Lords Sitting of 12 March 1953

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

TRANSPORT BILL
2.36 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 23:
Amendments as to general duty and constitution of Commission, etc.
23.—(1) For subsections (1) to (3) of section three of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to the general duty of the Commission), there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(1) It shall be the general duty of the Commission, in the exercise of their powers under this Act—

(a) to provide railway services for Great Britain;

(c) to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services and facilities for traffic on inland waterways; and

(2) The following provisions shall have effect as respects the membership of the Commission—

(a) the maximum number of members of the Commission other than the chairman shall, instead of being eight, be ten;

(b)so much of subsection (2) of section one of the Transport Act, 1947, as requires not less than four members other than the chairman to render whole-time service to the Commission is hereby repealed and accordingly only the chairman and such other members, if any, as the Minister thinks fit shall be required to render whole-time service to the Commission;

(c) in exercising the powers exercisable by him under or by virtue of the said section one, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of securing that the members of the Commission include—

(i) persons who between them have had experience in the management of railways
1464
and road transport and in the organisation of workers; and

(ii) persons who, otherwise than by virtue of such experience as aforesaid, may between them be expected to be conversant with the requirements, as respects transport, of agriculture, commerce and industry.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in paragraph (c) of the proposed new subsection (1) to leave out all words after "expedient" and to insert:
"services on inland waterways and facilities for traffic thereon; and"
The noble Marquess said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. This is one of the Amendments which could be included under the general heading of "Buses for busmen," a phrase which has been used before. I do not want to go into the general background or the principles behind the Amendment, because they have already been discussed, but perhaps I may be allowed to repeat and emphasise one general principle. It is that it has alwaysbeen my opinion, and the opinion of my noble friends who support this Amendment, and others, that the Transport Commission should not be in the position of owning and controlling passenger road transport. My noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House knows our feelings on this subject, and I will not labour them any more. I believe that it is a mistake for the road transport industries—be they concerned with road haulage or passenger transport—to be the play of political Parties, and one hopes that out of this Bill and the Amendments there will come some form of organisation to which both sides can agree. For that reason, we have always emphasised the possibility of partnership between the Transport Commission and the bus companies.
One is a little anxious about the particular clause in the Bill to which this Amendment applies, because it covers the general duty and constitution of the Commission. In subsection (1) (c) there is undoubtedly the statement that it is the duty of the Commission to provide, among other things, "other transport services." Now what I and the noble Lords who support me ask, is this. Here I am in agreement with noble Lords opposite that if we want competition, let

1465
us have it. One does not want a private monopoly. We on this side of the House do not want a public monopoly. But we feel that here is a clause which enables any buses or any road transport passenger services run by the Commission—who, under another clause, now have to apply to the licensing authorities for a road licence—to be used to influence the licensing authority in the granting of licences.
It is quite a simple proposition. One of the companies in which the majority of shares are held by the Transport Commission—and there is no compulsion yet under the Bill to compel them to divest themselves of majority holdings in road transport services—might apply for a licence. That licence, quite properly, in the normal course of events, might be opposed by a company running a vehicle service in the area which is not within the railway-bus combine. If I were the licensing authority, I should probably feel biased towards a request for a licence where the operator seeking the licence said, "I refer you to an Act and to a Statute." There is no doubt, as he might say, that this particular clause makes it the duty of the Commission
"to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services…."
We feel strongly that in the future that clause might be prayed in aid for some form of alteration by a bus company owned by the Commission in an effort to influence the decision of the licensing authority. One is not pleading for privilege for private companies, as opposed to the Commission companies. What one is pleading for is that when they go to the licensing authority they should both start with equal advantages. It is in the light of that argument that I commend this Amendment to your Lordships and may I say that I am hoping for beginner's luck? In that spirit, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("services on inland waterways and facilities for traffic thereon; and").—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
2.41 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): The noble Marquess has asked for two things. He will not expect to get everything, but I
1466
think as regards the second request I can give him what he calls "beginner's luck." What he is really asking—what, indeed, I suppose is the whole intention of the Amendment—is to make quite sure that the Bill as drafted says what it means. But the effect of the Amendment, if the House took it as it stands, would be to remove from the list of general duties of the Commission any reference to "other transport services," which, in this context, means road passenger and road goods services. I think the noble Marquess will see that that would be altogether too limiting an Amendment. The Transport Commission is a statutory corporation, and therefore it can do only such things as are expressly authorised by its Statute. The Commission must have power to run these other transport services. Let me give an example which will no doubt be accepted in every quarter of the House. There are small branch railways which are very uneconomic and which probably ought to have been shut down before now. But they cannot be shut down without an alternative service being offered. The obvious alternative is a bus service. That form of replacement is economic and in the public interest. Therefore, clearly, the Transport Commission must by Statute have power to run a service such as that. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Marquess will not press for words which would, in fact, prevent that.
With regard to the noble Marquess's other point, whilst I will not say there is more substance in it—because I am sure the intention, and I would say the language, of the Bill probably prevents any question of what he calls undue privilege or undue preference—I gather that he is anxious lest the words which the Bill uses should be construed as putting the Commission in a privileged position, compared with other applicants, if they apply to the licensing authority for a licence. Quite clearly that is not the intention. Except in London—where the London Transport Executive has virtually a monopoly—the intention and probably, almost certainly, the wording of the Bill places all operators, the Commission and everybody else, in the same position before the licensing authorities; and it is the duty of the licensing authorities to administer the 1930 Act in accordance with the intentions of Parliament.

1467
The Minister has informed me that he will certainly bring this discussion to the notice of the licensing authorities. It could conceivably be argued—though I think it would not succeed—that some special position is created for the Transport Commission. That is certainly not intended, and no one—least of all the licensing authorities—should be left in any doubt about the position in law. However, as there might be a doubt here, I have taken the best legal advice I can, and I am advised that on the whole it would be a good thing to put in a small Amendment making it clear that licensing authorities are to have no regard to the terms of this subsection when they are considering applications made to them. I have fortified myself with that legal advice as to what is the common intention, and I am prepared on Report stage to put down an Amendment to cover the point. I hope that that will satisfy my noble "beginner."
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: In view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has told me—for which I thank him very much—I would much prefer not to press this Amendment. Having hoped to catch a 30-pounder and landed a 15-pounder, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in the proposed new subsection (1), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient."
The noble Lord said: This is something more than the drafting Amendment, which it appears to be. We wish to ensure that facilities for traffic on inland waterways may be given by the Transport Commission and I suggest that this Amendment makes the matter more clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 38, leave out ("and") and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD HAWKE: It is clearly the duty of the Commission to provide facilities for traffic on inland waterways and for that reason we should like to keep it in a separate paragraph. As regards the rest of the subsection, which was dealt with by Lord Linlithgow's Amendment, we
1468
shall want to look at the words which are offered by the Government on Report stage, in order to see not only that they provide guidance to the licensing authority in giving licences but that it is not stressed that it is the duty of the Commission to provide facilities for passenger transport if other facilities already exist in the area.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not going back on the last Amendment. I hope that, when the noble Lord sees it, he will not look a gift horse in the mouth. The Amendment I am going to put down will do exactly what I said—namely, to make it plain that all operators are equal before the law and that nobody has a preference over another. I accept this Amendment because I think it is really pure drafting, in the sense that it makes plainer what is the intention. There might be some doubt in the Bill, as it stands, as to the meaning of "other transport services" in line 38. Our contention (I think no one in the House will differ on this) is that these words ought to cover all transport services, including road haulage and road passenger services, as well as inland waterways services other than those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). To make this quite clear, I think it would improve the Bill to accept this Amendment. The result will be to split paragraph (c) in the Bill, as it stands, into two paragraphs. Under the new paragraph (c) the Commission will have a duty:
"to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services."
Then comes the new paragraph (d) under which the Commission will have
"to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, facilities for traffic on inland waterways."
The clause will then go on as it appears in the Bill. I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.52 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "ten" and insert "fourteen." The noble Lord said: We now come to the first of the important Amendments that we shall deal with this afternoon. This seeks to increase the size of the Commission from ten to fourteen members. If the Lord Chairman will allow me, I should like to deal here with Amendments Nos. 95

1469
and 96, as they both hang together. I seek to reinstate in this Bill the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Transport Act of 1947, which provide that there shall be four full-time members. That is the gist of this Amendment. I move it because those of your Lordships who have followed the discussion upon this Committee stage—and I think it is a great compliment to transport that so many noble Lords have withstood the rigours of three strenuous days; in fact, there were some noble Lords who at twenty minutes past twelve last night were as fresh as they were in the first five minutes of the debate on Monday—must have been impressed with the very difficult task that confronts the British Transport Commission in future. The Government have decided that transport is once again to be free. We are going to have that glorious open competition, beloved so much by noble Lords opposite. The Government are to launch on to this sea of trouble a public corporation with an invested capital of £1,180 million, guaranteed in principal and interest by the taxpayers of this country. That is no light responsibility for a body of men. I feel certain that, on whichever side of the House any noble Lord sits, he is sufficiently sensible of his public duty and public responsibility to consider that those assets should be under the guidance not only of qualified men but of a sufficient number of them.
Consider what they have to do. First of all, they have to organise their undertakings so that about £100 million worth, or thereabouts, of their assets is hived off and sold to the public. They have to do that "as quickly as is reasonally practicable"; they have to do it in such a manner as to secure the best price, and they have to so do it that the country's transport system suffers no disturbance. First of all, we on this side of the House say that a chairman and eight part-time individuals are not enough. Secondly, we say that we desire to see, not the majority but four, exclusive of the chairman, full-time members. I think your Lordships will all agree that in running huge concern like this, with the responsibilities that are thrust upon them and with the harsh taskmasters they will have in future—that is, the noble Lords opposite—what is needed is not men who are looking for a part-time job to occupy their declining years instead of sitting in their
1470
club but men who will give their full time. If I may say so with great respect, you will never get comparatively young men—I will not mention any age, but you will not get men within the fifties or something like that—
LORD HAWKE: Can the noble Lord tell us whether there is any connection between the proposed addition of four to the membership of the Commission and the fact that the Amendment is backed by four names, because we can then judge the ages?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that noble Lords whose names are linked with mine on this Amendment are applicants for the job. Is that the insinuation?
LORD HAWKE: I am asking.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Lord will address that question to himself and not to me. Perhaps the will find an answer which will amuse him; it certainly does not amuse me. There is not enough money to tempt me. With the noble Lords opposite as my masters, I should live with them for about a split second.
May I now address myself seriously to the task I have set myself in trying to tell your Lordships why this Amendment is on the Order Paper, as I expect other noble Lords will be interested in it? The reason is that we think that you will not attract the young and virile men by offering them a part-time occupation. As I say, you will get gentlemen past their prime—doubtless still very good, and in their ageing years, not too bad; but this is not a job for men who have already spent the best years of their lives. This is a job for men who, in the main, will devote their whole thought and mind to it, and who can look upon this job as a career for the future, not as one where they can bask in the setting sun of their commercial life. It is always a difficult task—I expect other noble Lords have had this experience—but the best blend is of part-time and full-time members. In an organisation like this, I think some part-time members are needed, someone to bring in. perhaps, the refreshing breeze of outside experience but the real hard job, the hard core, of the day-to-day administration and thinking out of the policies of this Transport Commission

1471
has to be vested in some full-time members whose only preoccupation it is and who do not have other partial affections outside. That is the reason why we have put down this Amendment. I know that much depends upon making a wise choice of the people concerned. I believe that as the job has got to be organised it needs men of imagination, who are willing wholeheartedly to go into this task. I want the Committee to believe me when I say that this is not just an attempt to revert to the status quo. The Amendment is not put down with that intention; it is put down because we sincerely believe that this is the best thing to do. I hope the Committee will agree with it. I hope my arguments will impress the Government, and that they may be tempted to accept this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 11, leave out ("ten") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord was fresh at half past twelve this morning. I myself was not entirely overcome—I managed to put in a couple of hours work after I got home. I have also taken note of his observations on what is the ideal age. I notice that, quite irrespective of Party, in most men's minds the prime of life tends slightly to vary as their age advances. The noble Lord has proposed this Amendment. Everybody is in for a bit of luck to-day because I am going some way to meet him—though he is not a beginner! The Commission started off in 1947 with eight members, plus the chairman—nine in all. As at present drawn, this Bill provides for ten, plus the Chairman. But I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment that has been put forward. The character of the Commission's undertaking is considerably altered by the Bill, but certainly it will still have to manage or supervise diverse interests, and the principle of decentralisation brings with it the need for more part-time members. Do not let us cast aspersions on part-timers. The Commission may want whole-timers, but part-timers are extremely valuable, particularly if they are the right sort of people. All in all, I think there is a case for having a larger Commission than that which is proposed in the Bill—namely, eleven.
1472
Another reason is, that we do not know how the regional reorganisation will develop. But if we make the Commission rather larger it makes easier the link between the regional boards—if the scheme should take the form (as I imagine it probably would) of having regional boards—and the Commission itself. It was suggested to me that the half-way or three-quarter-way house of fourteen, inclusive of the chairman, was as big as was really necessary. But there is not much between that and fifteen, including the chairman. This is a maximum. There is no sort of guarantee that we are going to put fifteen on at the start, bin it is not a bad thing to have something in reserve. I may add that fifteen is not a bad figure for a team. There are precedents in other fields for that. I hope two-thirds of this team will not always be in the scrum. Therefore, we had better not boggle about one or two here or there, and on behalf of the Government, I am prepared to accept the Amendment. Perhaps we could have this Amendment put to the Committee and then I will go on to Amendment No. 96, with which the noble Lord also dealt.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg formally to move the next Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Bill, as it stands, has no statutory requirement for any member of the Commission, other than the chairman, to be whole-time. Of course, that does not mean that no other member can be whole-time. The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to say that you ought to have four members other than the chairman, as whole-time members of the Commission. As I said on the last Amendment, we do not know what will be the final composition of the Commission until we know the shape of things to come by way of reorganisation. But we have been considering this matter, and we think that it is unlikely, whatever form the reorganisation may take, and giving full scope to the part-time members, that one would be able to get on with less than four full-time members. Therefore, I shall be glad to accept this Amendment also.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I just say that when I was a small child my great hobby was reading Bible stories, my favourite one being that concerning the walls of Jericho, around which the Biblical folk walked once every day for seven days? On the seventh day they marched round seven times and, with a mighty trump, the walls of Jericho fell. I felt certain that if I kept on long enough I could induce the walls of the Government, like the walls of Jericho, to fall. It must be the influence of the close companionship between the noble Viscount and myself, hour after hour, to six o'clock on one night, ten o'clock on another and half past twelve last night, which has melted his stony heart, so that at last I have had an Amendment accepted. With great appreciation I accept his offer.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think his allusion is a happy one, because he is singularly adept at blowing his own trumpet.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not wish to interfere with the trumpet blowing and other musical effects, but before the Amendment is carried I should like to be clear as to the effect of its acceptance. I take it that we shall revert to the position under the 1947 Act, whereby it was thought desirable to have four whole-time members. Whilst I should not object to the power that the Minister would have under the Bill as originally drawn to appoint up to four if he thought it desirable, I have some doubts whether it is necessary to have four. I think that the reason for providing in the 1947 Act for four whole-time members was in order to have three or four people specially responsible for the specific activities of the Commission. That is a system which I doubt would always require to be perpetuated in the Transport Commission. I can see the force of making the chairman a whole-time member, but I wonder what the other three would be required to do. It might, possibly, be quite all right to make the vice-chairman a whole-time member, but I think the remaining two would be in a rather difficult position. I suggest that it would be better to have the chairman and vice-chairman whole-time members, leaving the rest as part-time members, unless, of course, it should appear to the
1474
Minister to be necessary to have an additional whole-time member. Beyond that it would, I think, be better to leave the Bill as it is.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I add a few words to what the noble Viscount has just said? Unfortunately little can now be done because the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has accepted this Amendment. The Commission is supposed to be—as I believe it is and as I think it ought to be—a policy-making body, and I cannot see why you want a large number of whole-time members. My own experience with railway companies and other forms of business is that a whole-time member who has no particular job to do is an infernal nuisance, because he runs round interfering not in policy matters but in purely administrative matters. I therefore regret very much indeed that the Amendment should have been accepted by the noble Viscount, because it seems to me that it is running away from the idea that the Commission should be a policy-making body. I know that noble Lords on the opposite side of the Chamber have an exaggerated idea of the administrative ability of experts in this or that particular branch. My experience in the past of the railway companies—and I have been a vice-chairman of a company—was with boards larger than fourteen, and if I had had the opportunity I would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in regard to the numbers which he suggested. Boards such as I have in mind might have consisted of eighteen or twenty members, of whom only one, generally the chairman, was whole-time, and the deputy-chairman gave a good deal of time as well. The other members provided that knowledge of the world outside transport which was necessary in any policy-making work which concerned an industry such as the transport industry, which affects every individual and every business in this country. Therefore, I very much regret that there should be more than one, or possibly two, whole-time members of the Commission.
LORD WOLVERTON: I also should like to say a few words on this. I think it is right to increase the numbers of the Commission, as we all hope the work of the Commission will be the decentralisation of the railways. The railway regions, we hope, will be given more autonomy.

1475
But we should not, I think, need to have so many members full-time. I quite agree to the number being increased, but I hope that the number of full-time members will not be much increased, because it means that they then have to fish around for work and are apt to interfere too much with regional organisation.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not see any reason why they should interfere with regional organisation at all. This is a matter of opinion. I have sat on a railway board and on a good many other boards as well, and I found that it was a good thing to have a certain number of whole-time members and a larger number of part-time members. I did not agree to accept this Amendment in order to give "a little bit of sugar to the bird," so to speak, but because it was the considered opinion of the Minister that this would be a wise thing to do. It does not follow that because you are a whole-time member you are going to do someone else's job. After all, this is going to be a very large business which we are going to decentralise. It is a pretty vast undertaking. The Commission is not like the board of a single railway company. A single railway company might certainly do with one "whole-timer" on the board with another, possibly the deputy-chairman—like the noble Earl—filling the rôle of a sort of cross-breed. He would be practically a "whole-timer" when he was wanted to be. Perhaps he might be correctly described as a "three-quarter timer." But here there is a need to treble or quadruple that provision. This is an immense transport business. And remember, the Commission have both road and passenger interests to consider, and it is necessary to have contact with the regions. The very fact that there is to be decentralisation without functional control from the centre over the regions seems to me to be all the more reason for having close contact with the regions.
I think this is true of business administration as it is certainly true of Government administration, if you have a far-flung decentralised Department. Certainly, all the years when I have been a Minister of the Government I have always refused to promote anyone inside my Department who would not decentralise and make the fellow lower down take responsibility. That did not mean
1476
that I did not want myself and my top men to get around and have contact. My job in West Africa in the war consisted entirely of getting around. I did it with a very small staff and I did not do other people's jobs. In a case like this you want personal contact, and I do not believe that you get it by having a "part-timer," whom you would have to get hold of every time you needed him for some particular piece of work. One can imagine saying to such a "part-timer": "Can you get down there to see this fellow—the regional authorities want to see you." And bear in mind that a great deal is accomplished by talking to a director rather than simply talking to someone who is sent clown as his representative. You can imagine this "part-timer" whom you have asked to go down to the region saying, "I do not think I can do that now. I have a meeting of the board of the I.C.I. on Monday, something else on Tuesday, and a sitting of a Royal Commission on Wednesday. But I think that perhaps I could do it on Tuesday of next week." That sort of thing is not going to provide the quick personal and intimate contact which we want. I would guess that the Ministry are quite right in what they have advised me to do.
LORD WINSTER: I hope that the noble Viscount will allow me to congratulate him on the resilience which enabled him to do two hours' work last night after your Lordships' House had adjourned. I only want to suggest to him a rather melancholy thought, and that is that as old age increases upon us we need less and less sleep. It is unfortunate but true. On the two questions which have come before us on these Amendments, I would say this. While it might appear that fourteen is rather a large number (perhaps the noble Viscount would agree with me that a committee of one is the best committee you can possibly have) I think you will need a large number of members upon this committee, because a wise committee do not attempt to handle everything themselves but delegate certain specific questions to sub-committees with instructions to report their findings to the committee as a whole. Therefore, I think that the number of fourteen is, in this case, not too large, because it permits the delegation of a certain amount of work to subcommittees. That delegation would be

1477
impossible if the committee consisted of too small a number.
On the question of part-time or full-time members, I would only say that I think a committee will never really enjoy the full respect or full confidence of the public unless it consists of a reasonable number of full-time members. Otherwise the public are bound to say: "This is only a manufactured job. There cannot be a real job in this, for, look, it is handled by a number of people with whom it is only a part-time occupation." Therefore in the case of a Commission charged with such great responsibilities as this is, as shown by the words at the top of page 33, I feel sure it is wise to ensure that that Commission consists of a reasonable number of full-time members who are regarded by the public as giving the whole of their time to the extremely important duties confided to them.
LORD HAWKE: As I have spoken strongly against functionalism in the past, I should like to say that the declaration by my noble friend in front of me has considerably relieved my mind. It looks to me as if on this Board it is going to be possible to have whole-time members who do not perpetuate what we think is the bad system whereby, for instance, the engineer in charge of an engineering department at the centre can give orders to engineers in the regions behind the backs of the regional managers. That satisfies me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.22 p.m.
LORD BILSLAND LORD BILSLAND moved, to add to subsection (2) (a):
"(iii) Two persons elected in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland being persons who may be expected to be conversant with Scottish Transport requirements and who shall not render whole time service to the Commission or any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission.
The noble Lord said: I hope that the run of luck which other noble Lords have had will also apply in my case. I rise to make a plea for Scotland in the larger number of members of the British Transport Commission agreed to by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. In the Second Reading debate, and during Committee stage, many noble Lords have referred to
1478
the pressing transport problems in Scotland to-day. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said he was staggered by the transport problems of Scotland. I shall not detain your Lordships by re-stating in detail the case Which I endeavoured to make on Second Reading for special consideration being given to these problems. They derive from the greater distance of Scottish manufacturers from the large centres of population; from the physical difficulties of communication; from our sparser population, which is reflected by the fact that though we have 18 per cent. of railway mileage we have only 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom; the urgent problems of the Highlands and so forth. An efficient transport service is of major importance everywhere; to Scotland it is vital.
Since the British Transport Commission were set up under the Act of 1947, they have had one part-time member, Sir Ian Bolton, representing Scottish interests. I pay tribute to the outstanding service he has performed and to the very able manner in which he has so closely applied his wide knowledge of transport in general and of Scottish transport problems in particular. My colleagues and I on the Scottish Council feel that circumstances warrant a plea for a larger representation of Scottish interests on the Commission. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment to extend the provisions of Clause 23 to embrace an explicit requirement that the members of the Commission should include two, to be appointed in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to represent the transport interests of the community in Scotland. The British Transport Commission, which I presume will be reconstituted as soon as the Bill becomes law, will be charged with the function of preparing a scheme of railway reorganisation. That scheme will be of fundamental importance to Scotland. It is necessary, therefore, that the Scottish point of view should be brought fully to bear at this stage. For that reason, as well as for the vital importance of transport in the Scottish economy in general and in the long-term problems with which we are faced, I submit this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 30, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Bilsland.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Lord a point of elucidation? Does he mean by the words
"persons who may be expected to be conversant with Scottish Transport requirements"
that they must be Scottish by birth or Scottish by attachment? Or may they be even mere Englishmen?
LORD BILSLAND: What we have in mind are people entirely conversant with Scottish conditions and problems.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord does not debar those who are not Scottish?
LORD BILSLAND: We should prefer Scotsmen, as they are more likely to have that knowledge.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Did the noble Lord say that Scotland had 10 per cent. of our population and 18 per cent. of railway mileage?
LORD BILSLAND: Yes.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has in mind two Scottish members in addition to the fourteen; or out of that number.
LORD BILSLAND: Out of that number.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My noble friend Lord Bilsland has covered the arguments in favour of this Amendment very thoroughly and there is not much more to add. There is the obvious argument that Scotland's population and industries are scattered and are such a long way from London and the South that a specialised knowledge is necessary in drawing up and supervising railway schemes for Scotland. That argument is widely known and, I think, fairly irresistible, but I should like to add that it is important that people in Scotland should be made to feel they are not being left out of affairs which concern them, as a Scottish area railway scheme would do. I believe that by the appointment of two Scottish members we shall create a feeling of confidence in Scotland which will be very valuable. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD GREENHILL: Having heard a noble Lord who is associated with no Party and a noble Lord who presumably is a member of the Party opposite supporting this Amendment, I think it would
1480
be a good thing that a member of the Opposition should speak in favour of this Amendment. As one who for a time was a Deputy Traffic Commissioner, I have vivid recollections of the anxiety with which people in the north-west of Scotland asked us to do all we could to help them in their transport problems, and of the scepticism with which they accepted our assurances that we would press their representations in the appropriate quarters. If the Commission had two members who were acquainted with these difficult and peculiar problems affecting Scotland, and particularly the north of Scotland, I feel that not only would it give a feeling of reassurance to the people in the north of Scotland but that even the Minister would feel he had someone on whom he could rely for the opinions and facts necessary to keep him right when it came to dealing with special problems. For that reason, I have pleasure in associating myself with the mover of this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Viscount replies, if the Government are going to consider this matter on a national basis, on behalf of my noble friends Lord Ogmore and Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I must enter a caveat for Wales.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should like to make a comment on behalf of other parts of England. No doubt Scotland merits all this consideration, and it cannot be said that we did not devote an adequate amount of time yesterday and the day before to the discussion of the difficult problems in that unfortunate country. But I come from an equally important part of the country, which happens to be a neighbour of Scotland, and I have strong feelings as to which of the two should be given more attention. I should not object to an Amendment which provided that all parts of the country should have their problems considered by people with knowledge, but I feel that too much attention should not be given to Scotland.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Obviously, there is only one way of satisfyng the Committee, and that is to lay down that all members of the Board should be drawn from the Scilly Isles—that would conform to complete impartiality. Really, this outburst of nationalism is ill-timed in these days of United Nations.

1481
Scotland, after all, not merely by virtue of the Scottish conquest of England, has always been entitled to a rather special position. I take it that my noble friend Lord Bilsland, when he says in his Amendment "elected," means "selected."
LORD BILSLAND: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Government on various occasions have indicated that they wish to give special consideration to Scotland—my noble friend Lord Home made a full speech about that on the Second Reading. In addition to the transport users consultative committee for Scotland, it is proposed to set up a Scottish Transport Council, with representatives of railways, airways, road passenger transport and Messrs. MacBrayne, who figured so complimentarily in our debates last night. It has always been the intention of the Government that Scotland should be adequately represented. It has had one member on the Commission, to whom a very proper tribute has been paid. On the enlarged Commission—and I have now accepted the enlargement—I suppose Scotland has a reasonable claim to apply the Goschen formula and get its eleven-eightieths. The Minister would be quite willing to give such an assurance. From time to time, in the days when the late Government were in office, I pressed, on important matters, that an assurance might be embodied in the Bill. I seldom succeeded in convincing them. However, I think we might put something about this in the present Bill.
Scotland really does occupy a different position. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has vicariously represented Wales. I remember that the late Sir Alfred Mond constituted himself one of the great protagonists of Welsh patriotism. Now the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has come here—in person, I am glad to say—to speak for Wales. But Scotland is rather different. It is a self-contained region, whereas Wales is not. I am not forecasting what would be the regions on which decentralisation might come, but certainly with most of the things with which one has ever had to deal in Wales, the position has not been like that in
1482
Scotland. Vitally important as Wales is, for practical administrative purposes it does rather split itself into two parts. We have South and North Wales. I imagine that if we had a region which covered North Wales, that would more naturally go in with Lancashire and Cheshire; whereas South Wales would go in with the western region. That would probably be a reasonable arrangement for practical administrative purposes. There is a Welsh consultative committee, which is now going to have direct access to the Minister. It will be able to send its minutes and recommendations direct to the Minister, as well as to the Central Transport Consultative Committee. Therefore, we have made great improvements on Lord Lucas's own Act. The Minister, of course, can give directions to the Commission arising out of recommendations. There are to be consultative committees dealing with the road passenger services.
I feel that Scotland ought to have this consideration, but I hope that this will not start a sort of "free for all." See how it runs. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gets up and says something about Wales; and then, quite rightly, my noble friend Lord Ridley gets up and says that if Wales is to be included, then Northumberland should be. We shall end up by going the whole way through all the counties. I will not ask the Committee to take a decision at this moment, but I should be prepared to put down on Report an Amendment in these terms:
"of whom at least two shall be persons appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland as being persons likely to be conversant with the circumstances and special requirements of Scotland."
If the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, will agree to withdraw his Amendment now, I will put down that Amendment on the Report stage. I hope it will be accepted if I do put it down, and that I shall not have as many Amendments as there are counties.
LORD BILSLAND: I thank the noble Viscount, and in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Miscellaneous amendments as to Commission]:
3.39 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Where one of the activities mentioned in subsection (3) of section two of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to the carrying on by the Commission of the activities of undertakings acquired by them)was the provision of a garage for the passengers of the undertaking and for other persons making use of the services of the undertaking, the Commission shall have power notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in the Transport Act, 1947, for the purpose of any garage so provided to maintain and repair and to purchase and supply spare parts accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons."
The noble Lord said: This is not a major point, but I feel there is a small matter here which is not right in the Bill at the moment and should be put right. It concerns Commission-owned garages. I may say at the outset that almost all these garages in the country are attached to the railway hotels. Before the 1947 Act these garages were able to give a perfectly normal garage service to customers, in the way not only of garaging cars but also of selling oil, petrol and spares, and carrying out repairs and so on. Under the 1947 Act it was decided that, after a period of three years from the passing of that Act, this service to the public should cease, and that the only service these garages would be able to give would be that of garaging cars. The purpose of this Amendment is to restore the situation affecting these garages to what it was before the 1947 Act, so that they will be able to give a full service to the public. It seems reasonable that if one stays in a railway hotel which has a garage attached, puts one's car in the garage and in the morning asks for petrol and oil and, may be, a new lamp bulb, one should be able to get them. If one cannot get them it is a great and an unnecessary irritation.
It may be asked why, if the service from these garages was removed under the 1947 Act, it should be restored now. There is not a great deal of difference, but from our point of view on this side of the House, under the 1947 Act the Commission had considerable power. It owned the railways and it owned a large part of the road services of the country. It was undesirable that State trading on
1484
the part of the Commission should be spread more than was necessary for the main purposes of the Act. Now, on the contrary, the Commission is being divested of a large part of its road services, and a state of competition is being introduced between the various transport branches in the country. That competition is being encouraged by the Government. Therefore it seems unreasonable to me that the garages which are owned by the Commission should not be put into a position where they can really compete with private garages. I also feel that it would be an advantage from the point of view of putting other garages on their mettle. I hope the Government may accept this Amendment. It is only a small point, but I do think there is a case here for something to be put right under this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD WOLVERTON: Some of us think that this matter is already covered under the 1947 Act. Section 2 (1) (f) says that the Commission shall have power
"to provide in Great Britain such other amenities and facilities for passengers and other persons making use of the services provided by them as it may appear to them requisite or expedient to provide."
We think those words could cover petrol pumps and so on.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, said that this is a little point. One day I will tell him a story about something that started life as being very small. I will not do it now. This is the funniest and weirdest Amendment I have ever seen put down to a Bill from the Government side of your Lordships' House. This is the first essay of the Conservative Party into nationalisation. What they now seek to do is to start nationalising the retail motor trade. I think it is too well known for me to have to declare an interest in this trade, but I will do so for the sake of the record.
The history of this matter is most remarkable. When the 1947 Act was going through your Lordships' House, the Government of the day were attacked, and attacked vigorously, by the present Deputy Leader of the House upon their infamy in including in the Bill

1485
powers for the British Transport Commission to engage in the manufacture of chassis and bodies, and to go into the retail motor trade. Noble Lords will recall that when the British Transport Commission acquired all the undertakings under the powers conferred by the 1947 Act, they acquired many strange things. They acquired greengrocery businesses, manufacturing businesses, chassis and body-building businesses and garages. I have here the words of the noble Viscount. Before he left the Chamber told him I was going to quote him and, with the good humour which he displays, he said, "Yes, all right; go on. I know." This is what the noble Viscount said when he was apposing on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill in 1947 (OFFICIAL REPORT, VOL 148, col. 363):
"If, to all that, they are to add the manufacture of this or that, or the retailing of this or that, they will never get on with the job of transport. I, in my own business experience, have had perhaps my greatest success in disintegrating businesses"—
how true!—
"rather then in integrating them."
The noble Viscount went on to say:
"This was partly the result of megalomania and partly due to the mistaken idea that if you engaged in one form of enterprise you ought to engage in every form of ancillary enterprise that served it."
The noble Viscount was reinforced by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend who was then the Leader of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Addison, said that upon the Report stage he would do something about this—and we did. My noble friend Lord Addison said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 150, col. 270):
"For example, you might take over a concern which had a repair shop or some petrol pumps, or which dealt in second-hand cars, or carried on other activities of that kind. Now those activities are not necessarily proper to the business of the Transport Commission, and there is no desire that they should continue to pursue them."
We therefore framed Amendments and took them out of the Bill and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, later said (col. 272):
"My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Leader of the House on an admirable chain of Amendments, and to thank him sincerely for the great trouble he has himself taken over this matter."
Then, on the Third Reading, the noble Viscount said this—and here I again
1486
thank the noble Viscount for the compliment he paid me just now, because, after all, praise from such an accomplished practitioner of trumpet-blowing as the noble Viscount is praise indeed. This is what he said then (col. 642):
"Another wise Amendment, introduced I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas"—
that was when the noble Viscount used to blow my trumpet for me; alas! those days are long ago—
"made it clear that the Commission would not deal"—
this is the Amendment—
"in a lot of things which they ought not to be meddling with, such as garages, dealing in cars and secondhand vehicles, retailing petrol and so on."
So it was at the instigation of the noble Viscount that there was withdrawn from the 1947 Act all these things which the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, now wants to bring into this Bill.
I think the noble Lord did his best with the Amendment he moved, but he was not quite correct. These hotel garages have been run very successfully by private enterprise. They are all let to private enterprise. In those days we took the view that that is the way it should be done. It is useless to say that the public are suffering; they are not. The hotels provide the premises and sub-let them. That is what I should have thought noble Lords on the other side of the House wanted. Do you want to start nationalising an industry by a side-wind like this? I cannot understand the noble Lords opposite. Surely it is against their creed. Why should a garage that happens to be site-owned by a railway hotel, or a British Transport Commission hotel, be publicly owned? Why should it be necessary for them to run a garage? Most of these hotels have shops. Gleneagles is an example. Is the noble Lord going to say that the British Transport Commission must now enter the soft goods trade? What is the noble Lord's Party Chairman, as a former head of Lewis's, going to say?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Does the noble Lord want me to answer that question now?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should prefer him to answer at the end of my speech. Does the noble Lord wish to nationalise the bookstalls on station platforms? Why not nationalise the

1487
book-selling business? Is it because W. H. Smith and Son happen to be keen supporters of the Conservative Party? This is a vital point. The noble Marquess Lord Linlithgow, and others, said that it was really the job of the British Transport Commission to run transport and not to fiddle about with running buses, and running traffic on waterways, or anything else of the kind. Surely it is not their job to run garages. I quite agree with the noble Lord that every respectable hotel should be able to supply these services. They can, and they are doing it by letting the garages out to public enterprise. I suggest that it is the acme of perfection from the Conservative Party' point of view that a state-owned hotel should allow these services to be run by private enterprise. I suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw this Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I must reply to the extraordinary statements that have been emanating from the noble Lord. He has been suggesting that I am advocating nationalisation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: You are.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: These railway-owned garages were nationalised by the Party of the noble Lord opposite.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They were not. We took them out of the Bill. I have just been telling the noble Lord that.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Surely they are still owned by the Commission?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are not.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: It is the nationalised body which gets the income from the letting. Surely they are the beneficiaries and the garages are in effect nationalised. That seems to me a perfectly straightforward way to put it, which I think anyone should be able to understand, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to grasp it. It was the noble Lord's Party who nationalised these things, yet the noble Lord is trying to make out that I am advocating for the
1488
first time that they should be nationalised. He seems to me to be very inconsistent. Here he is accusing me of advocating that these garages should be kept under State enterprise and yet he does not raise one word of protest against a similar situation with regard to the hotels. The hotels certainly give an ancillary service to the railway; it might be said that they are in a way some form of State trading. But the noble Lord has never demanded that we should take them out of the Bill and put them completely under private enterprise. I do not see how he can pick on a small point such as this and say that I am suggesting something which I certainly have not suggested while at the same time completely miss the larger thing— the hotels.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, first of all, does not quite know what is in his own Amendment. He says that these garages, the premises of which are owned by the ground landlord—that is to say, the hotel—and which are being let to private enterprise, must:
"…maintain and repair and…purchase and supply spare parts, accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons…."
They are going into the trade. But the hotels at present are not. The railways may own the land upon which cinemas are built; they may be the ground landlords; but that does not put them into the cinema category. When the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, advocated that hotels should go back to the railways, what did the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, say? He said that the future of the hotel industry vis-àvis British transport remains undecided at the present time. I quite agree but the time will come when it will be right to sell and hive off the hotels from the railways—and I shall support it. But that is another point. I believe that the day has gone when hotels were an adjunct to the provision of transport. I am saying these things only so that the noble Lord shall know my views on this matter of hotels. In 1947 we realised the force of the then Opposition's arguments and we removed all motor vehicle manufacture, chassis and body manufacture, and anything to do with the motor trade, out of the purview of that Act. Now, the noble Lord is saying that while the hotels own the property they

1489
must run the business. That is a dangerous thing because it means that you are bringing a section of the retail motor trade under a nationalised industry.
LORD GIFFORD: I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I do not think that the facilities which my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron is seeking to give can be attained in the way he suggests. I myself have theatre interests in the form of agencies in hotels owned by the Commission. The Commission do not sell theatre tickets; we take space in the hotels to render that service to the public. I feel that what the noble Lord desires can be done by private enterprise.
LORD WINSTER: I could not possibly support this Amendment, although I am a country dweller who is convinced of the desirability of a garage at the local railway station. The matter is being discussed to-day in terms of large hotels in big towns, but it has a wider application applying to the countryside. The Amendment is rather innocuously worded. It says:
"…to maintain and repair and to purchase and supply spare parts, accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons…"
Any garage which is entitled to do that will certainly be in competition with private garages; and it will be only a question of time before they are dabbling in the second-hand trade—that is certain. I think the provision of garages at railway stations is peculiarly a matter for private enterprise. In a case in the village with which I am very well acquainted there are within a space of fifty yards two garages on the one side of the street and a third on the other side, which greatly impedes and causes immense annoyance to traffic in that village. Yet at the railway station, although land is available, no garage exists. This provision of garages at railway stations—I am dealing with that case in particular—is peculiarly an affair for private enterprise. I believe that private enterprise is missing great opportunities in many cases through not providing those facilities. I cannot agree that power should be given to the Commission to run garages which will inevitably in a short time be in acute competition with the local garages maintained by private enterprise.
LORD HAWKE: This is a very apt illustration of the way in which the atmosphere of this House turns strong, Labour supporters into Conservative minds, because I see that in another place this very Amendment, or something remarkably like it, was moved, and the Labour Party to a man, or nearly to a man, went into the Lobby and voted for it. So that there must be some difference of opinion in the Labour Party on this particular Amendment, though I personally do not think it is a very important one.
LORD WINSTER: May I point out to the noble Lord that on this side of the House any question of Party feeling or Party prejudice has been most specifically excluded, and that it has been said from the first that, in company with noble Lords opposite, the only concern of this side of the House is to turn what fundamentally we think is not a very good Bill into the best and most practical measure that can be devised.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord is certainly speaking for himself.
LORD WINSTER: On the contrary, I do not speak for myself. Those words were uttered by my leaders in this House on Second Reading and at the beginning of the Committee stage of this Bill.
LORD BURDEN: I should not have intervened but for the quite unprovoked attack on the Labour Party by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I intervene only to ask him to remember that pregnant saying of Emerson that
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We have had a very interesting debate on what is undoubtedly not a major point. If I may take the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, this point is covered, in fact, by Clause 2 (3) of the Transport Act of 1947. It is not under subsection (1) (f), as the noble Lord mentioned in the first place. My noble friend Lord Fairfax is quite right in saying that these powers are not granted to the nationalised British Transport Commission. I am delighted to find that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is entirely consistent in his point of view. He did not quote his own speeches in 1947, but he

1491
has been perfectly consistent and has shown himself a true Socialist and at the same time a very firm friend of the motor trade. I would agree with him entirely about taking that attitude. It is a healthy and sound trade to be a friend of.
The difficulty about the case which the noble Lord has advanced is this. He has put it rather innocuously, as if it was just a matter of supplying the amenities in a hotel to the guests using the hotel. In the simplest language, the answer is that you could not possibly confine it simply to people who are using the British Transport services or British Transport hotels. You would be throwing it completely open to the public by this Amendment. That is inevitable; you cannot avoid it. The answer is quite simple. This point is, I believe, raised almost entirely in respect of one hotel which is situated north of the Humber—I go no further than that. I believe there are other petrol pumps available in given circumstances. But the matter can best be solved simply by a concession of some character being granted.
There is this difficulty: that the amenities of the hotel may be quite considerable, whereas the cash return from the garage or from the accessories may well be very small, or relatively small, compared with the degree of amenity which may be desirable for the hotel. Bluntly, the answer is that if the hotel thinks it is an important amenity to have a garage, then they can grant a concession at a cheap rate. If they think it is worth having a shop, a theatre ticket office or a garage, then they can presumably give a concession on suitably easy terms. I agree we should be quite wrong, even in this narrow sphere, to go into the motor trade in a nationalised industry. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. I feel that these garages, or this particular garage, as the case may be, can serve a useful service to the public. Either they can be sold or they can be let out, and they can have as wide a field as possible. At any rate, I hope they will be able to give a good service, the best possible service. I hope that
1492
Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to see that that will be the case. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to the clause:
"(4) The Commission may, within six months from the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may allow, cause to be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1948, one or more companies under their direct or indirect control, the powers of which include power to carry on business as carriers of goods by road in Great Britain."
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Leathers, I beg to move this Amendment, which is really a drafting Amendment. This subsection has been taken out of Clause 4 and is now reinserted, in precisely the same terms, in Clause 24. The object of the Amendment is to enable the British Transport Commission to form companies, either companies which they retain themselves and control for running road haulage, or, alternatively, companies which are to be sold off under the disposal scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 48, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
4.8 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new subsection (4), to leave out "within six months from the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may allow." The noble Lord said: In thinking over the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord, I have been unable to see, no doubt through my own fault, why the Commission should be limited to six months within which to form the companies. May I suggest to the noble Earl that the matter is now even more important, as the company procedure is to be used for the purposes of disposal? It may well be that the Disposal Board will agree to certain sales being effected by means of the company procedure after the period of six months has expired. It is therefore somewhat difficult to see why this time limit should be placed in the way of the proper use of the new provisions now to be embodied in Clause 4.
The Government have emphasised from time to time that they do not want any undue delay in getting the new set-

1493
up in order, but I am sure that they would desire that some elbow-room be given to the Commission. Doubtless it has not escaped the attention of the noble Earl that the use of the company procedure is dependent upon the consent of the Disposal Board, and until the views of the Disposal Board, either generally or in particular cases, are known, it is quite impossible to foresee how many companies will be required and what their capital structure and so on will have to be.
I need not remind the Committee that, whether we like it or not, time passes rapidly in these matters. I suggest to the noble Earl that it would be quite impracticable to form all the companies within six months—I emphasise the word "form," for it is the essence of the case I venture to submit to the Committee. It may be that Her Majesty's Government do not see their way to accept the form of words that I have submitted, but I hope they will not oppose the Amendment to the Amendment simply because it happens to be associated with myself. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 1 of the proposed new subsection (4), leave out ("within six months from the passing of this Act, or such period as the Minister may allow.")—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point. I should make it clear that the clause as drafted is directed to two purposes only: the formation of companies controlled by the Commission and the selling companies. By omitting the words concerned the noble Lord takes away that direction altogether. The noble Lord's other point was that there was not much time allowed. That is true. But as he himself said, all we are really concerned with is registration, and of course we have the power of ministerial extension. However, having looked at it, we think there is no objection to the point made by the noble Lord and we are quite prepared to accept his Amendment as it stands.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Claus 25
Provisions as to pension rights
25.—(1) The Minister shall make regulations for providing or securing the provision of pensions to or in respect of persons who, having been in the employment of the Commission and, in connection wish that employment, having had pension rights under pension schemes (hereafter in this section referred to as "existing pension schemes"), lose that employment in consequence of the duties imposed on the Commission by this Act as to the disposal of the property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, of the powers and duties conferred on the Commission and the Minister by this Act in connection with the re-organisation of that part of the Commission's undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways, or of the modifications of the functions of the Commission effected by this Act; and any such regulations may for the purposes aforesaid, amend any existing pension scheme and any statutory provision relating thereto or any trust deed, rules or other instrument made for the purposes thereof.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move this Amendment, which deals with the question of pensions. Owing to the new clause on companies to which we have already agreed, it has been thought desirable to make a small change in the Amendment which now stands in my noble friend's name, in regard to persons who change their employment from the Commission to one of the companies eventually to be sold. Though probably adequate, the words "lose that employment" are more appropriately expressed by the words which we propose to substitute—namely, "cease to be in the employment of the Commission." That makes it abundantly clear that the effect of the regulations will come into force from the time when those employed in the company actually transfer from the Commission to the company. I think this is a desirable Amendment and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, leave out ("lose that employment") and insert ("cease to be in the employment of the Commission").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are getting on well: we have taken three wickets this afternoon. I am sorry that we have got to end our speedy progress so soon. Had we been able to keep on in this way we might have made this a respectable-looking Bill. I am not going

1495
to ask the noble Earl for any real concession. I want his help on this matter. I want him to explain something to me. Perhaps he may then see his way clear to ask his advisers to have another look at this Amendment. I am in this difficulty. This clause deals with pension rights. There are those in pensionable employment who are fully covered even if they lose their jobs by leaving the service of the Commission. As a result of the reorganisation brought about by this Bill, employees may be transferred from a pensionable job to a non-pensionable job inside the service of the Commission—in other words, from the Commission to one of the companies wholly owned by the Commission. Even if they lose their employment in those companies and go right out of the employment of the Commission, if their job is pensionable they will be covered. If, within the Commission, a man is moved from a pensionable job to a non-pensionable job, as the Bill stands he is covered, because although he does not cease to be in the employ of the Commission, he loses that particular job. But the effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl is that if the man loses a pensionable job by transferring to a non-pensionable job, though retaining his employment in the Commission, he will lose his pension. If the wording, in the original Bill is retained he is covered. The noble Earl may think I am wrong, but I feel there is some doubt about this. I should prefer the wording in the Bill, because the man is covered even if he loses his pensionable job, whether he takes on a non-pensionable job within the Commission or goes right out of the Commission. If he retains employment in the Commission but loses his pensionable job for a non-pensionable job, by the noble Earl's proposed Amendment he is not covered. I have done my best to make the position clear. Will the noble Earl try to help me?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord opposite has a point here, even though I am rather doubtful whether in practice it would ever really happen that a man in a pensionable job would go to a non-pensionable job. All the same, I feel that perhaps it would be right to ask
1496
my noble friend to look at the point again before the Bill leaves this House. There is another point, though it is not one which we can deal with in the Bill. A great many of the people we are talking about, who are the subject of this clause, will in fact have been transferred from private enterprise companies when the transport undertakings were nationalised. They may or may not have been working with the advantage of a pension scheme, but it is quite likely that a large number of them were. Presumably, those people who had the advantage of pension schemes in the days of the private enterprise undertakings will have been taken into a pension scheme by the Transport Commission. Again, if they leave the service of the Commission, either for a company formed and controlled by the Commission or for a company which passes out of the control of the Commission, some arrangements ought to be made whereby the pension rights of those employees are continued—as I suspect they have been continued all the time. That is not a point with which we can deal in this Bill, and I mention it only because I think it is a matter which will have to exercise the mind of the Commission in their task of seeing as we intend to see by this clause, that the individual rights of people employed under the Commission who are now transferred to private enterprise are not lost in the process.
LORD REA: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will at the same time look into another point of a similar nature? I am given to understand that there is a certain category, particularly of people of professional classes, who were induced or chose to join this service with a promise of some pension scheme which for some reason—a perfectly genuine one, I am certain—has not actually come into force. It looks as if those people might fall between two stools. Perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to look into that matter. I do not press him to give me an answer to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hesitate to express any opinion on a pensions matter unless I am fully instructed. I will certainly see that the question which Lord Rea has raised is gone into. I certainly should not like to attempt to give him an answer now. With regard to what Lord Lucas has said, I am inclined to

1497
the view that the point which he has raised is covered. I think he takes the words "loss of employment" as meaning the same as change of job. I do not think they have that meaning. I should have thought that the point which he has in mind is either covered by the Amendment which I shall shortly move or, alternatively, by Clause 26 where there is reference to:
"officers or servants of the Commission who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened in consequence…"
and so forth. I thought the point was covered there. Or, finally—and this is Lord Bridgeman's point—if it were a matter of pension rights, strictly it would be in Clause 25 (2). I should not like to carry this matter further at the moment. I think it is one which requires careful examination. I suggest, however, that any one or other of the points which the noble Lord has raised has been or will be covered—or, at least, that there are powers here to make regulations which will cover those points.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, but he will appreciate that if he is wrong and I am right this cart mean a great deal. The Bill says "loss of employment." It depends on the interpretation placed on that phrase—losing the physical employment or losing a man's whole job within the Commission. But we will not argue the question any more now. If the noble Earl does not mind taking this back and looking at it again, perhaps we could put down something at the Report stage. We could do that when he has consulted his advisers, satisfied himself and has attempted to satisfy us.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like the Amendment agreed to now.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps I may say this. I hope to put down an Amendment on the Report stage in order to get the matter raised, unless the noble Earl is able to come and say that he is satisfied, and to satisfy us. If I am not satisfied, the Amendment will have to be debated and divided upon. I would suggest that it would be better if the noble Earl withdrew his Amendment now, for I would prefer what is in the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that this is the right Amendment. We are at the moment only drawing up a broad outline under which the scheme will be made. This has been discussed between people who are really more qualified than either the noble Lord or I to deal with it. It is under discussion even now. I do not think this is a matter about which the noble Lord need worry. He has postulated the question of the position of someone who remains in the Commission's employment after this reorganisation but who moves from pensionable employment to non-pensionable employment. If I understand the noble Lord, he is trying to provide for that circumstance. I think he will agree that it would be an exceptional case. I am not saying that it will not occur, but it would be very unlikely, and it would be an exceptional case. In any event, however, I think it is covered by these broad regulations, and we think that the words in the Bill are more suited to the present structure.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps I may say a word about procedure—I say nothing about the merits of this matter. Clearly the right thing, and the convenient thing as a matter of procedure, is this. The Government consider that this clause ought to be amended in a particular way, and they have carried the Committee with them. In that case the Committee should insert the Amendment which the Government propose. Your Lordships will then, on Report stage, see the Bill in the form which the Government, with the assent of the Committee, think right. That having been seen, an Amendment can be put down to the Bill, either by the Opposition or by the Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful for that explanation. I am certainly not going to spoil the harmony of the proceedings by getting contentious. But I am not speaking for myself; I am speaking at the request of the Trades Union Congress.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Even so, it is the proper procedure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am going to agree to the procedure. What I am going to suggest is this. As the best legal advice is available to the T.U.C. it might save a great deal of time

1499
and trouble if, between now and the Report stage of this Bill, the advisers of the noble Earl were to get in touch with the advisers of the T.U.C. Perhaps after consultation both sides would be satisfied, and in that case I am sure that I should be.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am happy to give an undertaking that I will do my best to carry out the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that undertaking, and I hope he will not regard me as pressing too strongly on this point, in view of what he has indicated to my noble friend. We have all been interested in the procedure which is to be adopted in regard to the draft regulations as outlined to us by the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader, but I am sure he will agree that, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to get regulations altered, even those in draft form. The simple point I wish to put to the Minister is this—I am sure the answer will be in the affirmative: before draft regulations assume that form will there be consultation with those people particularly interested, with the appropriate organisations, in order that there shall be the largest measure of agreement in regard to the regulations when they are submitted?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad to give that assurance—in fact I can do more. I can tell the noble Lord that thirteen trade unions concerned are already considering the draft regulations at the present time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" (where that word last occurs), to insert:
"and for enabling persons in the employment of the Commission who, being participants in a pension scheme, suffer any diminution of their emoluments in consequence of the said duties, powers and duties or modifications to avoid, on such terms, as may be provided for by the regulations, any corresponding diminution in any pension to or for which they may become entitled or eligible."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of by noble friend Lord Leathers. Its purpose is to protect the pension rights of those who remain with the Commission. The Amendment
1500
envisages the kind of case that might arise if a man remaining with the Commission were moved to less well-paid employment. In such cases, it is possible, by the regulations, to provide that he should continue at the same rates of pension contribution, payable both by the employee and by the employer, so that, although he may suffer some loss in regard to his rate of remuneration, he will still eventually be entitled to the same pension rights. I think the Amendment is one which will meet with the general agreement of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 15, after ("Act") insert ("and for enabling persons in the employment of the Commission who, being participants in a pension scheme, suffer any diminution of their emoluments in consequence of the said duties, powers and duties or modifications to avoid, on such terms, as may be provided for by the regulations, any corresponding diminution in any pension to or for which they may become entitled or eligible").—(The Earl of Selkirk..)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Compensation to officers and servants]:
4.30 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations." The noble Lord said: I suppose I ought to know the answer to this, but I do not, and I put this Amendment down to get the noble Earl's help. If he will read the first three lines of Clause 26, he will see they run:
"The Minister shall by regulations provide for the payment by the Commission, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, of compensation to officers or servants.…"
Why could that not read plainly:
"The Minister shall by regulations provide for the payment by the Commission of compensation to officers or servants…."?
The noble Earl might say to me that all they have done is lift the words out of the 1947 Act. Admirer of the 1947 Act though I am, in parts, I have never considered it to be sacrosant, and if the clause can be bettered by leaving out what is unnecessary, I suggest the noble Lord should do it. There is nothing material in the point, but I should like the noble Earl's guidance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 21, leave out ("in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting his Amendment in the form of a question, because I cannot view it with any sympathy. The position would be substantially that anyone who could prove a loss would have a statutory right to claim compensation to any amount, even if he had been in the employment of the Commission for only one day.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Even if it is not in the regulations?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As it stands here, the regulations would have to provide for that. I hesitate to give an opinion in the House on this difficult subject, but I am advised that it would be to any amount, if the loss could be proved. We cannot allow that. These are the words used not only in the 1947 Act, but in the Electricity, Gas, National Insurance and Local Government Acts. They are the normal words used. I very much hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Certainly. I am grateful to the noble Earl and apologise for troubling him. The 1947 Act is even better than I thought it was. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Directions by Minister to be laid before Parliament
".The Minister shall as soon as may be after the end of each year after 1953 lay before Parliament a statement of all directions issued by him to the Commission and the Board and of any action taken by him under this Act during that year together with a statement of the reasons for such directions and actions:"
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause to which we attach considerable importance. Anyone who has react this Bill, even cursorily, must be impressed by the large number of occasions on which the Minister is empowered or required to give directions, make decisions and do a variety of things in connection
1502
with carrying out the Bill. I have calculated that the Minister has nearly seventy separate functions. In a limited number of cases, I agree, the Bill provides for an Affirmative Resolution by Parliament, and these have been added to as a result of at least one Amendment being accepted. In these cases the House has full opportunity of knowing what is in the mind of the Minister, but in many other cases, to which we have drawn the attention of the Committee as we have gone along, the Minister is empowered quite arbitrarily to make a decision or give a direction and there is no opportunity for the House to ascertain why he has given that direction or made that decision.
Let me give one particular case of many. In connection with ascertaining the loss incurred by the Commission there is a complicated formula about which it is admitted there could be considerable difference of opinion. The clause says that the Minister is required to state what is the loss, but he is not required to say how he has arrived at it and what interpretation he has put oil the different components that go to make up the loss. He merely fixes the amount. That may be convenient and I am not now challenging the convenience of it nor am I going back to that provision, which we discussed at some length; but it leaves the country in complete darkness as to the methods by which the Minister has arrived at his decision. I could go through the seventy-odd instances and in many of them point out that the Minister is empowered to make this decision or give that direction, or settle disputes between the Commission and the Disposal Board, without giving any reason whatever for arriving at such a decision and often without informing the public or the House that any such decision has been made.
I think it is due to Parliament that it should know what action the Minister has taken under this Bill when it becomes an Act, and I suggest, in the best words open to me—I do not claim they are perfect—that the Minister should as soon as possible after the end of every year say what decisions and actions he has taken and the reasons for them. I put this forward in the interests of Parliament and of the community as a whole. I think these words are right, but I do

1503
not necessarily stand by them. I hope it will be possible for the Government to accept the principle of the Amendment and provide that in some way from time to time the public is informed about the exercise of the far-reaching powers that are conferred upon the Minister by this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the following new clause—
Directions by Minister to be laid before Parliament
".The Minister shall as soon as may be after the end of each year after 1953 lay before Parliament a statement of all directions issued by him to the Commission and the Board and of any action taken by him under this Act during that year together with a statement of the reasons for such directions and actions."—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to support this Amendment as strongly as I can. It seems to me it would throw a great deal of light on the position of the railways and would enable them to be criticised. That has been almost impossible in the past. For this reason I regretted that the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, withdrew his Amendment yesterday, because it seems to me of great importance that everything about the railways should be published and subject to criticism.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am afraid this Amendment would not throw any light on the position of the railways. What is being asked for here is not an account of what the railways are doing, but an account of what the Minister is doing. I am afraid this is not the appropriate Amendment.
This Amendment really divides itself in two parts, in my view. Directions are quite clearly understood and defined things. The Minister can give directions to the Commission, and he can give directions to the Disposal Board. Under the 1947 Act—and the obligation under the 1947 Act is continued in this Bill—if the Minister gives directions to the Commission, then those directions have to be published in the Commission's Report which is laid before Parliament. There is a similar provision, up to a point, with regard to a Report being made by the Disposal Board—I think it is half-yearly in the case of the Disposal Board
1504
and yearly in the case of the Commission. I have no doubt that that Report would contain any directions which the Minister gave. On the other hand, I believe I have said once or twice in the past, when I have suggested that something should appear in a Report and was told that it certainly would, that it would be just as well to put the requirement in the Bill. I must occasionally practise what I preach, even if I failed to convince noble Lords opposite at that time that my preaching was good practice. Therefore I should be quite ready to put down an Amendment on Report to provide that directions which the Minister gives to the Disposal Board should be published by the Disposal Board in their Report, which, as I say, I think is to be made half-yearly.
The noble Lord went on to say that the Minister should also report in some way to Parliament any action taken by him under this Act during the preceding year. Clearly that is a quite impossible proposition. As the noble Lord has said, there are certain statutory duties laid upon the Minister and certain statutory powers given to him under the 1947 Act and under this Bill, in regard to which particular importance has been attached to information being given to Parliament. In the appropriate clause some provision has been made to that effect. Provision has been made in a number of cases, I think, in this Bill that the matter has in one form or another to be reported. But let us see what "any action the Minister takes" means. He is taking action every day. He talks to the chairman of the Commission and to the chairman of the Disposal Board, and he rings them up on the telephone. As a result of one of those conversations something may well happen; an agreement is come to, or a particular line is to be followed. That is the whole object of the day-to-day contact which a Minister has.
I have never been responsible for a nationalised industry, but the Minister's day-to-day contact with the chairman of a nationalised board is very like one's relationship with one's own officials in one's Department. How could I carry on with my business if I had to make a report to Parliament of every discussion I had with my officials which sooner or later resulted in action? The whole thing

1505
is quite impossible. We should end up with a report to Parliament which read like a solicitor's bill of costs: "To ringing you up on the telephone, when I told you I thought you were being rather dilatory about this matter; and as a result of that telephone conversation less dilatoriness was exercised, and somebody did something." The Minister has taken action, and the result of that is that somebody else has taken action. We really cannot have all that reported to Parliament. As I say, directions are one thing, but this loose language about reporting every action, I am sure the noble Lord will agree, on consideration, is quite impossible.
Do not forget that the Minister is in quite a different position from that of the nationalised boards. The difficulty which Parliament has encountered in both Houses is to get information about the nationalised boards. I think we have encountered it a little less here, because we are bound by fewer rules of order; there is no Mr. Speaker to call us to order and say we cannot discuss the subject. The result is that we have had rather more fruitful discussions on the nationalised industries than have been possible in another place. I am not going to argue the point politically, but I feel that the decision taken by the late Government that the Minister was never to give any information about a nationalised industry was rather unfortunate. What has been our difficulty has not been lack of opportunity to question the Minister—you can get information from the Minister about his activities—but the lack of opportunity to get information about nationalised boards and their activities. That is where the absence of information has been difficult. I believe there is a Committee of some sort sitting to-day which is having great difficulty in finding a solution to the problem of how Parliament is to get some information about the nationalised boards.
But we never have any difficulty about the Minister. Anybody can put down a Question to the Minister any day; it can be done on the Minister's Vote; there can be a debate in either House. The Minister can be asked what he has done about this, that, and the other, and what his policy is on this or that. That is the way in which Parliament keeps Ministers up to the mark, and the recognised and
1506
proper way is to do it on a Minister's Vote, by Question and Answer, or by debate on a Motion. Therefore, I feel that I shall be meeting all that is reasonable, and indeed be acting entirely inconformity with the 1947 Act itself, if I carry out my undertaking to put in a similar provision in regard to directions given to the Disposal Board as that which applies to the Commission.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure the noble Viscount has applied his mind to this question and endeavoured to go as far as he can. However, I do not regard what he has suggested as entirely satisfactory. I think it is of advantage that the Commission should state terms what directions they have received; that they should be required to do so, and that the same should apply to the Disposal Board. In this particular case it is the Minister's actions that Parliament is entitled to check up. Unless we know what action the Minister has taken, it makes it difficult for us to have any discussion or even to ask questions. The noble Viscount has made play, as he is entitled to, with the language of the Amendment, which admittedly could be strained so as to make it appear that it applies to the kind of case he has put before us. Of course, nobody suggests that the Minister should report in a statement to Parliament the telephone conversations he has with the Commission. If these words can be deemed to have that interpretation, then, of course, they are unsuitable. We are not asking for that. It is the action which the Minister is empowered to take under particular clauses and paragraphs of this Bill with which we are concerned. For instance:
"The Minister may give directions to the Commission as respects any property held by them requiring them to dispose of that property."
The Minister ought to be open to challenge on that, not on a report of the Commission, but on his own report.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have taken the noble Lord's own Act. He put into the Act of 1947 that the way in which this should be reported was in the Report of the Commission.
LORD SILKIN: That may be, but the noble Viscount has himself pointed out in his speech some of the difficulties that have arisen. One is the difficulty of calling the Commission to account. That

1507
is obviously not satisfactory. In this very important period, when the assets of the Commission are being disposed of, it is necessary that the Minister should be held to account by Parliament, so that we may know what action he has taken. We may have to define the term "action" more closely than we have done. But what we are asking for is a report by the Minister, and not a report by the Commission or the Disposal Board. That would be going some small distance in that direction. I hope that when the noble Viscount is giving this consideration between now and the Report stage, he will see whether he can meet us to the extent of requiring the Minister himself to give information.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must be perfectly fair and frank with the House, as I always am. With the Minister, I have given this matter very close consideration, and I have said how far I am prepared to go. What I have agreed to would be completely analogous with what was done in the earlier Act. I am prepared to do that; but I am quite definitely not prepared to go further than that on the line which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked, and I should be misleading the House if I said that I would take this away and consider it again. If the noble Lord feels strongly on this we had better take a decision upon it in the Lobbies.
LORD WINSTER: I agree with the noble Viscount that it is unreasonable to expect a Minister to give an account of any action taken by him under the Act which he is administering. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has specifically said that he does not attach first importance to the exact wording of that portion of his Amendment. But, as I say, I would agree with the noble Viscount. An action taken by the Minister might be the entertaining at luncheon of two or three delegates from another country who have come to meet him about a certain policy—and very effective action may be taken in that way. But it would be quite absurd to expect the Minister to report to Parliament every time he entertained anybody to luncheon. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had in mind that the Minister should report any action of substance, and that seems to be reasonable.
1508
When we come to the question of directions, there I am bound to say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. This seems to me to be a very extraordinary Bill indeed, in that I think on some sixty or seventy occasions it describes the directions which the Minister shall issue for the purpose of giving effect to the Bill. That seems to me to be completely wrong. Surely, what the Government should do is to bring forward a Bill giving precision to the matters which the Bill is intended to carry out, and then appoint a Minister to be in charge of the Bill; and it should be left to him to decide how he carries out the objects of the Bill. I see that the noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence is here. I am sure that he would agree with me that the way to deal with a Commander-in-Chief is to detail to him an objective which you would expect him to carry out. But you do not tell the Commander-in-Chief how he is to do it. The means by which he carries out that objective should surely be left to the Commander-in-Chief to decide. In the case of the Navy—I do not presume to speak about the Army—I have seen disastrous results occur through attempts by the Admiralty to describe in too precise detail how the Commander-in-Chief should carry out the instructions and objectives which have been committed to him.
Here in this Bill the Government are doing the complete opposite by proposing a Bill with certain objectives, and on no fewer than sixty or seventy occasions they are laying down the directions which the Minister shall issue in order to achieve those objectives. If the discretion of the Minister is fettered to the extent that he is told on so many occasions how he is to carry out the purpose of the Bill, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to require that the Minister shall from time to time give information to Parliament as to the directions which he has issued in fulfilment of the duties laid upon him by the Bill. To that extent I would certainly support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I hope the Government will not go any further than they have already gone. We are going to step down a very strange path if every Minister has to give an account every year for the actions he takes under any particular Statute, and to give his reasons

1509
for it. Many of us in the last Parliament would have liked to hear exactly how the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was getting on with the Central Land Board, what action he had taken, and what were his reasons for that action.
LORD SILKIN: I should have been delighted to tell the House.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would have taken quite a large bet (if that is the appropriate word to use in this connection) that if we had tried to put down an Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill to say that all actions taken by the Minister under the Town and Country Planning Act during the year had to be accounted for, and that there should be presented a statement of his reasons, it would not have been accepted by the Government of the day. Nor is that the way in which we carry on our Parliamentary life. Anybody in the other House, for three-quarters of an hour everyday, and here to the limited extent of six Questions a week, may ask the Minister or the Government what they are doing. We may raise the subject and ask what the attitude of the Government or the Minister is. That is the Parliamentary practice which has ben observed in this country for many years. When it comes to specific directions, there have been cases where the body to which they have been given has been asked to report on the directions given to it. As I understand it, that was the position under the Transport Act, 1947.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And is continued.
LORD LLEWELLIN: And I gather that now, under the Amendment set down by the noble Viscount, it will continue in this regard on exactly the same lines as in the 1947 Act. What would be the result if, in every Statute we passed, we gave directions to a Minister that any action he took under it would have to be reported annually together with his reasons for it? We should get such massive reports that the day -to-day running of the business of a Minister and his Department would be overwhelmed.
It is not just what the Minister himself says that has to be reported but the actions of all the people in the Department who are acting in the Minister's
1510
name. The whole discussion between the Minister and any kind of body that is set up working under the ægis of the Ministry would be completely stultified, because even a civil servant in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, before he rang up my noble friend Lord Douglas, would have to think: "I cannot do this. I have to put this on the record, and it must be reported that I rang him up and asked him how his part of civil aviation was going on." The whole business of give-and-take between Departments and the bodies working under them would go by the board if we did this kind of thing in Acts of Parliament. If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has moved this Amendment, will think again, he will come to the conclusion, I am sure, that no Government—not, at any rate, one of which he was a member—would have accepted it. Nor, I hope, will the present Government.
LORD WINSTER: So far as what I have said is concerned, I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will agree that he is knocking at an open door. I have said specifically that I think it would be quite impossible to expect any Minister to report on every action that he has taken. My remarks were directed solely to dealing with what I consider to be an abnormal situation, for here is a Bill which has sixty or seventy clauses giving power to a Minister to issue directions. That is surely abnormal; and, that being so, I think it is right to ask the Minister to render an account of the directions which he has so issued. But I am not pressing that he should give a report of every action which he has taken.
LORD LLEWELLYN: I was not dealing particularly with the remarks of the noble Lord. I know that if I had been dealing with him he would not have pressed this point. I was dealing with the use of the word "any"—that is to say, in the expression "any action."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry that Lord Llewellin has raised all these red herrings. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made it perfectly clear that he had put this Amendment down to raise an issue of principle. He was not interested in any telephone conversations. My noble friend Lend Winster said the same thing, and I think the noble Viscount was seized of the point when Lord

1511
Silkin was speaking of the necessity of doing something. I wish only to ask the noble Viscount whether he will take into consideration the one or two specific things I am going to mention—which are remote from telephone calls or anything of that kind.
If the noble Lord will look at subsection (8) of Clause 3, he will see these words:
"If any difference arise between the Commission and the Board as to the lines on which the Commission are to act in performing their duties under this section or as to what properties should be included in, or what should be the conditions attached to the purchase of, any transport unit, or as to whether any tender for a transport unit should, or should not be accepted, either the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minster and the Minister shall give such directions therein as he thinks fit, and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board."
That provision is repeated in the new clause moved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, concerning the sale of shares in companies. It means that the Minister may be the arbiter in matters in which there are millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money in dispute. The Commission and the Board may disagree. The Commission may want one price and the Board may say "You must accept a lower price." In such a case they will go to the Minister and he will give a decision, which either the Commission or the Board must honour. It may involve, I repeat, a sum running into millions of pounds.
It is true that the Board, as laid down in subsection (9) of Clause 2 must issue a report. The subsection says:
"The Board shall from time to time, and at least once in every six months, make to the Minister a report in writing as to the progress made in the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and the Minister shall lay a copy of such report before each House of Parliament."
So far, so good. The same obligation is binding on the Commission. But the Commission have a statutory duty to produce a Report to Parliament once every twelve months.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is under the 1947 Act.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Certainly. The Report has to be made once every twelve months. The Accounts
1512
were brought out a little earlier than the Report last year as a separate publication, because of the length of the Report. The Report for 1951 came out in August, 1952. If directions had been given to the Commission in January, 1951, the information would not have been available to Parliament until the Report came out some nineteen months later—towards the latter end of 1952.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord is complaining now of the provisions of the 1947 Act which was introduced by the Government of which he was a member. He is quite justified in doing so, but that is the fact.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is a totally irrelevant interjection. I will explain why. There was nothing in the 1947 Act which empowered the Minister to arbitrate between the Disposal Board and the Commission as to the sale of millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' assets. That is the difference. Perhaps that fact was not appreciated by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord says that the matter can be dealt with by a Question in this House. What would this House think if, day after day, week after week, I were to put down a Question on the Order Paper in the hope of ascertaining whether the Minister had given a direction? The noble Lord is, I am sure, seized of these points. We do not want any trivialities. But in two or three instances the Minister will be able to act as arbiter between the Commission and the Disposal Board on the question of the price at which the taxpayers' assets shall be sold. We do not say we want any statutory instrument made so that we can pray against it. But we should like to know what the Minister is doing and the method by which he is going to decide between these two bodies. I do not think that that is too much to ask. I think that if the noble Viscount will say that in these matters of policy the Minister shall present a report to Parliament as and when he makes these orders—he will not, of course, have to make them every day of the week—we shall be satisfied. Unless the noble Viscount is prepared to meet us on this, I am going to suggest to my noble friend Lord Silkin that he had better test the opinion of your Lordships' House.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I most sincerely hope we shall do so, because a more irresponsible, unconstitutional and—if I may say so with great respect—impracticable and, I would almost say, futile Amendment, I have never heard. It is uttterly without precedent that Ministers in their day-to-day actions, many of which are of great importance, should be called upon to make a report to Parliament. It was never done under the 1947 Act. The Minister was never called upon under the Socialist Act of 1947 to make such a report; and if ever there was a Government which gave to Ministers wide and far-reaching powers, it was that Socialist Government. It was their boast, in their seven years of office, that they gave to Ministers colossal powers in town planning and heaven knows what else! Was there ever a single Act which they passed which compelled a Minister to make a report to Parliament? The proper place for a
Clause 27 [Amendments as to Consultative Committees for Scotland and Wales]:
5.19 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, to add to subsection (3):
Minister to be challenged is in Parliament.
If I were foolish enough to put any such Amendment upon the Statute Book, I should be ensuring that no Minister did his job. To start with, he would spend all his time writing reports. Think of the effect upon his officials. Though I have found civil servants, properly directed and stimulated, admirable executants, others have sometimes said that inactivity is one of their more masterly qualities. With that I would not agree. But certainly if anything like this is put on the Statute Book, it will give the highest incentive to inactivity. It is wholly without precedent and utterly unconstitutional. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will divide the House.
LORD SILKIN: We will grant the noble Viscount his wish.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 18; Not-Contents. 51.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Haden- Guest, L. [Teller]

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Kenswood, L

Silkin, L.

Lucas of chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan)

Mathers, L.

Winster, L.

Burden, L. [Teller]

Monkswell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor).

Allenby, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home)

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bristol, M.

Devonport, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow)

Willingdon, M.

Falmouth, V.

Gifford, L.

Furness, V.

Hampton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Ridley, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Swinton, V.

Llewellin, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller]

Trenchard, V.

Lloyd, L.

Grey, E.

Mancroft, L.

Howe, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Remnant, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blackford, L.

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller]

Brand, L.

Saltoun, L

Radnor, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Savile, L.

Rothes, E.

Carrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Selborne, E.

Cherwell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Waleran, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dormer, L.

Wolverton, L

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

"Subsection (9) of section six of the Transport Act, 1947 (which requires the Central Transport Consultative Committee to make an annual report to the Minister) shall be amended by inserting after 'Committee' 'and all Transport Users Consultative Committees'; by leaving out 'an annual report' and inserting 'annual reports'; by leaving out 'a copy of that report' and inserting 'copies of the reports'."
The noble Lord said: I can very quickly deal with this Amendment. We think, and we believe we are voicing the opinion held in quite a number of directions, that it would be of service if all the consultative committees, as well as the Central Transport Consultative Committee were required to make annual reports to the Minister, and that such annual reports should be laid. That is really the sum and substance of this mass of printing. I hope the noble Earl will agree that all these other consultative committees, such as the area committees, have to make a report to the Central Consultative Committee. We think they should make it to the Minister and that it should be passed on to the Central Consultative Committee, so that those reports may be available and we can know what is happening. That should apply to all the consultative committees coming within the ambit of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 5, after ("Parliament") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the brevity with which he has moved this Amendment. By this Bill we are increasing the number of reports of consultative committees to be laid before Parliament from one to three. The noble Lord wants to increase that number from three to twelve. I think that is an unnecessary proliferation of annual reports of consultative committees. To do that would be to make them far too commonplace and ordinary. If we accepted the Amendment, automatically the status of the Central Consultative Committee would be lowered, because each one of these committees all over the country would have direct access to the Commission and the Minister, and would be able to lay their annual report before Parliament. We have pinpointed Scotland and Wales as far as we can, and we are putting the rest of the country in the Central Consultative Committee's Report. There is really no useful purpose in going beyond that. I do not think any greater information would be gained. In many respects Parliament has quite enough paper to deal with at present.
LORD SILKIN: There is a good deal in what the noble Earl has said, but the real point of this Amendment is that the public should know what these consultative committees are doing. After all, they are giving a service to the community, and we want to ensure that, somehow or other, their views see the light of day—I do not mind whether it is in twelve reports or in one report. Probably the noble Earl is quite right in saying that twelve separate reports might be too many. I do not ask the noble Earl to give a decision now, but is there not some way by which we may be informed of the views of these committees? There are twelve such committees. Suppose they all attach importance to one particular thing which seems to be going wrong in every area: would it not be a good thing for us to know that? Possibly we should know better if the points were summarised in one document rather than for there to be twelve separate reports. But I do attach importance to the public knowing what these various consultative committees are saying, and what they have discovered as a result of their task.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is the disadvantage one finds when one tries to be brief. From what I had heard from the noble Earl and other members of the Government. I thought the Amendment would be willingly accepted; that is why I did not elaborate it. We have heard all the way through this Committee stage of the great desire of the Government for devolution. We have heard that the whole railway system is to be broken up into areas, and the time of devolution is now fast upon the Government. These area consultative committees deal with local matters. Let us say that I am an ordinary citizen, living in a remote area of England, and that some time ago I saw a notice in the Press to the effect that a consultative committee had been set up for my area. From that day onwards I have heard nothing of what they have done. Is that right? If the reports of those consultative committees could be made available as a supplement or annex to the annual Report of the Central Consultative Committee, I should not in the least mind. Perhaps they could be summarised. We have covered Scotland and Wales; why cannot we do the same for Cornwall, the North-East Coast or the

1517
North-West Coast? The people living there have an interest in local transport problems; they have a consultative committee, but they never know what is happening. Is that right? Surely it is not too much to ask that they should be allowed the same facilities as Scotland and Wales. Would it not help the noble Earl in regard to his policy of devolution? I should have thought it would. Why are the Government so stubborn about this? I should have thought it would be of the greatest advantage by way of propaganda value. Will the Government reconsider this matter?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Several points have been raised which are interesting, in the sense that a certain knowledge of local problems is desirable, but I have some doubt whether this is the clause upon which to discuss that matter. I would re-emphasise that if you make masses of reports you greatly lower the prestige of the Central Consultative Committee's Report. If you have great masses of reports coming out nobody could be expected to read them all. I am afraid I have not the most recent Report of the Central Consultative Committee which is already laid before Parliament, and I am not sure whether they deal with that point; but I think that if the Report which is made is inadequate, the making of more reports would probably be even more inadequate. I will look at the matter. I think the noble Lord is making the point that the people in the locality should know what their committee is doing. I think that is the duty of the chairman, who from time to time can hold conferences or make speeches. There are hundreds of ways of doing it without imposing on this wretched man a statutory duty to produce an annual report. That is really an added duty on the consultative structure which is too heavy for that structure to bear.
LORD SILKIN: We were getting along quite nicely in our discussion and the noble Earl has made an impression on us by what he has said. We have departed from the original idea of having twelve separate reports. The subsequent discussion has proceeded on that footing, and we no longer press for that. We are now, so to speak, trying to ensure that the "guts" of what these various committees are thinking should be put in a document, attached, if you like, to the
1518
Report of the Central Consultative Committee. If these things can be done administratively and the noble Earl will give an assurance that it will be done, I am quite satisfied. I do not mind in what form it is done, nor, I think, does my noble friend Lord Lucas. We are quite prepared to leave the noble Earl with that thought, and perhaps we shall hear more about it on the next stage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I ought to know this but I must admit that I do not. The Report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee has to be laid before Parliament. I do not think that at present it is published as a White Paper, but I think it should be so published, so that it is available for purchase by anybody. Then, if all these other reports are summarised in that way and the whole is published as a White Paper and offered for sale by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, it will be of great interest to local chambers of commerce and other similar bodies who wish to see what their area consultative committees are doing. Will the noble Earl consider this matter and see if something can be done? If he will do that, I will withdraw the Amendment with pleasure.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: One interesting fact emerges from the noble Lord's last observations, and that is that the noble Lord does not know whether the Report is published. If it is laid before Parliament it is published. So that we start off with the noble Lord moving his Amendment without even bothering to ascertain what is the position with regard to one single Report yet he wishes to increase the number of Reports to twelve. I say that to put that into the Statute is to go too far. What I will willingly do is to see whether there is any way by which these local committees can have their work better known. I think it is only fair and proper that they should. But that is primarily the task of the chairman. An energetic and capable chairman can, and should, see that the work of his energetic and competent committee is known.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Who pays for it?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is paid for by the Commission.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Amendments as to Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Leathers, I beg to move this Amendment, which is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 28, after ("the") insert ("said").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 30, after the first ("the") insert ("said").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (3):
"Before appointing a day under this subsection the Minister shall consult the said Committee"
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships will recall that it is proposed to add to the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee a certain number of representatives of road haulier organisations. It is not considered desirable that the appointment should necessarily be made forthwith. One of the reasons is that we wish to wait until there is the sort of effective authoritative body which, in fact, could be said to represent these organisations. The Minister will wait until after he has consulted with the existing Coastal Shipping Committee, both the shipping side and the Commission, before making the appointments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 31, at end insert the said words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Amendments as to Transport Tribunal]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) The Tenth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947 (which contains miscellaneous provisions as to the Transport Tribunal), shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference in paragraph 5 thereof to the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by that Act; and

(b)the reference in paragraph 6 thereof to the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal
1520
by that Act other than jurisdiction which, but for the provisions of that Act would have been jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission or of the High Court or the Court of Session,

included references to any jurisdiction conferred on the Transport Tribunal by or by virtue of this Act."
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment, which is really of a formal nature. The Tenth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947, applied to that Act certain provisions relating to what is now the Transport Tribunal from the Railways Act, 1921. This, in turn, will apply the provisions to the 1953 Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): I shall occupy your Lordships' time for only a very few minutes because I do not propose to move the next Amendment, No. 110 on the Marshalled List, but it is only fair and courteous that I should explain why I do not propose to move it. It was apprehended that the result of passing an Act known as the Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act, 1949, had been to abrogate the right of appeal from the Transport Tribunal to the High Court. That was thought to be the case. In the interval between the time when this Amendment was put down and to-day that very matter has come for decision before the Court of Appeal. I think, if I may say so with great respect, that the Court felt very great difficulty in the matter, which was one of considerable complexity. But they were able to decide that the right of appeal was not abrogated. Accordingly, it would not be respectful, perhaps, to put down this Amendment in a form which suggests that the right of appeal had been abrogated. At the same time, these are Acts which apply not only to this country but to Scotland, and the matter may come before the Court of Session, and then from the Court of Session to this House. It is a matter of extreme complexity and doubt. Therefore, while not moving the Amendment, I propose to move at a later stage another and somewhat similar Amendment in a declaratory form. It will have the same result but perhaps in terms will be

1521
slightly more respectful to the Court of Appeal.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are exceedingly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for paying the Committee the courtesy and compliment of giving us that explanation.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment concerns quite a small point. Under the 1947 Act, the definition of "property" excludes contractual rights. Now we are in the course of transferring property particularly to companies we wish the definition of "property" to be rather wider. In particular, we wish it to include debts. That is, of course, especially for formulating claims on the Transport Fund. It is not a large matter, but it is necessary for the new structure which the Bill has taken since it has reached this Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 42, at end insert—
"Provided that, in this Act, 'property' includes claims for debts and other monetary claims."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are glad that the noble Earl has moved this Amendment. At least it makes some of these expressions intelligible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:
Rights of obtaining licences for five years for goods vehicles free of charge.
PART I.
Vehicles comprised in Transport Units.
4. Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Schedule, where the permanent base or centre specified in an application for a special A licence as that from which it is intended that the authorised vehicles will normally be used for the purpose of carrying goods for hire or reward is not the permanent base or centre from which the vehicles in question, or, as the case may be, the vehicles corresponding thereto, were last used by the Commission before the publication of the public notice inviting tenders for the purchase of the transport unit, the licensing authority may refuse the application if it appears to him that the vehicles used from the first-mentioned base
1522
or centre could not conveniently serve substantially the same areas as those which might conveniently be served by vehicles used from the second-mentioned base or centre.
In relation to such a transfer as is provided for by section four of this Act, the reference in this paragraph to the publication of the public notice inviting tenders shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the transfer.
5.39 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved to add to paragraph 4:
"Notwithstanding anything in this part of this schedule the licensing authority may also refuse the application unless he is satisfied that the vehicles to which the application relates will be operated by persons competent to carry goods for hire or reward."
The noble Lord said: One of the main objects of this Bill is to hand the road haulage of this country, or a large part of it, back to private enterprise. It is a course which we fully support, and we support it in the belief that the transport user will get better service as a result of this change. The object of my Amendment is to make sure that this comes to pass, because unless purchasers of these transport units are competent people, then the service will break down, and the trader will not get the service which he has the right to expect.
I am a little worried because when the 1947 Act came into effect a great many of the old hands—whom one might describe as competent people in road haulage—migrated overseas. I know of two quite large operators who have gone to Rhodesia. Others decided that they did not wish to return into the field of road haulage. The Bill, through the Disposal Board, makes provision for the price to be paid, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bill any direction either to the licensing authority or to the Disposal Board to ensure that the purchasers are men who are competent to run road transport. It is essential, as I see it, either that the purchaser should be a competent operator or that he should employ managers or senior staff experienced in road haulage. We do not want in this industry the type of man who is just out to make quick money and who has not at heart the interests of his customers. I realise that what I am proposing may present some difficulty administratively. I realise, also, that this may not be the right place in the Bill at which to propose it, but I was advised

1523
that this would be the best way of accomplishing what I desire. I repeat that the object of the Amendment is quite simple. It is to try to insure that the purchasers of transport units are competent people who are likely to give traders an efficient service. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My noble friend Lord Gifford has covered this Amendment very well. The Opposition have levelled a good deal of criticism at Her Majesty's Government about the dangers that may arise when these undertakings are sold. There is always the possibility that speculators and "spivs" may come along to pick up a unit and re-sell it for a profit. This Amendment will meet that kind of case. I realise that administratively it may be difficult to put this Amendment into effect, because it may mean that every applicant for a transport unit will have to be "vetted" to see that he has the necessary experience or proposes to employ officials with the necessary experience. That would be a long job, which would delay disposal. None the less, I feel that for the safeguarding of the public it is important that something on these lines should be, incorporated. If it is impossible to put something in the Bill, perhaps the Government will be able to give an assurance that either the Disposal Board or the licensing authority will be able to keep an eye on this aspect of the question.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said last night, not too late for it to be a sincere compliment, that he was at last beginning to agree with something I said. I would return the compliment. I am delighted with this Amendment. I think it is a sincere and honest attempt to prevent these vehicles from getting into a really bad black market. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, said it might be difficult to administer this provision. In my opinion it will be no more difficult to administer than the majority of clauses already in this Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, wishes to press this Amendment, the noble Lords who support me
1524
on this side of the House will show their appreciation of his effort to try to put something constructive into this Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was interested to hear the last overture. It reminded me of the Prime Minister's words during the war on finding Allies where one could. But my noble friends will be careful of Greek gifts. I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. As the noble Lord has just said, it would not be easy to administer.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not say anything of the sort. If the noble Viscount is really interested in what I said, I said that it might be difficult; but it will be no more difficult than the majority of clauses already in this Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There will be no difficulty in administering the majority of clauses in this Bill, but this provision would be extremely difficult to administer. Nobody has ever before tried to administer such a clause. I think that a fair test to apply is what has happened up to now in the case of the licensing authorities. The licensing authorities have existed since 1933. Parliament was very careful in laying down the conditions which the licensing authorities should impose. These conditions are found in Section 6 of the 1933 Act, which provides that a man may have his licence taken away if he fails to comply with the regulations about the safety of vehicles, the hours his people keep and so on. But never under the Act of 1933, which was a Conservative measure, or under the Act of 1947, which was a Socialist measure, was any such provision as this contemplated. I really do not know how the licensing authorities would judge of what is laid down here. They certainly would have to define competence, and define it in a way which would allow them to administer it.
In a sense my noble friends said that while they wanted to keep the bad people out, they were anxious to give the people who had been in road transport before a special chance. That is an arguable proposition. It is one that I do not think I ought to accept. And if that is the proposal, I would much rather have an Amendment which said frankly there should be a sort of first preference given to people who had been in this business before. I think that would be wrong. We want to get the best price we can for

1525
these transport units, and if we are going to restrict the sale in any way by giving a sort of first preference, or first refusal, to a particular class, that will curtail the market; we shall be restricting to that extent the sales, and to that extent we shall depreciate prices. We want as much competition as we can get in tendering for these vehicles. If we adopt my noble friend's suggestion, we might increase the loss and increase the burden of the levy. One of the essential things that makes a unit a saleable proposition, and a saleable proposition at a good price, is the automatic right which the purchaser receives for a period of time to get a special "A" licence. Indeed, that is the sort of element of goodwill that is being sold, which is an integral part of the unit, and the absence of which—if it is a sort of even money bet whether the purchaser is going to get it—would have a most depressing effect on the sales.
I know that noble Lords on this side are anxious that these vehicles should be disposed of. I know that noble Lords opposite—it may be one reason why the noble Lord would be prepared to support this Amendment—have the desire (a perfectly honest desire, if they want this thing to fail) that as few as possible of these units and vehicles should be sold. If I accept this Amendment, I am sure it would materially affect not only the price we should get for these units but the number of vehicles sold. This Amendment, which noble Lords have put forward with great sincerity and in an attractive way, might in the end defeat the object they have in supporting this Bill. Therefore, I am sorry, but, with the best will in the world, and having given careful consideration to the matter, I am told by the Ministry that they could not possibly accept the Amendment. They cannot accept it on merit.
I do not say that it would be impossible to administer—nothing is impossible to administer—but it would be impossible to administer it evenly, because by asking the licensing authority to define "competence" you put a most invidious task on them. On what basis are they to decide? Is it that the man must have been in the business before? Suppose a man says: "I have not invested in this before, but I am going to employ very competent people." You do not want to
1526
confine this transport business, road haulage or passenger, merely to people who have been in it before. Very wisely, you want capital to come in and the business to develop. How do businesses develop? They do not develop simply by the old people who have been in them for three generations going on, but by a combination of new money, new men, new ideas and technical competence. A man may say: "I am offering a very good price for this business. The Transport Commission and the Disposal Board have said that they think this is a thoroughly good price. I have satisfied them that I have the money for this undertaking. I should not be putting up this large sum of money if I were not going to run the business competently." Do you say to the licensing authority that they must decide whether that man is competent? I believe it would put an impossible task upon them. It cannot be said that he will drive his vehicles dangerously, that he will work his people overlong hours, or that the management will not be competent. What have they to do? Have they to say: "You are putting in this manager. What is his past history?" You cannot give the licensing authority that task to carry out. Therefore, with the best will in the world, I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: I have been very impressed with what the noble Viscount has said, but I should like to say this. First of all, I did not mean that the buyer should be competent, as long as he could satisfy the authority that he had a competent manager. It seems to me that we are still looking at it from the point of view of price alone. If you are asking for tenders for a particular transport job, you do not necessarily accept the lowest tender; you consider the general background of the applicants. It seems to me in this case that we are going to accept the highest tender, irrespective of the background of the different applicants. I fully realise that this Amendment may be quite impracticable as worded. But could there not be some means whereby the prospective purchasers of these units could be told to submit, with their application, some statement of their plans and background, so that the Disposal Board would at least know whom they were dealing with, and would have some idea of whether the man was likely to

1527
make a success of it? I do not know just how this will work out. Maybe the noble Viscount is quite right in saying that this would be an impossible task for the licensing authority. But I do not see why, when submitting tenders to purchase units, the applicants should not have the duty of submitting a short statement as to how they propose to operate if their tender is accepted. That will ensure that it will not be a case of price and nothing else. Perhaps the noble Viscount will look into that to see if it is administratively practical, and see whether anything can be done between now and the Report stage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What does the noble Lord mean by that? I do not think the Commission or the Disposal Board can have the duty put upon them of saying whether a management is going to be competent. I do not see how they can judge it. They can ask an applicant whether his finance is adequate. But if a man has made a good tender, he has adequate finance. What the Commission have to be satisfied about is that, in all the circumstances, it is a reasonable and fair price. If you once introduce an element other than whether it is a good or fair price at which you are selling, if you import some wholly different consideration, I believe you will be giving an impossible task to the Disposal Board and the Commission, as you would be, and as the noble Lord admits you would be, also to the licensing authority. Perhaps the noble Lord will have another shot at this himself. I honestly do not see my way through it at all, and I am advised so strongly by the Ministry that they could not sustain it that I cannot offer to put something down on Report.
If the noble Lord likes to have another shot at producing an Amendment on Report, I will gladly consider it. If he will let me have any new proposition he has
and not put it down at the last minute. I promise to have a look at it. I cannot offer more than that. I never like taking things back and saying, "I will have a look at this and try and produce something," when all the advice given is that we cannot produce anything to that effect.
LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Viscount for his courteous reply. If my noble friend Lord Fairfax and I can get together to see whether we can find some practical proposition to put forward, we will do so.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I feel very satisfied with what the noble Viscount has said. The difficulties seem to be very great, and in any case it would greatly hold up the sale of these units. Therefore, I accept what the noble Viscount has said, and if my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, I will not do anything more about it.
LORD GIFFORD: I am a little more optimistic than my noble friend. I will try to have a shot at it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am not aware of any precedent which I can follow. If leave is not given to withdraw, I suppose that I must put the Amendment: I believe that is the right course to adopt. The consent must be unanimous and, therefore, I think I must put the Question, that the Amendment be agreed to.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Haden-Guest, L.[Teller.]

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Kenswood, L.

Silkin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

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

Mathers, L.

Winster, L.

Burden, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Linlithgow, M.

Allenby, V.

Hampton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hawke, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Furness, V.

Killearn, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Goschen, V

Llewellin, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hailsham, V.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Mancroft, L.

Grey, E.

Swinton, V.

Rea, L.

Howe, E.

Rockley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Brand, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rothes, E.

Carrington, L.

Waleran, L.

Selborne, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Selkirk, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 40. leave out("or") and insert ("of a").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Rates of Transport Levy]:
6.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in Part I, in the column headed "Description of vehicle" to leave out "one ton" and to insert "one and a half tons." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to extend the vehicles to be exempted from the levy. Under the Bill, vehicles having an unladen weight of more than 1 ton would pay. By this Amendment the limit is increased to 1½ tons. The intention, as stated in the White Paper, was that the levy should not apply to small local delivery vans operating under "C" licences, and that was agreed to be reasonable. The only question was where to draw the line. Originally we thought that 1 ton was reasonable, but there are no accurate statistics on which to work and it was thought that probably the 1 ton unladen weight would cover most delivery vans. There are, however, a certain number of delivery vans over that weight and therefore, on the whole, in order to give the benefit of the doubt, we thought it fair to raise the limit to 1½ tons unladen weight. Therefore this Amendment and Amendment No. 117 are really complementary. Raising the limit to 1½tons will exempt about another 90,000 vehicles; that is to say, about 470,000
1530
vehicles will be left out and about 495,000 or nearly half a million will be included. The financial result of that is not considerable, and it will not be necessary, if we make the increase to only 1½ tons, to vary the financial amount of the levy per hundredweight which is proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 45, leave out ("one ton") and insert ("one and a half tons").—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to ask the noble Viscount a question. He has just said that this proposal will release approximately another 90,000 vehicles from the levy. It is not proposed that the per capita rate should be increased. That will mean that the total contribution to the levy will be so much less per annum. The estimated figure on the original working was £4 million. This will therefore bring in somewhat less than the original figure. Am I right in saying that that will mean that the levy will have to go on longer, if the same amount of money is to be garnered?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is a perfectly accurate mathematical proposition. The choice lies between possibly carrying the levy on for a little longer—no one can say how long, but I think not for very long—in order to get a good sale, or by altering the amount. Quite obviously everybody has got used to the 13s. 6d.—or soon will be used to it—and it would be a pity to increase it; but if we raised the limit to two tons I think we should have to increase the levy.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in Part I to leave out "one ton" and insert "two tons." The noble Lord said: The noble

1531
Viscount has endeavoured in hardly more than a phrase to dispose of the point raised by this Amendment. I would, however, ask that he will not close his mind to the possibility of increasing the limit from 1½ tons to 2 tons. I think we are all in agreement that the people who will be affected are the "C" licence holders. I believe that in an earlier speech the noble Viscount himself rather suggested that the most doubtful point about the levy was its application to the "C" licence holders. I do not think he said it was not right that the levy should be imposed, but that if there was any doubt it was in respect of the "C" licence holders. They are, in the main, people who use their vehicles for carrying their own goods for the purposes of their own business. It is arbitrary whether you say that the unladen weight of 1½tons or up to 2 tons should be exempt. But it seemed to us that up to 2 tons unladen weight would have the effect of relieving the small man. Even the concession which has been given by this last Amendment would not entirely exempt the small man. Two tons is not a great deal for a small man to use for the purposes of his own business. I do not know that I can say any more in favour of 2 tons than the noble Viscount has said in favour of the 1½ tons, but I imagine that it will not make much difference, in the main, to the calculation, and the further increase would relieve a considerable number of "C" licence holders of the obligation to pay this levy. I therefore ask the noble Viscount whether he will reconsider the question as to drawing the line at 2 tons weight, rather than at 1½ tons. Two tons is a good round figure, whereas in 1½ tons a fraction is involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 45, leave out ("one ton") and insert ("two tons").—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The last argument was certainly entertaining. Perhaps I ought to point out to the noble Lord that, although the impression seems to be that the object which we had in mind was to relieve the small man, that is not really true. The object we have in mind in fixing the unladen weight at 1 ton or 1½ tons is not so much to relieve the small man as to relieve the small van.
1532
What we want to do is to relieve the small delivery van. I had some hesitation whether we ought to go above 1 ton since it covers most of them. I may be criticised for going up to the 1½ tons, but on the whole I think it is justified. There is no doubt, however, that if we go above that weight and get into the 2-ton range we are getting out of the range of the delivery van and into the range of the haulage van.
LORD SILKIN: What about the coal man?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is a different thing from the grocer who sends round the grocery. In the case of the coal man his haulage is really part of the business. I will give the House another reason why. Above the 30 cwt. rating the unladen weight of the vehicle gives a much greater carrying capacity, laden. I will illustrate it in this way. Take a 30 cwt. Van; the load that that will carry is about 30 cwt.; but, if you take the 2-ton van which the noble Lord wants to include, that has a carrying capacity of 3 tons; so it is really progressive. Therefore—certainly if we are to accept this—it is a defensible principle that we are exempting the small van, and we get into a sphere where no principle at all applies. Of course, the amount would be considerable. We should bring the levy down by about £2700,000. If we did that, I really think we should have to reconsider the unit of charge, which is 13s. 6d.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Viscount say that the difference in receipts between the 1½ton and the 2-ton vans is £700,000?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. What we should lose by putting up the limit from 1 ton to 2 tons is £700,000. We should then get on to a scale where I am afraid we should have to advise the House to increase the charge from something like 13s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. I had a little difficulty in defending to myself the 30 cwt. figure. I think we can swallow that gnat but we cannot swallow this camel.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wish to support my noble friend. When the noble Viscount starts going into the question of the carrying capacity of vehicles in relation to their unladen

1533
weight, that is a field where I should like to engage him for a long time. What the noble Viscount has said has been prompted, I expect, by the Ministry of Transport. It exposes completely the idiotic fallacy of taxing goods-carrying vehicles by an unladen weight formula. But the noble Viscount has to work under instructions. He is not quite accurate when he says that a 30-cwt. unladen weight vehicle will carry only 30 cwt. but that a 2-ton unladen weight vehicle will carry 3 tons. That is not true. It is true in the second case, but not in the first case. Some of the 30-cwt. unladen weight vehicles will carry loads up to as much as 5 tons. There is nothing in the law of this country to provide against it That is a completely fallacious argument, and that is why we should be far more sensible, at some time when sense dawns upon those who have the drafting of the vehicle taxation in this country, to tax vehicles on the weight they can carry—that is, the laden weight—and not on the unladen weight.
I would appeal to the noble Viscount on this matter. There are 900,000 goods-carrying vehicles. Excluding the 1-ton vehicles—there are 340,000—thatleaves 560,000 vehicles which now come into this category. Of those 560,000 vehicles, 450,000 are "C" licensed. Seventy-seven per cent. of this levy is to be paid by the "C" licence holders. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, in their latest memorandum, now that they have realised that, after all, they have to toe the line to politics, have said: "Whatever you do, we will throw in our hand in our opposition to this Bill. But please, oh! please, do do something to help the 'C' licence holder. He should not have to pay this levy." They are on perfectly sound ground, because the "C" licence holder, by and large, will get no benefit whatever; it is the "A" and "B" licence holders who are going to buy the vehicles. The "C" licence holders—inother words, as I said rather late the other night, the man who carries goods only for himself; the trader, the merchant—are paying 77 per cent. of this levy, while the "A" and "B" licence holders combined are paying a trivial 23 per cent. If that is justice and equity, then I do not understand it.
If the limit could go up to 2 tons, it would, as the noble
1534
Viscount has said, approximately correctly, raise the charge a little more; but what would it relieve? It would not perhaps relieve industry; but it would relieve the trader, it would relieve the development that has been growing up so much since the war, the development of the travelling shop, the trader who goes out to the outlying districts. Usually, he has a 2-ton unladen weight vehicle. I know that perhaps it is difficult to ask the noble Viscount to reconsider this matter on the spot, but I ask him whether he will be kind enough to look into it. Will he look first of all at the point about 77 per cent, of this levy being borne by the "C" licence holders; for, if that is not seeking out one section of one industry, the goods carrying industry, to bear a penal tax like this, I do not know what is.
Will the noble Viscount accept the suggestion of my noble friend and look at it? If he will consult with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce—and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will confirm or contradict this—I think, if it comes to a pinch, he will find it will be more equitable to increase by a few shillings the unit of 13s. 6d. and release more vehicles of the large tonnage categories completely from the levy. I do not know, but I think on balance it would be better for industry. Every argument that the noble Viscount has used for raising the limit to 30 cwt. could be used with just as good effect for putting it up to 2 tons. Of course, I speak with a disgust of the entire principle of levy. I think it is an iniquitous thing. But we have fought that battle. The problem now is to get it applied as evenly and with as little hardship as possible.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON): I think I ought to point: out to your Lordships that this Amendment is really out of Order. Under Standing Order No. XLVI amendments to a question proposed during the course of the Committee stage, or any other stage, must not be inconsistent with the decision already taken at that stage. A decision has already been taken on the preceding Amendment to leave out the words "one ton" and to insert the words "one and a half tons." So the Amendment is out of Order.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If it would save us any embarrassment, may I say that when we put the Amendment down on the Order Paper, it was not queried by the Table. We worked in all good faith. I am not blaming the Table. I think my noble friend is willing to withdraw his Amendment if the noble Viscount will undertake to consider the points we have raised. That would save us all much embarrassment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord must not start casting reflections upon the Table. It is perfectly in order to put down any number of Amendments—for instance, for two, three, four or five tons. The point is this: that, when the House has passed an Amendment to say that the figure shall be one ton, all other Amendments immediately following that Amendment go. The noble Lord would be contravening the rule and would be out of order. If he had wished the House to consider this Amendment, he should have asked leave to move the Amendment as an Amendment to my Amendment; then the Lord Chairman could have preserved the position and the noble Lord would have been in order.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It might have been better if, in moving his Amendment, the noble Viscount had pointed out that, if his Amendment was carried, further Amendments would be ruled out.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It might have been better if I had done that from the Chair. I apologise to the Committee for not having done so.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is more usual to warn people that their Amendment is not safe. I am not complaining, but is this a matter for the Committee to decide or, inasmuch as it is in Standing Orders, is it binding upon us?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Standing Orders are binding upon us. Certainly, it is not the business of the Government to safeguard the Amendments of the Opposition. I had no reason to suppose that we should not take the decision on my Amendment. The noble Lord opposite has been a Parliamentarian a long time. It is for the Opposition to look after their own Amendments, and to safeguard them if they wish to do so.
LORD SILKIN: That is quite all right. But the Amendment was called, it has been discussed, and has almost been decided upon. It seems to me, with great respect, that it is a little late in the day to say that it is out of order. However, I am prepared to have my Amendment defeated in this way rather than in another. I am quite prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair, as, of course, I must. I must confess I did not notice that the first Amendment had actually been carried. If I think more of it, I will put this Amendment down again on Report. Then I shall see that I am not ruled out of order.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I apologise to the Committee if I have wasted their time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 115, which the Committee have already passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 8, leave out ("1 ton") and insert ("1½ tons").—(Viscount Swinton.)
EARL HOWE: There is one consideration which ought not to be lost sight of in this question of unladen weight, reference to which has been made from the other side of the House. The 1½ton vehicle is a light motor car chassis; the heavier vehicle is more or less a light commercial chassis. I would ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to remember the question of road safety if any Amendments are moved to increase the exemption from 1½ to 2 tons. There is no doubt that if the unladen weight exemption is increased it will put a premium on the overloading of vehicles, which is already very serious. Most vehicles have brakes which are designed in relation to the performance of the vehicle. I hope that the noble Viscount will remember that if he puts a premium on the further overloading of goods vehicles of any description it is likely to be a bad thing from the point of view of road safety. I hope the noble Viscount will resist any further exemptions which may be suggested.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are not proposing to make any further exemptions, and of course I cannot undertake to enter into a discussion on road safety

1537
and the loading of vehicles on a consequential Amendment which applies to a trader.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Modifications and extensions of section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and section thirty-nine of the Railways Act,1921]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 48, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(4)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Provisions of the Transport Act, 1947, repealed]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this formal Amendment, which is consequential of the Amendment to Clause 19 (1) (a).
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 29, at end insert—
("in subsection (1) of section seventy-four, the words 'the Commission or,' in both places where they occur.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAM: This is a consequential Amendment to the 1947 Act, as a result of an Amendment made in Clause 4 of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 33, leave out ("abnormal indivisible load").—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I intervene, for a moment, not merely on a consequential Amendment, but because I think the Committee would like to know how far I have been able to fulfil the undertaking I gave with regard to getting into the hands of noble Lords opposite as soon as possible any Amendments which the Government may put down on Report? We have been working on them
1538
all the time the Bill has been going through the Committee stage; that has been a little addition to our labours. Of course, we shall have to get the new Amendments into final form and we shall have to wait until the Bill, as we pass it to-night, is printed. But I have every reason to hope that, in the course of to-morrow, we may be able to table a number of Amendments for Report stage. The authorities of the House have been good enough to make arrangements that those shall go to print as soon as they are received, so that they can be issued from the Printed Paper Office by post on Saturday morning. In that way, noble Lords who have notified the Printed Paper Office that they wish to receive all papers in connection with this Bill, and also any other noble Lords interested who say in advance that they wish to, will have as many of the Government Amendments (I hope it will be most of the Amendments) as we have ready tomorrow. They will go out by post on Saturday morning, so that, if the Post Office works according to schedule, at the latest noble Lords will receive them by first post on Monday. Better still, I am told that any Amendments that are handed in to-morrow will be circulated to-morrow night. That is amazingly quick printing. If that is so, the latest time at which they will be received will be on Saturday night. That, I think, is fairly quick work, and will make everybody happy.
LORD LUCAS CHILWORTH: May I say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount for expediting this matter? As soon after the Opposition have had an opportunity to study the Government Amendments on Report as is possible, which I understand will be on Saturday, we shall arrange and put down our Amendments. I hope, therefore, that they will be in the hands of noble Lords by Monday or, at the latest, perhaps, Tuesday morning.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL [H.L.]
6.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, after the Homeric struggles of the last four days I had hoped that I should be able to ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Third Reading without the infliction of a speech from me. But there were two or three major points raised at the Committee stage to which I undertook to give further consideration, and I feel that I should be lacking in courtesy to the House and to noble Lords who raised those points if I did not, as briefly as I possibly could, return to these matters, which are fundamental to the principle of the Bill.
The first matter was this vexed question of the word "quality." Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, drafted an Amendment to try to meet certain difficulties which he and his noble friends found inherent in the use in the Bill of the word "quality." The arguments in favour of this particular term are, I admit, stronger in theory than in practice since few trade descriptions are likely to emerge which relate specifically to "quality" whilst excluding the other terms of the clause—namely, "fitness for purpose, strength, accuracy, performance or behaviour." One important weakness of the existing law is that it does not deal with mis-description of quality at all. The Bill ought, therefore, to include a term which quite clearly mirrors the intention to check this particular malpractice in future.
The other words in the clause to which the noble Lord took exception—"fitness for purpose, strength, accuracy, performance or behaviour" are, broadly speaking, aspects of quality. "Quality" itself is the sum of them. That is why we regret that we are unable to accede to the noble Lord's request to remove those words, and that is why we think that, taken by and large, "quality" is the word best suited to the end which we are seeking to attain. It is part of the purpose of the Bill to strengthen the legal position of standards laid down by the British Standards Institution to replace the degree of protection of quality inherent in the utility scheme. Another point raised was that "quality" would be difficult to de-
1540
fine. I would remind your Lordships that the use of the word "quality" in a Bill of this kind is not new. The word "quality," for instance, appears in the Trade Marks Act, 1938. It also appears in the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking)Act, 1928, and in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and it has not, so far as I know, given rise to any particular difficulties.
I should like to add this about the word "quality." It appears to me to be a good "sweeping-up" word. It is more limited in its meaning—as it should be in an Act involving criminal penalties—than some phrases such as "other like characteristics" or the phrase which Lord Lucas and his advisers thought out, "other physically ascertainable and definable characteristics," but it does cover some mis-descripitions capable of deceiving the purchasing public. The word "quality" has been criticised—the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, criticised it—on the grounds that it is too vague and difficult to define, and that courts will be unable to deal with it. But false description of the word "quality" is a matter for judgment in the light of the evidence and of the arguments. The evidence must be there before the case can be proved. There is no reason to suppose that magistrates will be any less capable of assessing this evidence and deciding the case than they are of deciding the provisions of the existing Statute. So, I regret, I must inform Lord Lucas, in his absence, that we are still unable to accept his Amendment, though we are grateful to him for the care with which he went into the matter and for the ingenuity with which he sought to produce a better result.
May I now turn briefly to the question of the trade "puff" and advertising boost which also worried the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin?—what we might term the "Beer is best" type of trade "puff." I think some anxiety was felt lest some such slogans as—"Beer is best," "Guinness is good for you," "Rolls-Royce, the best car in the world," and other similar expressions, might come within the ambit of this Bill. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make it a criminal offence to assert that "Beer is best." I should like to make it clear at once that it is not the intention of the Bill to interfere with legitimate trade "puff"; and, generally speaking,

1541
it will not do so, because such matter, even if false, will not be caught by the Bill, and it would be very difficult to get a prosecution going at all. In a prosecution for false trade description, three things must be proved. First, the description must be trade description within the definition; that is to say, it must relate to quality, fitness for purpose and so on. Secondly, the trade description must be applied to the goods. Thirdly, the trade description must be false in a material respect as regards the goods to which it is applied. A trade "puff" such as "Beer is best" will fail on one or more of these counts. The slogan, "Beer is best" actually fails on all three.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Succeeds on all three.
LORD MANCROFT: From the noble Lord's point of view it succeeds. It is scarcely a description at all. Moreover, in the first place, it is impossible to prove that it relates to the quality of beer or to any of the other characteristics within the statutory definition. Generally, so far as I know, it appears in poster form, and I think it would be very difficult to show that it had been applied to a particular bottle or a particular glass of beer. It is not, therefore, "false in a material respect" as regards the beer to which it is applied, because it is immaterial to the purchaser of beer whether beer in general is best or whether or not the particular bottle on which he has his eye is the best.
Then take the slogan: "There is no substitute for wool," which was referred to by several noble Lords. This is slightly more definite than "Beer is best," but it is not really a description of wool or of anything else. It would be virtually impossible to Show that it was a trade description applied to a particular garment. Similarly, when goods claim to be of "best quality"—an expression familiar, particularly, in suburban shops—if the implication were that a particular line of goods had been selected as being of best quality, that description would be caught by the Bill—and properly so, since it implies a definite claim going to quality. But a mere placard in a shop-window to the effect that the goods in the shop were of best quality would probably not be caught, for the reasons which I have stated. In short, a genuine trade "puff" is seldom a description, still more
1542
rarely a trade description, applied to goods within the meaning of the Bill.
Assume a case in which a form of words is applied, to the effect that goods are of the finest possible quality—for example, the finest in the world. There still remains the question whether the court would say that the words were not a description, but mere "puff," commendation or exaggerated praise, which, by analogy with the law of false pretences and fraud, should not be treated as an offence. A Statute must always be interpreted in accordance with existing Common Law principles—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, would be the first to agree—and by analogy with them, unless it very clearly provides otherwise. I apologise for having gone into this matter in some detail, but it has caused some little doubt in trade circles: and in the advertising world, doubts raised by Lord Llewellin have found some echo. I hope that I have said enough to put my noble friend's doubts at rest.
I would next, with the permission of your Lordships, like to speak of the application of the Bill to the Dominions and to the Colonies. This matter was raised by Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Hawke. The Bill applies, of course, only to the United Kingdom, but merchandise marks legislation in the Colonies is based on, and is to a large extent a verbatim reproduction of, our Act of 1887. I give an undertaking that this latest amendment of our Act will be brought to the attention of the Colonial Governments. They are Governments, however, which are largely autonomous in such matters, and the decision whether or not they adopt a similar amendment rests with them. Similarly, the suggestion that this legislation might be of interest to the independent Commonwealth countries will be transmitted to the appropriate quarters.
The question of Japan was raised by many noble Lords. The Bill does not and cannot prevent the copying of United Kingdom designs abroad, a matter which is altogether outside its scope, but the Board of Trade are aware of this practice and take what steps are open to them to combat it. I can assure the House that the matter will be brought to the attention of the Japanese authorities, who, I am glad to say, have shown a very marked improvement in their readiness

1543
to take up any cases of malpractice referred to them—malpractice that used to be so prevalent before the war and on which there was such marked room for improvement. In that respect the minds of noble Lords may be set at rest.
The last point raised concerned consolidation. Several noble Lords asked whether it was possible to consolidate this Bill and the two Acts which it seeks to amend and the other Acts which touch on this subject. Before giving any undertaking on that, there are two things we shall have to do. The first is to see how the 1926 Act works in a post-war world, and whether that Act requires any amendment; and, secondly, to get some experience of how this Bill will work when it becomes an Act. We do not want to consolidate before it is clear that no further amendments are required. I have never pretended that this Bill is foolproof. I can console your Lordships by saying that consolidation is not so necessary as it would appear at first sight. There are six Acts, admittedly, but two, the Acts of 1891 and 1894, are purely procedural, dealing with small matters of procedure not of general interest to traders. The Act of 1926 stands alone. The Act of1938 amends the principal Act in one minor particular. Only the present Bill, therefore, substantially amends the principal Act of 1887. But we are keeping a careful watch upon this and in due course we may be able to reconsider the matter again. I apologise for having been so long on this matter but, as I say, I felt that I should be lacking in courtesy, as some doubt was expressed on all sides on these matters, if I had not attempted to clear them up. With these words, I hope that have persuaded your Lordships to send the Bill on its way to another place rejoicing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for giving such a clear account of the various matters into which he has looked, and for the way in which he has tried to meet us. Though he did not completely satisfy us about what was asked for from this side, obviously in the opinion of the noble Lord it was the best that could be done at the present time. I was particularly interested in the question of consolidation and how it would work. The noble Lord has set out a vade mecum of how the Act is going to work. Noble Lords on this side support the Motion.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I add that we are all grateful to my noble friend for the trouble he has taken in answering the questions raised on Committee stage? As we had no Amendments on Committee stage, we had no Report stage, and this is the only occasion on which the noble Lord could deal with them. I am much obliged to him, and to the Government, for the trouble they have taken in going into the points raised and giving us such a full explanation to-day. I have not the slightest doubt that the courts will be able to construe this matter and will do it with a considerable amount of common sense. I am not completely convinced that the word "quality" ought to go in, because it is a very wide word, but I have no doubt that in all cases of this sort that come before the courts, they will give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt to-day and hope that the kind of events I visualise will not take place.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [H.L.]
6.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I should like to express my gratitude to your Lordships for recognising that in this Bill the Government have made a sincere effort to re-establish this old University of St. Andrews on a sound foundation, from which it can contribute to learning, undistracted by dissension. I think we may claim that your Lordships have improved the Bill, notably in Clause 5, which establishes the formal relationship between the University Court and the University College Councils, and in Clause 6, where the foundation in Common Law of the Colleges has been retained. In a sentence, these two Amendments brought the Bill closer in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. There is no intention, I repeat, that the Government shall seek in any way to establish control over the affairs of the University. The lives of the Commissioners and the Assessors will come to an end in due course, when the process of reorganisation is finished; and when that happens, the only Crown appointment will be that of the Principal of the University. There has been a division of opinion in the House on whether the Principal or the Rector should occupy the chair of the University Court. On every side the arguments have been laid out, and I think that will be of use in another place when they come to consider that part of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Home, on his Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill. I am pleased to have had an opportunity of participating in what I believe will be a great
1546
improvement in the work of the University of St. Andrews in the future. I know something about the University—not directly, because I was never there, but from friends who were—and I know what a great tradition it has. I believe the University has a greater life before it than it has had in the past. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.
On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]
6.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that tins Bill be now read a third time. I think there is nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said on an earlier stage of the Bill, when he gave a very good account of it, and I hope that my Motion will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I agree that there is nothing to add, and I hope the Bill will pass at once.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS, &c.), BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
RHOANGLO GROUP BILL

  UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at seven o'clock.