the majority control. In another case there may be a good reason for getting rid of it. Therefore, I suggest that we have a general power to the Minister to cause the Commission to divest itself of the majority shareholding, and a general duty, not to review from time to time, but to keep the whole situation always under review. I certainly do not think that we shall want the words "in the public interest." We are so near in intention, and not only in intention but in words, that I very much doubt whether we can improve on the words in the Bill as they stand.
LORD MATHERS: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I would point out that in his speech he used the words "in the public interest" and "for profit" as though they were synonymous terms.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. I did not mean to at all.
LORD MATHERS: Yes, you did say it. I am within the recollection of the Committee. The noble Viscount certainly used those terms as synonyms, as if they meant the same thing.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not say anything of the sort.
LORD MATHERS: Then let me put the question to the noble Viscount. Is not there, in certain circumstances, a public interest to be served without a profit?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has completely misunderstood. I never connected public interest with profit or with loss. What I said about public interest was that they were unwise words to put in because the courts might construe them as words of limitation, in the sense that if the Minister has to do something because it is in the public interest,
1426
he cannot consider the particular interest of the people in a particular locality. He may be held to have the power only if he thinks that it benefits the whole country. I never connected public interest with profit at all. What I did say, in quite a different connection, was that we were determined that where the Transport Commission had bus companies, they should be run as going concerns and if possible make a profit.
LORD MATHERS: I am sorry that I did not interrupt the noble Viscount when he used those words. I am quite clear in my recollection, and I should then have convicted him out of his own mouth.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I should like to support the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Teynham, and to say a few words on the general position between road and rail. I think the general situation was slightly distorted, in that nearly all noble Lords have spoken about the situation in Scotland. As a Scotsman myself, I should be the last not to wish to see the right thing done in Scotland. But Scotland is not the only place where road and rail transport are under joint ownership, nor, for that matter, is East Anglia. There are other parts, such as the South West, North Wales, North Riding and the counties of Durham and Cumberland. I suggest, as I ventured to suggest a short while ago, that where you get dual ownership of road and rail you cannot get healthy and reasonable competition; and if you do not get that, you do not get busmen giving of their best service to the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on one or two occasions, mentioned some figures, particularly in connection with the Transport Commission and with B.E.T. I should like to give five figures which I think are quite important and which will help to present the picture in perspective—these are round figures. Apart from the London Transport Executive, who own about 10,500 vehicles, the British Transport Commission wholly own 14,391 vehicles. The British Transport Commission and B.E.T. have a partnership whereby each own an equal share, and in many of the companies the outside public also hold shares, and there is equal representation

1427
on the board. The number of vehicles thus owned in partnership is 10,370. The number of vehicles wholly owned by B.E.T. is 1,150, and the balance of some 40,000 is held by municipalities and other operators, mainly vehicle and stage coach operators. So no less than one-fifth of the available road passenger transport is under dual ownership.
It is that situation which made many of us hope that when this Bill came along some action would be taken. We were very disappointed to see only a permissive clause. On Second Reading we were told that no action would be taken until the Thesiger Committee had reported. I am sure the Thesiger Committee Report will be immensely useful, but I venture to suggest that the terms of reference are very narrow—I think they are confined to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and I am doubtful whether all the points that should be taken into consideration in these difficult questions can be amply covered by such terms of reference. I hope they will be. Some definite action and policy is required, and some application of that policy is necessary to see that the best use is made of the services available. If the noble Viscount cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I would ask him to give an assurance that healthy and proper competition between road and rail ought to come about, that buses should be managed by busmen, that the position will be carefully and continuously examined, and that action will be taken whenever it is really desirable to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quite rightly said that one object of this Bill was to enable the Minister to reduce the Transport Commission holdings in operating bus companies to minority holdings. He then went on to ask how they could control with only a minority holding. I think he now realises that the whole object of the scheme is that they should relinquish control and management. In general terms, the fact is that we dislike the idea of monopoly, either private or public. A great deal has been said on that subject. The noble Lord gave us an insight into what is in the back of his mind, and what in my humble view was always in the back of the mind of the Government which produced the 1947 Act. I cannot
1428
quote his actual words, and I am sure he will forgive me for any inaccuracies, but in regard to an earlier Amendment I think the tenor of his remarks was: How can you expect the railways to compete with the buses unless the buses charge more for their short runs? That was the tenor of his argument. He mentioned two places. I cannot remember his exact words but if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow I think he will agree with me that his suggestion was that bus fares would have to go up in order to give the railways a reasonable chance to compete.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH:Would the noble Marquess allow me to make this correction? I think what I said was exactly the reverse. What I said was that there would be disequilibrium in the railways—that railway fares would have to be brought down in order to compete with the buses, and that they would have to be pushed very high where there was no competition. That is what I said.
10.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I apologise to the noble Lord for having misunderstood him. But I am a little nervous, all the same, that where there is dual control of the bus companies and the railways there must be a monopoly, and whether it is called a public or private monopoly makes no difference. A further point I should like to make arose in connection with another Amendment, but I think it is germane to this. Several noble Lords have mentioned the question of running services at a loss, especially in Scotland. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that all over the country private enterprise is running hundreds and hundreds of losing services. I know one company has 75 per cent. of its routes running on that basis. Where a reasonable profit can be made on running a public service on that basis, I suggest there is not very much to fear in the suggestion that the losing routes will not be covered perfectly adequately in a partnership between a private enterprise company on the one hand and the Commission on the other.
May I address one remark to the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader? I remember that when we were discussing road haulage he was very sympathetic towards the idea of a partnership of shareholdings.

1429
I should like to see something done with regard to the road passenger transport shares which are at the moment held entirely by the Transport Commission. It would be an easy operation to perform because the concerns are already in the form of companies, and the transfer of the certificates would not be very difficult. It is because of that, and because of the principle rather than actual facts on the spot, that I should like to see that done as early as possible. I hope the noble Viscount will not consider me too impetuous in making that remark. Therefore I support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I make an appeal to the Deputy Leader of the House? We have been sitting here for eight hours and ten minutes, and most of the time has been consumed in attempting to harmonise differences between noble Lords supporting the Government. There are still thirty-five Amendments in the names of supporters of the Government on the Marshalled List. Is it not possible for the Conservative Party to meet at the headquarters of the Imperial League, or wherever it is they meet, and get these differences settled, and not ask us to sit here hour after hour while differences are publicly exposed and not always harmonised?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Viscount need not sit here any longer than he wishes. It would be a very odd House of Lords in which Members in any quarter of the House were not entitled to make that contribution to the public debate and those constructive suggestions which they feel to he appropriate. There is no need for the noble Viscount to be in his place. If we were to go into a careful mathematical analysis—and I will have it made to-morrow—of the time consumed (and let me say at once that I am not complaining of it) by speakers on that side of the House and, speakers on this, I know on which side the larger proportion would come out.
I have been greatly interested in the two speeches which have just been delivered, and I think there is little between us on this matter. I should like to point out that while Lord Leathers said that he wanted to see the Report of the Thesiger Committee before he embarked on any large operational policy—I think that was the implication of what he said—there is nothing in this Bill which compels him to
1430
wait before he tells the Transport Commission to dispose of a majority holding. He could do it to-morrow if he wished. I am not speaking for myself—of course, that would be both an irrelevance and an impertinence in the case of a Bill like this, for which my Department is not responsible—but I think, after a great deal of talk with the Minister of Transport, that I speak his mind when I say that he would welcome this idea of partnership; that it would give a good interest to the railways, or the Transport Commission, and that they would make money and give good service. For my part, I do not think I can go further than that. I cannot go further than say what I think would be in his mind. There might be much healthier condition, much better service for the general travelling public, and more lucrative returns for the Transport Commission if, instead of being 100 per cent. shareholders in a limited number of companies, they had a shareholding which was larger in the aggregate in a larger number of companies. I think the Minister would not be at all averse to seeing that happen.
LORD GIFFORD: One reason why I think this Amendment is desirable is that there is nothing in the 1947 Act enabling the Commission voluntarily to sell shares in a passenger road transport undertaking. I think the only provision in that Act is that they may dispose of shares that are no longer necessary to their normal business.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, for saying what he did and adducing those figures. They add up in the aggregate to precisely the same total as mine. His calculation was done on personal knowledge; I have to rely on figures published by the Ministry of Transport. In the aggregate, however, our figures come to about the same.
LORD TEYNHAM: I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is going to look at the words in subsection (1) of the Amendment, and see whether the Commission has in fact powers to dispose of securities. I understand his explanation of the words "in the public interest." I agree they should not have been in the Amendment at all, because of judicial cases on this matter. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would consider in the next stage inserting, instead

1431
of the word "review," the words "keep under continuous review." I should like him to think about that before the next stage of the Bill is reached. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Before the Amendment is withdrawn is not the Deputy Leader going to give any answer to the cogent arguments put forward by Lord Teynham for consideration at a later stage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: He was assuming that I should do what was reasonable. I shall do what is reasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (6). The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton and I agreed that we should take the result of the Division on Amendment 73 as deciding the fate of this Amendment. So I will move this Amendment formally, and then perhaps its fate can be recorded.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We cannot do it that way. There is no means of doing such a thing. What can be done is that the Amendment can be put and negatived.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will move it and formally withdraw it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Move it and let it be negatived.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Very well then, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
10.48 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (8) after "any" to insert "person or." The noble Lord said: This again is an attempt to help Scotland a little, and England a little too. If I may have your Lordships' permission I will take this and the succeeding Amendment together. I am seeking that the Government shall widen the scope of the consultative committees. The consultative committees at the present time can make recommendations
1432
to the Minister relating only to the services rendered by the nationally owned transport undertakings. But that is not the whole problem. These consultative committees were set up under the Act of 1947, when there was a monopoly. The Government are dismantling that monopoly, but they have not thought fit to dismantle the machinery of the consultative committees. I think that the consultative committees can still serve a useful purpose. The Government, I think, are desirous of having as free competition as they possibly can, and I do not see why they want to perpetuate one jurisdiction for the nationalised operator and one jurisdiction for the private enterprise operator.
The noble Lord may say: "Well of course in Scotland they are to have another consultative committee." It is to be known as the Scottish Transport Council, but it is really only a grandiose consultative committee. It includes civil aviation and the like, but not representatives outside the publicly owned services. It is going to be an amalgamation of the representatives of publicly owned services and the Scottish Consultative Committee. The noble Earl may reply that the only reason for not bringing private enterprises within the scope of this provision is that we have no power of control; that if there is no jurisdiction over the private enterprise operators, it is not much use bringing them in. I do not hold that view. I think the Minister requires advice. If, as the Government hope, private enterprise transport is now to be the main field of transport in this country and the sphere of nationally owned transport declines, owing to the super-efficiency of private enterprise, it does not seem to me wholly adequate that the advice given to the Minister by the consultative committees should pertain only to a minority of transport undertakings. Even if he has no power, I think the committees should be able to advise the Minister upon transport matters in general. I suggest to the noble Earl—who I see is left with the powerful support of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture—that he could acquire power. The Government are doing a lot of farming in this Bill: perhaps that is why the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is here—he is going to advocate more ploughing!
That is one of the objections I had at the back of my mind when, in an earlier discussion, I spoke about revising the scope of the Road Traffic Act. Under that Act, the Minister can exercise power, via the licensing authorities, by making regulations which the Government may at some future date think advisable. The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, told me that a licensing authority could direct a private enter I prise operator to run an unprofitable route. With respect to the noble Marquess, who I know has an intimate contact with this problem, I know they just cannot do it. What they can do is to carry out a subtle piece of blackmail. That is what is really boils down to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think the noble Lord should use the word "blackmail" in connection with the licensing authorities. That is a wrong expression to use.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I qualified it, but I withdraw it. I hope the noble Earl does not think I meant it as blackmail.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, but it would be a pity that it should go out in that way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I withdraw it unreservedly and use the expression "a little persuasion". What the authority does is to say to an applicant for a licence, "Here we have a nice fat route, and here we have a thin one? Are you prepared to run the thin one, because, if not, we have another applicant here and if you will not, he might?" But a licensing authority has no statutory power to compel anybody to run a non-profitable route. I suggest in my Amendment that the consultative committees should have an advisory purview of the whole field of transport and I recommend it to the noble Earl as worthy of serious consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 36, after ("any") insert ("person or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
10.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We have wandered a little from the consultative committees into the licensing field. I should like to correct the noble Lord on one point. He said that the Scottish
1434
Transport Council was like a grandiose consultative committee. I do not think that is anything approximating to a true definition of a body which will consist of the heads of the transport organisations and whose powers will be the sum of the powers of its members. That is a very different body from a consultative committee. The noble Lord said the Minister requires advice. Why did he not arrange for that advice to be provided in 1947?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is that any argument? Surely we are now confronted with the Government of all the talents. Is the only reason why the Government are not going to do it the fact that we did not do it six years ago. That seems to me to be a futile argument.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then the noble Lord admits he was wrong in not doing that six years ago. The Bill extends the use of consultative committees over the whole sphere in which their recommendations can be given effect. Wherever the Minister is in a position to give directions, he can receive recommendations from the consultative committees, and on these he is able to act. It is interesting that that field was not taken up in the 1947 Act. I am sure that was because the noble Lord thought no importance was attached to this matter. The noble Lard thinks we are destroying something which existed before, but in fact we have given more strength in this sphere.
The noble Lord asked that we should also consider the functions of private firms not under the control or ownership of the Commission. In our opinion, little purpose would be served by bringing them within the scope of the consultative committees, because whatever recommendations were made there would be no way of giving effect to them. We are putting our faith in licensed competition. We think that will be more effective than recommendations from a consultative committee which there is no power to enforce. I say, with great respect, that our method is a far more effective way of providing a public service than that of having an innumerable number of bodies, all making recommendations to each other and hoping that somebody will accept those recommendations. I hope the noble Lord will.

1435
withdraw this Amendment. He will notice that there is another Amendment in the opposite direction a little later. For that reason, I do not think his proposal would be accepted very readily, or indeed, would serve a useful purpose.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It was only a generous gesture on my part to be helpful to the noble Earl. If he does not want my help, then I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Lord said: I suggest to your Lordships that the consultative committee procedure was really designed to fit into a scheme of fully nationalised transport under the machinery of the Transport Tribunal, and was never intended for road passenger transport still under the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities. If superimposed upon them, it will become a fifth wheel to the coach, and difficulties and anomalies may easily arise. For example, suppose the consultative committee suggests, through the proper channels, to the Minister that services should be reduced. If the Minister decides to instruct the Commission to reduce services, this might not meet with the approval of the licensing authorities, and we should have the Minister and the licensing authorities in conflict. I do not know, in those circumstances, who would win. Quite apart from that, up to the present the local authorities have constituted a kind of consultative committee, and the custom has worked very well, and I think it would be a mistake at this moment to include this provision here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, leave out subsection (8).—(The Earl of Rothes.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree that there is some substance in the point of my noble friend Lord Rothes, because it is possible that a recommendation from a consultative committee affecting a bus service might leave the Minister in the position that he has a recommendation, and his only way of implementing it might be to send a direction to the Commission. He is quite aware of that. The answer is that he would have to be careful in the type of instruction which was
1436
sent. It is in the Minister's mind, and he would merely indicate that he had had recommendations that certain services should be provided. I think it is improbable that a consultative committee would recommend that a service should be reduced; it is more likely that the recommendation would be that the service should be increased. The Minister would not send an instruction to a licensing authority that a licence should be given to the Commission. What he would say is that certain services should be provided in those cases.
The blunt answer is that this provision was not considered necessary under the 1947 Act, because it was intended eventually to nationalise almost the whole industry, when it would have been appropriate to do so, and because of the purchases made by the Transport Commission this did not seem necessary in those cases. But, as we know, we are still left with a big solidarity of ownership between road and rail. The principle we are acting on is licensed competition in these areas—that is, rather limited competition between road and rail, as such. We are therefore in this position: that in regard to the functions of the 1930 Act to provide a service as between competitors it is questionable how far it is thoroughly effective for its original purpose. It is for that reason that we think it desirable, at least for the time being, to extend the services of these consultative committees to bus companies controlled directly or indirectly by the British Transport Commission.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am rather impressed by the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, and also with the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I am not at all certain that the argument has not convinced me that it is better, if you cannot have these consultative committees with 100 per cent, jurisdiction, not to have them at all. I quite see the anomalies that might arise. If the noble Earl likes to press his Amendment to a Division, I will ask my noble friends to accompany me, and we will support him in this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his kind offer, but I should not like to disturb him at this late hour. I would only say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk that I am rather disappointed at his reply. Would he,

1437
when he is thinking about this, bear two things in mind? The first is that the whole business has already been submitted to the Thesiger Committee. Surely, as these consultative committees were set up under the very Act to which the attention of the Thesiger Committee has been directed, we might have awaited their Report before extending the powers here. Secondly, I was rather interested to note that the noble Earl feels that the extension of the Minister's information is required for these services, because, I suppose, he cannot be very satisfied with them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Trade harbours and port facilities
(2) The Commission shall not, after the passing of this Act, provide port facilities in any place unless either—

(a) they were, on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, providing port facilities in that place; or

(b) they had, on the said first day of July, power, otherwise than by reason only of section two of the Transport Act, 1947, to provide pert facilities in that place.

11.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN had given notice of two Amendments in subsection (2), the first being to leave out "either" and the second to add
"(c) in any other case the Minister so approves."
The noble Earl said: We now move on to another phase of this Bill, and I should explain straight away that the object of this Amendment is twofold: first of all, because this clause was never discussed at all in another place—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It was discussed on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I accept that. Secondly, I feel that some information is wanted on this clause. Like the Victorian parent, we should like to know what the intentions of noble Lords are towards this member of the family of the 1947 Act. It is a curious clause. It is curious in its omissions, because I notice that of the sections relating to trade harbours in the 1947 Act, three are repealed and one is left. That is one thing about which I think we should have an explanation: Why is the harbour
1438
of Holy head, which has a section to itself in the 1947 Act (Section 69) left, and the others repealed? What is the Government's plan for the future of these trade harbours? I would remind your Lordships that these sections in the 1947 Act applied to all the harbours, other than those used only by fishing boats and pleasure boats. The importance of ports to this country needs no emphasising. Everyone knows that they are in the most literal sense a vital part of our economy; everyone knows also that they are an essential part of the system of internal transport—they are the points of interchange between ocean shipping and the internal transport system of road, rail and water.
Like a good many other things in this country, they have grown up very haphazardly and they have always been known to be in a very unfit state of efficiency. Their ownership varies greatly: there were the railway-owned ports, ports owned by local authorities and by independent Boards. Trusts and Commissions, set up under a great variety of Acts of Parliament at various dates. Some were plainly controlled by sectional interests. Many were deficient in the financial resources needed to keep them in step with modern developments in cargo handling. Not by any means all the railway-owned ports, for instance, attained anything like the efficiency in the modern city of Southampton. Not only the financial resources but the physical resources of many of these harbour authorities were very deficient. The cargo-handling facilities ashore and on the quay, and the dredging, lighting and numerous other aspects were in no fit state to carry the traffic they were supposed to carry. Moreover, the composition of the various governing bodies was not by any means satisfactory. Indeed, it was very uneven, and in a good many cases the composition of these bodies had not kept pace with modern ideas of labour relations and representation of the workers on them.
Not having had any part in the preparation of the 1947 Act, I cannot say, but I assume that it was with those considerations in mind that the Government, in introducing that Act, regarded the ports as an integral part of the transport system and, therefore, included them in the sphere of responsibility of

1439
the British Transport Commission. Clauses 66 to 69 of the Act laid down the system by which these ports were to be integrated. The Transport Commission were charged with the duty of keeping them under review, with a view, when so directed by the Minister, to formulating a scheme for a harbour or group of harbours which would provide for all or any of the following matters—and there follows a long list, such as constituting the governing body, transferring the undertaking to it, grouping of adjacent harbours, assuring the representation on the boards of local interests and all sorts of interests engaged in the work of the harbour and using the harbour. The principles were also laid down. It was clearly laid down that all local interests were to be represented; that the seat of the administration was to be local; that there was to be no monopoly of the services in the harbour, and that anyone aggrieved by the scheme when it was ultimately executed would have an appeal to the Transport Tribunal. These provisions are not unlike the provisions of the present Bill before the House, so far as the railways Lire concerned, in that the Transport Commission is ordered to prepare a scheme to lay before the Minister. But in this case I venture to think that the instructions given to that body in the 1947 Act were a good deal better and clearer and there was a clear statement of policy, instead, as I said earlier to-day, what one might call almost a nebula of co-ordinating authorities.
What has happened since? Some of your Lordships may have seen the Transport Commission's reports, and also the report of the first reviews which they undertook in the years 1948 to 1950 of some of the harbours. The harbours that were examined were the harbours of the Firth of Forth, Dundee, the harbours of the North East Coast, the Port of London, Merseyside, Bristol and West Cumberland. In three cases the machinery went forward; the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive consulted local interests; there were long negotiations and, finally, draft schemes were prepared, referred again to the local interests and then put before the Minister, with objections. I understand that in the year 1951 three schemes were put
1440
before the Minister—one for the Tees, and the Hartlepools, in February; one for the Clyde, in October; and one for Aberdeen, in December. Whether any schemes have been submitted in the year 1952, I do not know.
There we have the position as the machinery of the 1947 Act has been working. It has been working steadily. The provisions of the Act seem to be fairly watertight in preventing any growth of monopoly and in ensuring that all concerned have a say in improving the efficiency of the ports. I do not think the Commission have shown any ambition at empire-building. I do not think they particularly want to add to the number of docks they control, because they took over all the railway-owned ports under the Act. They have been carrying out their duty under the Act and submitted their recommendations to the Minister. This Bill repeals two of the sections of the 1947 Act which gave this power to set up this machinery for keeping our sea ports under review. What, I wonder, is going to take its place? Her Majesty's Government are now dismantling the new structure for integrating the transport system as part of the economic life of this country. The props of all that structure are being knocked away, one by one. This is one of them, and I think we are entitled to hear from Her Majesty's Government what they propose to do about the ports. Are they going to abolish the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive? If so, what are they going to put in its place, and by what method are they going to ensure that the ports of this country are kept under review and modernised, and made capable of taking, their proper place in the life of the country? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 2, leave out ("either").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD WINSTER: I should like to say one word in support of the Amendment. Through my connection with a body which looks after the interests of the officers of the Merchant Navy I hear a good deal about matters which are covered by this clause and this Amendment; and I must tell your Lordships that I have heard the work of the Commission in this direction very highly spoken of, and a great deal of warm approval of their proposals for the future.

1441
On that account I am sorry to see the proposals in Clause 17—especially since anyone with any knowledge of the ports and harbours of this country knows what a great deal there is to be done in improving their facilities which, in all too many cases, sadly lag behind modern requirements. On that account I most warmly support this Amendment and its expressed hope that discretion may be left to the Minister to allow the Commission to continue this work. After all, it only proposes leaving it to his discretion. If the Minister does not think some useful purpose can be served by allowing the Commission to go on in certain directions he need not do so; but it seems to me gratuitous. in view of the good record of this Commission and the great satisfaction which their work has given, to deprive the Minister even of discretion to allow the Commission to go on with the work if he thinks a useful purpose could be served so doing.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can reassure the noble Lord who has just spoken by telling him that where the Commission are they will remain. There will be no alterations. What we are discussing here is whether they require more. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that they do not want more.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Earl must not misrepresent what I said. He knows as well as I do that the term "empire-building" is a colloquial term; they are carrying out their duty.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Earl said that they did not at the moment want to extend their port ownerships. Actually I think they are in agreement with others whom they might want to take over. The noble Earl mentioned the Tees, the Hartlepools, the Clyde and the Aberdeen schemes, and asked whether they are going ahead. I can only say that in the locality concerned those schemes proved to be unpopular. I suppose the likelihood is that they did not go ahead. The noble Earl gave us an extremely interesting speech on the importance of the ports to this country, and the system and basis on which they are run. He gave a complete picture of his view on the subject.
But we have a very limited aspect of the subject with which to deal. What stands before us to-day is whether the Government do or do not consider it desirable for the Commission to extend
1442
their ownership of ports, and I must state definitely that we do not. I can, however, say something which will please the noble Lords opposite who last night were very worried about the extent to which we were leaving matters to the Minister. Here we do not leave the question and decision to the Minister—very definitely we do not. The question of whether the ownership of ports by the Commission should or should not be extended we leave to Parliament. By not mentioning the Minister we leave the extension of this ownership of ports to the decision of Parliament. There will be private or Public Bill procedure and Parliament will either approve or not. I am quite sure I shall have the enthusiastic support of the Benches opposite on that point. For that reason I do not wish to accept the Amendment, and I do not believe Lord Lucan will desire to press it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am sorry the noble Earl does not feel able to say any more about ports. I asked him how the Government would ensure that the ports of this country are kept continually under review, modernised, kept adequate and adapted to deal with changing conditions. Let us take one example from the visits paid by the Commission—the ports of the Firth of Forth, which need considerable thought about their future, because of the greatly changing face of industry in that area. The Lanarkshire mines, which were at one time the chief source of the coal supply, have largely been worked out and are being closed down, while new pits are being opened in Fife shire and in the Lothian coalfield. What is to happen to the ports in the Firth of Forth, which are gradually losing their trade, and what is to happen to the coal which the National Coal Board want to ship from the ports nearest to the newly-opened mines? Those are the sort of problems which must be faced. If we have half-a-dozen separate authorities, each controlling a small port, how can they possibly take the wide view which will he necessary in order to adapt a whole estuary to the new requirements? Is the noble Earl able to tell us what Her Majesty's Government propose to do?
EARL DE LA WARR: Either the work must be done by the Commission or we must rely on the whole procedure which

1443
existed before 1947 and under which this country has built up its port facilities—the procedure of relying as far as possible on local initiative, supplemented by assistance and encouragement from the centre, and the promotion of Private Bills for the development of their port facilities. That is what we come back to, and it has worked extremely well in the past—much more successfully than that which has occurred since 1947.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We have now reached the ninth hour of consecutive sitting, and I want to ask those in charge of Business one or two questions. When the Deputy Leader of the House last spoke to me he gave me leave of absence, which, incidentally, was not in his function, for, under Standing Order XVIII, it is a matter given only by the House. Are we to understand that distinguished leaders on the Front Bench are reserved for Opposition Amendments and that the Deputy Leader of the House is to return for troubles which arise in his own ranks? If the Deputy Leader is not going to return, I should like to ask the advice of the present acting Leader of the House, Lord Selkirk, about what is the proper course to pursue. Elsewhere the usual course is to move, "That the Committee do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" until the Leader of the House is present.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am only saying that in another place, which shall be nameless, that is the course. I was asking the acting Leader of the House what is the proper thing for the members of this House to do when the appointed Deputy Leader, having "trimmed" me for complaining of the length of the sitting, then absents himself and shows no sign of returning.
EARL DE LA WARR: I know that we do not have many rules of Order in this House, but I am not quite sure what relevance those instructive remarks of the noble Viscount have to this Amendment—the question of providing port facilities.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My noble friend put some questions which the noble Earl was unable to answer, and I thought we should turn to a higher authority.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Amendments as to charges schemes.
(2) Every charges scheme shall, as respects the services and facilities to which it relates, comply with the following requirements, that is to say—

(a) it shall not provide for fixed charges or standard charges;

(b) it shall fix maximum charges except in cases where it appears not to be reasonably practicable or to be undesirable so to do;

(c) in cases in which no maximum charge is fixed it shall authorise the Commission to make such charges as may be reasonable and provide for any questions as to the reasonableness of any such charge being determined on the application either of the Commission or of the person liable to the charge by the Transport Tribunal, to the exclusion of any other court;

(d) it shall, save as aforesaid, and subject to the provisions of this Act, secure that the charges to be made are left to the Commission's discretion and that no conditions or limitations are imposed on that discretion;

(e) it shall secure that the Commission have to publish the maximum charges but do not have to publish any other charges; and

(f) the provision which it makes for through charges shall be such as may be appropriate having regard to the preceding paragraphs of this subsection;

and section seventy-seven of the Transport Act, 1947, shall, as respects charges, be limited accordingly.
11.30 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in subsection (2), after "section seventy-seven of the Transport Act, 1947, shall," to insert:
"be amended and shall read, A Charges Scheme may revoke or amend any previous charges scheme subject only to the proviso that the Transport Tribunal may not entertain any application for confirmation of a new charges scheme if less than twelve months have elapsed since the coming into force of the scheme which the new scheme seeks to revoke or amend, and shall as respects charges, be limited accordingly."
The noble Lord said: There have recently been very protracted proceedings before the Transport Tribunal relative to the proposed increases in fares in the London area, and there was a considerable discussion as to whether the Commission were entitled to raise the fares again within a period of twelve months. The discussion arose on a section in the 1947 Act. It seems to me that the intention of the 1947 Act was that there should be a twelve months' interval. The discussion was whether the Commission

1445
were entitled to raise the fares in the London area twice within twelve months. There seems to be some inconsistency in the Act, because if the raising of the fares is classed as an alteration in the charges scheme, under Section 79 of the 1947 Act, it is specifically provided that the Tribunal should not entertain an application if less than twelve months have elapsed since the coming into force of the scheme.
On the other hand, if the raising of the fares were regarded as a new charges scheme under Section 77, there was no time limit. Reading these proceedings, it seemed to me that there was something of a quibble, because what was proposed was an alteration in the charges scheme, and the intention of the 1947 Act was that there should be a twelve months' interval between the raising of fares in that case.
There has been considerable feeling about this matter. No less a body than the L.C.C., and other bodies such as the London Passengers' Association, with many other objectors, fought the case before the Tribunal, and there was a strong feeling that there had been a good deal of unfairness to the London travelling public. The object of the Amendment is to consolidate what I think is the intention of the 1947 Act by introducing the twelve months' interval, whether the alteration in fares is classed as a new scheme or as an alteration in the charges scheme. By introducing this Amendment, no matter which way the alteration is classed—whether as a new scheme or as an alteration—it could not be brought forward more than once in twelve months. This is not a new idea, because it existed in the 1917 Act, and the Amendment insures that the spirit of the Act is carried out.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 19, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Gifford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has raised what may be described as a very "hot" subject. He is perfectly correct in his presentation of the facts of the case—with this exception: the real point under Section 79 of the 1947 Act was to prevent repeated applications for changes in fares being made to the Tribunal by traders in other words, to some extent it was a protection for the Commission itself. Traders could make application to the Tribunal for
1446
various alterations in fares, and the limitation of twelve months was introduced to protect the Commission. Under the other Sections, 76–78, the changes could be introduced at any time. I feel that the noble Lord is not justified in saying that this is a quibble, because, with great respect, it is a matter which is being considered by the High Court.
LORD GIFFORD: What I said was that I felt that the intention of the Act was that there should be a twelve months' interval. It was the Commission who decided to say it was a new scheme and not an alteration; it was not a question of what the Tribunal said.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is precisely the case which went to the Court of Appeal, who decided that it was a new scheme. But this point is to some extent less important now, because we have the new Clause 21 in the Bill, which gives headroom and which means that some limited but immediate action can be taken. The headroom clause comes into operation only when a question of increased costs arises. It will not come into operation if the Commission are losing revenue because there has been a fall in traffic. Under this Bill we do not have fixed or standard charges; we merely have maximum charges. It is possible that at some time or another railway companies' charges may not be up to their maximum, in which case they will have a ready remedy in their own hands.
Finally, although we have this Clause 21, which is obviously in existence to meet an emergency, we must be careful not to drive the Commission into using it unnecessarily. In some senses the words proposed here would limit their ability to raise charges where it is necessary to do so, and they might be driven to use Clause 21 when they ought to prepare a complete new scheme to meet a new set of circumstances. I must tell the noble Lord that this is not the root of the trouble. It is no good not raising charges and pretending that the public are getting the benefit, because they are not. I think I can say that the substantial proportion of the accumulated deficit of the Transport Commission today is due to failure to raise charges quickly enough. While I have the greatest sympathy for the public who see charges rising, I must make that

1447
comment. Of course, centralised monopolies have not shown much tendency to keep their prices down. We hope very much that there will be a better tendency under this Bill to do so, but in any case it really is hiding one's head in the sand to pretend that, just by delaying a raising of charges, the public will gain anything. This matter is of importance, but I hope, in view of the other clauses with which I hope to deal, the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord does that, I should like to say one or two things. Even at this late hour, I think it is necessary to say that the noble Earl, if he will permit me to say so, has given one of the most lucid explanations of this present difficulty.
LORD HAWKE: Loose or lucid?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Lucid, clear, precise, short.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Pithy.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: "Lucid" does not mean "short."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What the noble Earl has said needed saying, because the whole trouble of the British Transport Commission, with reference to its deficit over these last two or three years, has been that the costs have piled up while the lawyers have argued. We see it happening to-day. On it can go; on it can go; on and on, objector after objector, playing the old, old game of getting nowhere fast; and in the end, as the noble Earl rightly said, the public who employ these people to argue have to pay.
I was interested in what the Controller of the British Transport Commission said the other day. This is what he said—I am quoting now from the Manchester Guardian:
"Sir Reginald referred to the argument put forward by many objectors that London travellers were paying more than their share. 'I would suggest that passengers up and down the United Kingdom, outside London, are generally in a position, when the circumstances are comparable with those of the Londoner, of paying their full whack. Outside London is standing on its own feet, taking the Commission as a whole just as we are asking London to stand on its own feet.' "
When the noble Lord wants this headroom clause cut down. I again say, as I
1448
have said many a time, that the British Transport Commission have in the past had to go to a Tribunal and then wait twelve months before they get a decision. The London County Council, when it raised its rate, did not have to go to any Tribunal at all, and raised the rate overnight. Look at 1951. When the British Transport Commission, losing £500,000 a month, went to the Transport Tribunal for approval of higher fares. When eventually, after twelve months, the Transport Tribunal did raise them, what happened? The Government stepped in and called a standstill. It is because of that standstill that the present application is before the Transport Tribunal. What did they say? Counsel for the London Passenger Transport Board said—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Order, Order!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am quoting from a newspaper. I am perfectly in order. It is the Manchester Guardian. Counsel said:
"Among the causes of the present difficulties was the Government's intervention when increases were last proposed, which had cost £1,200,000."
The noble Earl is quite right. I am grateful to him for having said what he has and for explaining the position so precisely.
LORD GIFFORD: I also am grateful to the noble Earl for his very lucid explanation. I think he is right that in the end nothing can be gained by allowing a deficit to be built up. I would only add that in private enterprise, when an undertaking with which one is concerned is making a loss, one does two things: one tries to avoid, perhaps, first of all, putting up one's prices until one has first seen whether any economies can be made in the undertaking. I think that that procedure could be used more freely by the London Transport Executive, which is the particular part of the London Transport Commission which we have been discussing. I am sure that there are many ways in which that body is being extravagantly run at present. In addition to raising fares, I should like to see a real effort made to effect economies. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) At the end of section eighty-one of the Transport Act, 1947 (which gives a locus standi to certain local authorities as regards charges schemes) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
In this section "local authority" includes the council of any non-county borough, metropolitan borough or urban district having in any case a population of not less than fifty thousand according to the last census for the time being."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to widen the definition in the Transport Act of 1947 of the words "local authority" so far as charges schemes are concerned. Under the 1947 Act, only a county council, a county borough or the Common Council of the City of London have a locus before the Transport Tribunal. This means that the metropolitan boroughs, non-county boroughs and urban district councils have no right of representation. It is true that it can be claimed that because every county council has a locus, every citizen is covered by the present definition. I suggest, however, that county councils are too remote to be able to represent adequately their local problems. I recognise that it might not be practicable to extend the rights of making representations to every local authority which would include rural district councils. In order to obtain some limitations on the number of authorities having the right to appear before the Tribunal, this Amendment proposes that only those non-county boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and urban district councils having populations of 50,000 or more, should be given the right of making representations on charges schemes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is an Amendment which will be of great interest to those immediately concerned in the non-county boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and urban districts which can be brought into the Bill. We have examined carefully the proposals which the noble Lord has made and we think it right that areas representative, as these are, of at least 50,000 people should have the right of making representations to the
1450
Tribunal. Accordingly, I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to the clause:
"(7) It is hereby declared that the discretion which, under paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of this section, is to be secured to the Commission includes a discretion to exceed any charge continued, with or without adjustment, by an order made under subsection (2) of section thirty-four of the Railways Act, 1921, but where the Commission make a charge exceeding any charge so continued, any person who would have been entitled to the benefit of the charge so continued may complain to the Transport Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall make such order as to the charges to beamed by the Commission in the cases to which the charges so continued would have applied as may appear to the Tribunal to be reasonable."
The noble Lord said: Many years ago, when the railway companies were constructing new lines or absorbing smaller railway companies or lines belonging to private traders, certain traders became entitled to specially low railway charges. As the Bill is drafted, the Commission might take away from the traders concerned, the whole benefit, of these special charges which they have enjoyed for a large number of years. These charges were embodied in agreements made between the traders and the railway companies, or in special statutory provisions contained in the Private Acts of the railway companies, and were, in fact, the result of valuable consideration given by the traders, such as the withdrawal of petitions against Private railway Bills which were, perhaps, seeking powers to construct new lines. In other cases, traders entered into agreements with the railway companies in order to agree on such matters as the use of land.
Under the Railways Act, 1921, a new system of railway charges was brought into existence, involving charges at a considerably higher level than had been in force before the First World War. I would point out that Section 34 of that Act provided that, where it was proved to the satisfaction of the Railway Rates Tribunal that any charge in operation on the fourth day of August, 1914, and fixed under any subsisting agreement was originally so fixed for valuable
1451
consideration, the Tribunal should, by order, continue the charge, subject to such adjustment, if any, as the Tribunal might think fit and equitable. I understand that in making such adjustment the Tribunal had to provide that the relative position between persons entitled to the charge and other persons, as existing on the fourth day of August, 1914, should not be prejudiced or improved. I believe that something like twenty such orders were made. I am not suggesting that the special charges should be continued for all time with the strict relativity which was adopted under the 1921 Act. It may well be that, in most cases, reasonable agreements can be made between the Commission and the traders concerned. But I do maintain that it is only fair that if agreement cannot be reached the traders should have the right to obtain a determination of the Transport Tribunal in the matter. Such a right is provided by the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Under Clause 13 (2) (d) the Commission have complete discretion below the maximum. But there are a large number of odd things arising from the original railways being taken over, such as land being taken in one way or another, and we think it is right that these special arrangements should be extinguished as fully as possible. At the same time there may well be people who have built up businesses on the strength of such agreements, and we feel that those people who are prejudiced by this development should have the right to go to the Tribunal. I think the arrangement suggested in my noble friend's Amendment is right and I am very glad to accept it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think one word should be said upon this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, started off by saying something upon which I was going to get to my feet and again congratulate him. It is a pity that we have to discuss this clause at such a late hour, when noble Lords are weary after a very heavy day's work, but this is one clause in the Bill upon which we wholeheartedly congratulate the Government. At least they have removed these things: but they are going to be against
1452
a terrific pressure. The noble Lord will doubtless forgive me for saying that he was slightly prompted by his Front Bench in this matter, who in turn, no doubt, have been prompted by outside representations. But there will be this continuing nibbling against this freedom. You cannot sweep away enactments and anachronisms over 100 years old without treading on the toes of some vested interest. If Her Majesty's Government do not have the strength of their convictions in this matter, if they do not withstand this nibbling to get back the advantages of the past, their position will be weakened. I would beg the noble Lord on this occasion—I do not know the circumstances of this particular case, so I am not going to criticise him—to stand fast in this matter, because we on this side of the House should like to press the Government to release even the shackles that they have left on and at last give the railways an honest chance, and not just a pseudo-chance, of being competitive. I am very sorry to see this sign of weakness. It may be only a small sign. I hope that the noble Earl will take into consideration the whole of the business element in this country which is behind the Government in their efforts to give the railways at least the chance that they have never had in these last two generations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord realises the price of liberty, but if he really wanted to be strong why did he not do this in 1947? I know that this subject is very painful to him. I am glad it hurts, and it will go on hurting the noble Lord. But perhaps I may make this point. Old rights will come before this quasi-judicial Tribunal. Will the Tribunal have any respect for an old right which to-day is completely unjustified? I submit that it is very improbable that they will—in other words, this will be a small shackle, except in regard to cases where there is evidence of some clear justification for a right claimed by the party making the application.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think it is a pity that when anybody in your Lordships' House rises to make what is a non-Party and constructive suggestion he should have to suffer a political taunt and gibe. If the noble Earl wants to descend to the hustings I will accommodate him. But when one wants to rise above that one often receives a gibe
LORD TEYNHAM: I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, realises, in his heart, that this is a fair and reasonable Amendment, and I am obliged to the noble Earl leading for Her Majesty's Government for accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Exclusion of certain enactments]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move this Amendment. I am assured that it is purely a drafting Amendment, because there is a definition of undue preference in another part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 31, leave out from ("prohibits") to ("and") in line 32 and insert ("undue preference").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Protection of traders against unreasonable or unfair treatment as to charges.
20.—(1) Any person desiring to send merchandise by railway in circumstances in which that merchandise cannot reasonably he carried by any other means of transport who is of opinion that the charge which he is or will be required to pay in respect of the carriage by railway of that merchandise in those circumstances is unreasonable or unfair may complain to the Transport Tribunal.
11.58 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to subsection (1):
"but no charge shall be deemed to be unfair or unreasonable, if it does not exceed the prescribed maximum charge as determined by section eighteen of this Act."
The noble Lord said: We have just passed a few clauses the purport of which is understood to be to wipe out all that vast volume of Statute and case law which has been accumulating since 1854, and to remove the shackles which have been imposed on the railways. Personally I think we shall find in practice that the alleged removal of there shackles has not been as complete or as wide as is claimed by noble Lords opposite. There will be licensed competition—a phrase beloved by the noble Earl—there will be licensed war to the knife; the survival of the slickest. That is what is in front of us. I hope I shall get the same success with my Amendment as did the
1454
noble Lord opposite. First, it pre-supposes that the Tribunal has thoroughly examined all the circumstances and has agreed to maximum charges, taking into account the factor that the industry may be tied to rail and cannot conveniently send by an alternative route. It is a typical instance of the fact that the shackles of days gone by were imposed on the railways, not in the interests of the railways, but in the interests of the trading and travelling public. Let the Tribunal fix maxima charges. It is presumed that those charges will be fair and reasonable—that is a presumption which can be made on the noble Earl's own argument. But quite a number of rates will be below these maxima.
The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the Transport Commission and other people from being dragged before this Tribunal if any trader feels aggrieved because an exceptional rate has been brought up either to the prescribed maximaor to somewhere below the prescribed maxima. Obviously, if the railways wanted something above the maxima, there would be a case to go to the Tribunal. If we are going to have this licensed competition, if we are going to have this freedom in the interests of competition and of trade and industry, then let us have it; do not let us, in one breath, say that we are going to have the freedom, and in another direction keep the shackles on. It is not unreasonable to say to traders with private sidings or things of that kind: "All right, go to the Tribunal, state your case and get the maxima charges fixed", but surely the railways, when that procedure has been gone through, will be entitled to say, "Taking into account the ordinary competitive conditions, the rate now charged is too low, bearing in mind how the rates have been built up in the past, and we are entitled to something more than, say, 50 per cent. of the maximum charge." Far those reasons I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD HAWKE: I hope the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment. I am not sure whether I understand the argument of the noble Lord opposite. I understand the clause as amended to mean that where the maximum charge

1455
has been fixed by the Tribunal, the railway company in respect of goods which cannot reasonably be carried by any other means may give to one trader a particular rate, and, under the noble Lord's Amendment, another trader cannot complain and go to the Tribunal and request that the rate be extended to him. I am all in favour of keeping a proper balance between competition and the interests of the railways, but I could not agree to this Amendment; it goes too far. The key point in this is the passage in the subsection:
"in circumstances in which that merchandise cannot reasonably be carried by any other means of transport."
LORD BURDEN: That will have been taken into account by the Tribunal in fixing the maxima. All we are saying is that if the railways wish to raise the rates above what might be the existing exceptional rates, that action is not a reason for taking them to the Tribunal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have had considerable difficulty in understanding or in following the noble Lord's argument. I appreciate what he said about equality of charges, exceptional rates and so on. But we have confined the protection of traders to one narrow point, and that is, as the noble Lord has said, when people are tied to the railway. What I find difficult about this Amendment is to know how anyone can exceed the existing maximum charge, because it would be illegal. The noble Lord suggests that we should simply be confined to the illegal cases. There is one case only in which a charge exceeding a maximum charge determined by the Tribunal can legally be charged. That is in the case of a special charge agreed between the Commission and trader. That is a matter which is confined to a limited sphere. The reference to that will be found at the top of page28. With that exception, maxima charges will not arise. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends it, but by this Amendment he would remove the whole effect of Clause 20 as a protection in the limited sphere in which it is intended. That, I am advised, would be the effect of this clause if the Amendment were inserted. It would take away the whole effect of Clause 20 in that connection. If the noble Lord does not want to do that,
1456
then I ask him to withdraw the Amendment, and if he likes we will have a discussion about it afterwards.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his gesture. This is a rather difficult matter. I agree that the intention is to protect those traffics that are tied. My noble friend rightly asks what is an unreasonable charge. Surely to ask to have a definition of an unreasonable charge is not an extravagant request. I agree with the noble Earl that this is a very complicated matter. I do not agree with his arguments up to the present, but I may do so, if and when I am persuaded that this Amendment makes nugatory what is sought to be done by Clause 20. I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Burden, in the circumstances, will not wish to press the Amendment and will be happy to withdraw it. Perhaps we can have consultations upon this point, and if the noble Earl can convince us that he is right, I am sure we shall not proceed further with this point.
LORD BURDEN: In view of the offer of the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Special procedure for temporary authorisation of increased charges
(5) Where the Transport Tribunal make an order under subsection (2) of this section or the Commission publish a notice under subsection (1) of this section, the Commission shall, as soon as may be thereafter. apply to the Tribunal under section seventy-nine of the Transport Act, 1947, for the alteration of all or any of the charges schemes in force, and the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section seventy-nine (which prevents the Transport Tribunal from entertaining applications under that section unless certain conditions are complied with) shall not apply to any application made in pursuance of paragraph (b) of this subsection.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We now come to the "headroom" clause, and there are two procedures in this, one affecting passengers and the other affecting freights. I think it is right that I should take this Amendment along with Amendment 88. That merely states that when a rise is made in the freight charges under Clause 21 (2) that will

1457
terminate when the decision of the Tribunal is eventually made at a later date. This is really a piece of mechanics, and I do not think it makes any difference to the sense of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 41, after ("shall"), insert ("until such date as may be fixed under subsection (6) of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 12, leave out from ("from") to ("the") in line 13 and insert ("passenger transport services provided for the purposes of so much of their undertaking as is at the passing of this Act being carried on through").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
12.10 a.m
LORD FAIRFAX of CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX of CAMERON moved, in subsection (5) to leave out "as soon as may be thereafter" and insert "within one month or such longer period as the Minister may allow".
The noble Lord said: My Amendment tightens up the time limit within which the Commission must apply to the Transport Tribunal for confirmation of the charge increases that are made, following the allowing of an application by the Tribunal in private. As it stands, the subsection provides that they must apply to the Transport Tribunal for confirmation "as soon as may be thereafter". That seems to me too loose a way to leave it. It means that the Commission, if they were inclined to do so, need not apply to the Tribunal for confirmation for a year or so after the rise has taken place. I would remind your Lordships that the first hearing by the Tribunal of the Commission's case for an increase in charges takes place in private and the public know nothing about it. Therefore, from the point of view of public interest, it is important that the public hearing should take place as soon as possible. Under my Amendment the Commission would have to apply to the Tribunal for confirmation within one month, although in special circumstances, at the discretion of the Minister, they might have a longer period. But it is for the Minister to decide whether a longer period should be
1458
granted and how long that period should be, and I think that is the right way to leave it. I feel that my Amendment generally safeguards the public. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, leave out ("as soon as may be thereafter") and insert ("within one month or such longer period as the Minister may allow").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We propose to accept this Amendment. We feel that the words in the Bill are too vague and that some speeding up of the temporary procedure is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put down an Amendment for three months but we think that is too long. There should be a certain amount of pressure. The difficulty about the three months is that the Commission might have a hurried examination of the whole matter without going into it as thoroughly as possible in order to get it done before the end of the three months' period. We think that one month, with the possibility of extension, is the best way of dealing with this. I hope it will be agreeable to your Lordships.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry the noble Lard has accepted this amendment. It is another "nibble." I should have thought that if the Commission were dilatory in making their application, the Tribunal would say they were not going to allow the application, because they had allowed too long a period to elapse before making it. However, there is the safeguard that the Minister can allow a longer period, and as the Minister has been putting all the widening and freedom into the Bill, on this occasion I am prepared to trust him and shall not oppose the Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I thank the noble Earl for accepting my Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: I also would thank the noble Earl for accepting this Amendment, against which my name appeared, and also for his remarks about Amendment 89, which, in view of the circumstances, I shall not move. I should like to say to the noble Lord opposite that this is not a "nibble." It is a safeguard for the general public which it is reasonable to insert. I cannot understand why

1459
the noble Lord should take such a pernickety attitude about it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 34, leave out ("paragraph (b) of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This also is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 37, leave out ("paragraph (b) of subsection (4)") and insert ("subsection (5)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 40, at end add ("or, as the case may be. of the relevant notice under subsection (1) of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.18 a.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved to add to subsection (6):
"The Commission shall not apply to the Transport Tribunal for temporary increases in fares under this section more than once in any twelve months."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of my Amendment is to prevent the Commission from applying to the Transport Tribunal more than once in any one year for temporary increases in fares. I feel that one application a year should be sufficient, and this would protect the public from undue and burdensome increases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Gifford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is true, as the noble Lord said, that as the Bill is drafted, it appears that two temporary advances in fares could be made in succession. On the other hand, that can be done only when the conditions in subsection (1) (a) are fulfilled—that is to say.
"that there has been or will be an increase in their costs which will, unless met quickly by an increase in their charges, seriously affect their financial position;"
1460
That situation must be established, otherwise the Commission would be acting outside their powers. If the Commission abused the powers specifically laid down, clearly the Transport Tribunal would not listen to them. I think that that is probably adequate provision. If the Commission are going mad, there are a number of other things they may do besides that. This matter has to be determined eventually by the Tribunal, and we have to assume that, it would be reasonably done. Theoretically, it may be undesirable that there should be the possibility of two or three temporary increases, and if the noble Lord wishes, we will look into this point to see whether that contingency can be avoided. I hope, however, that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment now.
LORD GIFFORD: I am grateful to the noble Earl for promising to look into this Amendment in an endeavour to avoid, as he said, two or three temporary increases in the twelve months. With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to congratulate the noble Lord. As the noble Earl has said, this again is something which I think could be left to the discretion of the Commission. One of the great troubles we have had in the past is that the Commission have been unable to move as quickly as their suppliers can. Their suppliers can put up their costs millions of pounds over-night. They do not have to go to a tribunal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might announce an increase in the bank rate or increase the petrol tax, and up would go the costs, by millions of pounds. Do you want the same position built up as exists to-day? I would beg noble Lords to be realistic in this matter. I am quite prepared to speak on the side of any noble Lord who wants to safeguard the position of the public. But it is essential to safeguard the position of these people who have not the freedom to increase their charges that private industry has. Private industry can put up its costs; its wages can go up, and it can put up the price of its products over-night. The Transport Commission have to go through this procedure to do it. The Transport Tribunal have acted very well and I believe have

1461
the confidence of most people. If the Transport Commission applied for anything unreasonable, they would be neglecting everything they have built up in the past—a real sense of responsibility. If they are not worthy of that trust, there is the Tribunal to say "No." Cannot we leave it at that?
LORD MATHERS: No doubt the noble Earl seeks to be accommodating at the end of the day by giving a pleasing answer to the mover of the Amendment, but I can promise him that he will not find complete unanimity in this Committee if he gives way too rapidly to an appeal of this kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move this
1462
Amendment, which is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 43, leave out ("under paragraph (b) of subsection (4)") and insert ("in pursuance of subsection 5").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
House resumed.

NEWBURY CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past twelve o'clock midnight