Lords Sitting of 19 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
2.36 p.m.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL
Read 2a.

RHOANGLO GROUP BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, in case any of your Lordships may wonder what Rhoanglo means, perhaps I should explain that this is a Bill to provide for the transfer to Northern Rhodesia of certain, companies. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS, & C.) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.38 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS BURY): My Lords, before we proceed to further consideration of this Bill, there is a brief statement which I have to make to the House. The Clerk of Parliaments has informed me that he very much regrets to report that there was an unfortunate omission of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, from the second Division List last night. By some unfortunate accident, the noble Lord was neither counted by the Tellers nor recorded by the clerks in the Division Lobby. My noble friend, Lord Mancroft, who was a Teller
194
for the Not-Contents, has confirmed the noble Lord's claim to have passed through the Lobby. Sir Robert proposes, therefore, to correct the record of the Division by adding Lord Mathers' name to the Contents list, the figures for which, accordingly, will be 23, instead of 22, as at present recorded. An amended Division List will appear with the Minuses of Proceedings for to-day and will also be recorded in Hansard.*
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Marquess for the statement he has made, and for the comforting assurance that I was not entirely over looked? The accident may have been due to some extent to the fact that my name is not pronounced "Matthers"—that is, with a short "a"—but "Maythers"—with the "a" long. I certainly passed through the Lobby as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, well remembers, and I certainly pronounced my name quite distinctly when I approached the Tellers.
Clause 17:
Repeals and amendments relating to the Commission's functions with respect to road passenger transport
(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, it shall not be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided that this subsection shall riot apply so as to pi event the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage to carry a pleasure party consisting of persons employed by the Commission, with or without their families or friends, or to carry any party on any journey which begins or ends within the city of Sheffield the counts borough of Halifax, the county borough of Huddersfield, or the borough of Todmorden.
(4) The following provisions (being an adaptation of provisions contained in section fifteen of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, which, until the coming into force of the Trans port Act, 1947, applied to the London Passenger Transport Board) shall apply to the Commission—
(c) the licensing authority for public service vehicles, in considering whether they will grant or back a road service licence to the Commission in respect of any route or part of a route which is outside the London special area, shall, in addition to the matters to which they are required to have regard by virtue of section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, have regard to the duty of the Commission to provide or secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area,
* See Cols. 135-6 and 237-8

195
and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that subsection (2) of section twenty-six of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 (which relates to charges and fares), has effect in the case of a public service vehicle operating wholly or in part outside the London special area, subject, as respects any part of the service outside that area, to the provisions of section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): Amendment No. 2—Lord Gifford.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), after "employed" to insert "within the London Passenger Transport area." The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I say, first, that my name is pronounced "Jifford"! This small Amendment refers to a proviso in Clause 17 of the Bill which allows the Commission to run contract carriages: that is, to provide hire buses outside the London Passenger Transport area for the purposes of employees of the Commission and their friends. A somewhat similar Amendment was put down on the Committee stage, and it was stated on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that it was felt that this concession was clearly one that a good employer would make. I had the honour to point out that this clause as it is worded goes far beyond the employees who actually work in the vehicles, and I suggested then that it should be confined to employees of the London Transport Executive.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, pointed out that they might want to extend it to the office staffs and so forth in the London area—an argument in which I saw some force. I also pointed out that if this concession were allowed to all employees of the Commission it would mean its extension to employees of Commission-owned hotels in Scotland, bargemen from canals, and literally hundreds of thousands of men and women throughout the United Kingdom. This, I think, really goes far beyond what is intended. I may say that these seaside parties are catered for mainly by small
196
coach proprietors who are forbidden to operate in the London Passenger Transport area. They feel that their livelihood is being threatened by allowing this vast number of Commission employees to organise parties, probably at cheap rates with which they cannot possibly compete.
This new Amendment which I put forward (and from what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, I feel that he is sympathetic) really confines the clause to employees of the Commission within the London Passenger Transport area—that is, any employees of the Commission in that area, and their families and friends—but it keeps outside the concession, say, a party of railwaymen from Crewe and so forth who have really nothing what ever to do with London Transport and are not in the true sense of the word employees in those vehicles for which the concession is made. I feel that this restriction is not at all onerous and it is quite within the intention and spirit of what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 29, after ("employed") insert ("within the London Passenger Transport area").—(Lord Gifford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I first point out to the noble Lord that my noble friend's name, though spelt "De La Warr" is pronounced "Delaware." The noble Lord has raised the question of the position of contract carriages under the Commission. As the Bill is drafted at present, the Commission will be able to carry out contract carriage work, except for their employees and families, only in the London area and in certain other parts of the country, notably Sheffield, Huddersfield, Halifax and Todmorden. The Amendment says that those employees who are to be carried by contract carriage shall be confined to those employed within the London Passenger Transport area. The first point I must make now is that that is an arbitrary and an uncertain distinction. I have only to take as an example the staff of a train—and we must remember that the whole of our railway system comes under this contract carriage arrangement—where the guard may be based on Birmingham and goes daily to London. In that case it would be very hard to say whether or not, in point of fact, he was employed in London.

197
The second point is that although to a very large extent this is a matter concerning the London Transport Executive, there are buses in other parts of the country—notably places like Sheffield and those to which I have referred; there are not many, but there are some. Moreover, the Commission can at any time employ or let on contract carriage any of the buses which belong to the companies which they entirely control. So it really is not a major point in that sense. I suggest that the Amendment is rather arbitrary. After all, there is to be free competition. Anyone else can compete; he is quite free to do so. The only occasion on which it might be said that others would not be competing would be on what might be described as a staff outing, when the driver likes to give his services at perhaps no cost. With great respect, I say that in those cases it is perfectly proper. There are obviously proper cases of staff outings and I do not think the drivers would give their services unless it was an outing of their friends and comrades. That is the only case in which it could be said that perfectly free competition does not exist.
It would be unfair to the Commission to take away this obvious and clear-cut duty on a good employer to allow, for instance, the staff of the Gleneagles Hotel or the bargemen of the Crinan Canal Co. to be catered for. I feel that the Commission should be able to do this within reason. I ask the noble Lord to with draw the Amendment because I do not think it is, in effect, going to amount to very much. I do not really think it should be, I was going to say, "pushed" beyond the point which appears in the Bill. I suggest that we should be imposing a restriction which would be unreasonable.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I say that the noble Earl speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government has stated the views of the Opposition precisely?
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, cannot accept this Amendment because I felt that it was a reasonable compromise which would not, as I said before, in fringe the spirit of what was intended.
198
In the circumstances, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he could give me an undertaking that this provision will be used only for genuine staff parties. There is great uneasiness among the private contract coach operators that, for instance, a driver and a conductor of a bus might meet a number of friends in a pub, and the party might consist of just those two men from the London Transport Executive and thirty friend from the local darts club. Obviously, that would be an unfair situation. If the noble Earl can give me an undertaking that this will be confined to genuine staff parties—that is to say, the members of the staff and their families and friends, I should be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not give any such assurance. This is a matter which falls within the competence of the Commission. They are given certain duties to perform. We have no reason to prejudge them or to think that they will neglect those duties. The matter of watching a duty like this is one which may safely be left wish the Commission, and I hope no such assurance will be given.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may with the permission of the House, say that I really do not think contract parties arise from parties of friends in a public house? I think the noble Lord knows quite well that if this was going, to be misused it world be necessary to use a travel agency of some character—that is to say, to advertise that something, of the sort was to happen. If that is the case, the passengers will clearly not be friends. The word "friends" is perfectly clear and definite, and would not apply if this were operated through an agency or by means of an advertisement. I think that the Bill as drafted is fairly watertight, and that it would be thoroughly disreputable for the Commission to make any other use of the term which is included here.
LORD GIFFORD: I still think that this might be done other than through a travel agency. However, I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.52 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR)THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR) moved to add to the proviso to subsection (3):
"or so as to prevent, up till the end of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage for the purpose of performing any contract entered into by the Commission before the passing of this Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is a further slight relaxation of the general ban that is imposed on the running of contract vehicles by the Commission. It is put down in order to meet a useful point that was raised on Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We are indebted to him for raising the point by which, quite simply, he reminded us that the Commission may well have made—indeed, almost certainly have made—certain arrangements and contracts for this summer. This Amendment meets that point, and accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I express my appreciation at the action of the noble Lord? As I said when I raised this point, it will mean that the London Transport Executive and their passengers will now benefit to the extent of a few thousand pounds. I am sure, that in these hard times in London, with the anxiety which London fares are causing, the travelling public will be very grateful to the noble Earl, as indeed I am.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4) (c) after "area" to insert:
"but within the London Passenger Transport Area."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. This point was raised by my noble friends, Lord Teynham and, I think, Lord Rothes, in regard to the effect of the Statute. The anxiety aroused in regard to paragraph (c) was that the Commission would acquire preferential treatment when appearing before the licensing authority of an unlimited area surrounding London, and that preferential treatment would arise on the ground that the Commission have a monopoly in the special area where they do not require a licence and that they have a duty to provide transport.
200
This Amendment is intended to confine the consideration which the licensing authority will give to the duty imposed on the Commission within the area laid down in the Act of 1933—that is, the London Passenger Transport Area. It is in this area that consideration will be given by the licensing authority. Out side that area, private companies and the Commission will apply on an equal footing for permission to operate, with no statutory advantage either on one side or on the other. I suggest that this is a fair Amendment, and I hope that I have satisfied my noble friends. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, after ("area") insert ("but within the London Passenger Transport Area").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for setting down this Amendment, which certainly goes a long way towards meeting the point which I raised on the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after sub section (5) to insert:
"(6) (i) For the avoidance of doubt and without prejudice to any other power them enabling it is hereby declared that the Commission shall have power from time to time to sell or otherwise dispose of all or any securities which they may hold in any body corporate mentioned in sub-sub-paragraph (ii) (a) hereof on such terms as the Commission may think fit."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has already appeared as part of an Amendment and was debated during the Committee stage when, with all due respect to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, no reply was in fact given on this point. I have set the Amendment down again in order to clarify the powers of the Commission—as to whether they have, in fact, the power from time to time to sell all or any securities which they may own in those companies. There appears to be some doubt as to the interpretation of Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act, 1947, but at least it seems clear that the Commission could voluntarily sell shares owned by them in a passenger road transport undertaking, since even under the present Bill (Clause 24 (1)) the Commission have a duty in so far as it is considered expedient, to provide passenger road services.
Another reason why this new subsection is advocated is to make quite clear what might reasonably be the attitude of mind of the Transport Commission in the future. Subsection (6) contemplates that the Minister might give directions as to the disposal of securities and it would not, I think, be unnatural if, in view of this, the Commission felt it desirable to await any such instructions—indeed, they might consider it wrong for them to anticipate a view which might be formed by the Minister. I would point out that even if the Commission already have powers of sale, this point would of course still remain. I think it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that, in relation to passenger road transport, the Commission should be in a somewhat similar position to that of the railways in 1947, when, of course, they could either run bus services themselves or take a financial stake in operating companies in partnership with others. I suggest that it is desirable to remove all doubt as to the ability of the Commission to take either action. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, the only reason I did not give a complete answer last time was that, not being a first-class lawyer, I did not wish to give a final legal opinion without taking the highest legal opinion open to me. I have now done so, and I am assured that this Amendment is quite unnecessary, because, by virtue of Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act, 1947, the Commission may dispose of any part of their under taking or any property which in their opinion is not required for the discharge of their duty. Where there is, in fact, no doubt at all as to the legal interpretation of a Statute, it is a bad plan to introduce unnecessary sections either to remove doubt or for the avoidance of doubt. The only result of doing that is that you are apt to cast doubt elsewhere where no doubt exists. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: May I ask one further question, to get this absolutely clear? I suppose it is within the power of the Commission to
202
consider it their duty to run less road passenger transport than, say, they are running at the moment or immediately after the Bill is passed. I realise that the services are to a certain extent fixed by what the licensing authority consider should be run in the way of passenger transport in the various areas. Presumably it is within the power of the Commission to consider that it is their duty, in certain circumstances, to operate a smaller amount of road passenger transport than is operated at the moment.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words with regard to Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act of 1947 which has given me cause for worry. It states in that subsection that:
"The Commission may dispose, whether absolutely or for a term of years, of any part of their undertaking or any property which in their opinion is not required by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act…"
If the Commission had a certain road passenger transport undertaking which was very profitable, and supposing they should say that in their opinion it was a transport undertaking
"required by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act,"
then they would not, I assume, be free to dispose of it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: They must be the judges of what is required for the purpose of the Act. Certain duties are imposed upon them by the Act of 1947 and will be by this Bill when it becomes an Act. Those duties are statutory duties which they have to discharge. They will be smaller in future than they have been, but such duties as are imposed upon them the Commission must discharge; they world be guilty of a breach of an Act of Parliament if they did riot do so. But they must be the judges, subject to the broad direction of the Minister, of what their duties are and how they ought to cart' them out. They certainly would not be entitled to dispose of vehicles which are necessary to them for the discharge of those duties. But they are absolutely free, under the Act of 1947—which is not affected here—to dispose of any vehicles or any property which in their opinion is not required for the discharge of those statutory duties. I cannot make the matter any plainer. I know that Acts of Parliament are often difficult to understand—I myself have often found difficulty in understanding

203
them—but these passages in the Act and in the present Bill are passages which I find very easy to understand.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving this explanation. I think it is now quite clear that the Commission have that power which I merely wished to make certain was already there. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.4 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (6), after "then," to insert:
"the Minister shall keep under continuous review the position of each of such first-mentioned bodies corporate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I set down an Amendment which provided that the Minister should from time to time review the position as to the directions that he might give the Commission to dispose of securities in a passenger vehicle undertaking. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, indicated that the Minister would not wish to review the position at any one time, but would want to keep the whole matter under continuous review. This Amendment has been set down to meet this point. I feel that if this Amendment is incorporated in the Bill it will ensure that the position will not be forgotten, and that it will be looked at from time to time in the normal course of Ministerial administration.
During the Committee stage debate, speaking on a somewhat similar Amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, appeared to be saying, in effect, that "You must look at each company on its merits in order to see whether it is behaving as a bus company with the nor mal objectives which a bus company ought to have at heart or whether it is hag-ridden by undue railway influence." It would seem from the noble Viscount's statement that in order to allow the Minister to form a fair appreciation of the behaviour of each company, a long time might elapse—possibly two or three years. I am sure that it cannot be the intention of the Government that apparent "bus-mindedness" should be the only criterion, and I feel that it is always difficult in
204
these cases to prove a negative. It is not what these companies do or will do, so much as what they do not do or will not do. I feel that the remarks of the noble Viscount might leave the impression that only one set of circumstances could result in a directive being given by the Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 6, after ("then") insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, if every word I spoke in the course of a nine-days debate were to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament, the Statute Book would become very large, but I do not know that great advantage would accrue to the national interest. But I really think that the powers in the Bill in this respect do not require elaboration any more than they require any curtailment. I think I did say something on the lines mentioned by the noble Lord, but I did so rather to make a contrast with an Amendment he had before which looked as if there was to be a review that would be made once and for all—or at long intervals. What I intended to say was that the Minister ought to be able to look at any company at any time when the company wanted looking at—it might be of his own motion, or it might be because of some complaint that a locality was not getting adequate service. The Minister ought to be able to look at that and look at a particular company in particular circumstances. But it is not necessary to insert any words to achieve that. That was why I did not like the words which meant that the Minister had to make a comprehensive review from time to time. That is not the way the scheme works. He would be working continuously with the Commission: that is the way these things must work, if they are to work properly.
Supposing you put in that the Minister has to keep the matter under continuous review? You are putting upon him a statutory duty, not just the ordinary duty that all Ministers have of doing the job entrusted to them, but some special and rather exceptional function, quite apart from his general duty. And he has got to do something about it. He has got to set up machinery of continuous review. That means that somehow he has to be in continuous review relationship with every company in which the Transport

205
Commission are interested. Really this is overloading the Bill, if I may respect fully say so, with detailed instruction, and it will not help either the day-to-day activities or the general spirit in which business is run. I am sure that all that is necessary in the interests of the public is there in the general duty and power of the Minister, and I hope that we shall not try to particularise it. This sort of Amendment raises the same objection as I have to inserting a particular element of instruction where that is unnecessary. We not only might overload the whole Bill but might get things out of their proper perspective and proportion.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Amendment, as I spoke to the one which was moved on the Committee stage. I appreciate what the noble Viscount has just said, but I think the actual words in this Amendment happen to be the words of wisdom that fell from his lips in the Committee stage. I was slightly comforted by something which he said yesterday. His words were to the effect that if "may" appeared in the Bill he would not have it there unless it was the intention that something should be done about it. "May" does appear in the Bill, and if the noble Viscount can give us some assurance that the matter will not be forgotten, but will be considered with an open mind, then, speaking for myself, I shall be perfectly content.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I speak again just to say that of course I give that assurance? Here is a duty on the Minister which he has to exercise in any circumstances, if in any circumstances, and not in one particular set of circumstances, he thinks it desirable in the public interests so to do. Of course, whenever the occasion arises for him to consider a matter like this, it is the duty of the Minister to take whatever action he thinks right and proper.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the assurances he has given on this point. I do not wish to pursue the matter any further, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Exclusion of certain enactments]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment, which is purely procedural. In repealing Sections 37 and 38 of the 1933 Act it was overlooked that certain provisions of subsection (13) in fact applied to the procedure of the Transport Tribunal. This is necessary and accordingly we retain it by this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 39, leave out ("sections thirty-seven and") and insert ("section thirty-seven (except subsection (13) thereof) and section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 22:
Special procedure for temporary authorisation of increased charges
22.—(1) If it appears to the Commission that the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—

(a) that there has been or will be an increase in their costs which will, unless met quickly by an increase in their charges, seriously affect their financial position; and

(b) that the necessary increase of their revenue cannot reasonably be obtained without making charges greater than those authorised by the charges schemes for the time being in force.

they may take either or both of the following courses, that is to say—

(i) they may apply to the Transport Tribunal under this subsection for temporary amendments of all or any of the schemes (being schemes devoted exclusively or principally to determining the charges to be made for the carriage of passengers) so as to increase all or any of the charges authorised by the schemes;

(ii) they may, by notice published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes and in such other manner as may appear to them best adapted for informing persons affected, declare that all or any of the maximum charges fixed by any of the charges schemes (not being such changes schemes as afore said) are to be treated, as from a date specified in the notice, as increased by such percentage as may be so specified, not being more than ten per cent.;

and where such a notice is published, the schemes shall until such date as may be fixed under subsection (6) of this section be deemed to be amended accordingly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsecticn (1) (ii), to leave out "percentage as may be so specified, not being more than ten per cent." and to insert:
"percentages as may be so specified in relation to those maximum charges respectively."

207
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. If I may, I will take in also Amendment No. 55 and the un-numbered Amendment after it. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in the course of Committee stage. The noble Lord pointed out that here we are dealing with what is known as the "headroom"clause— that is, the clause which enables the Commission to raise their charges fairly quickly. The noble Lord pointed out that it would be possible at successive moments of time to increase charges by 10 per cent. on each occasion. If that were the case, theoretically, there could be a 10 per cent. increase every day for a whole month, and the possibility of such action would inevitably undermine the whole work of the Transport Tribunal. I replied to the noble Lord that though this was theoretically possible, it would be highly improbable; but we have tried to meet his point in this Amendment.
There are two procedures under this clause, one for passengers and one for freight. Passenger fare increases have a quick procedure before the Tribunal and freight rate increases can be made by notice in the Gazette. Under the Amendment it is still possible for the Commission to raise the fares on two or more occasions, but it is provided that the aggregate increase shall not exceed 10 per cent. until the full procedure laid down under subsection (5) of this clause, applying Section 79 of the Transport Act of 1947, has been concluded and the level of the maximum charges laid down again. I think this meets the point raised by the noble Lord. May I also mention that the provision dealing with freight does not yet apply because there is no charges scheme up to the present time.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert ("percentages as may be so specified in relation to those maximum charges respectively."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kind words about my Amendment. Although he was not able to accept it on Committee stage, he has carried out almost everything which I wished to do and, although in quite a different way, he has
208
prevented any increases under the headroom clause from being more than 10 per cent. in one year. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his consideration.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 6, at end insert—
("Provided that the increase made in any one maximum charge by a notice published under this subsection or, where more than one notice so published is in force at the same time, by all the notices so in force taken together, shall not exceed ten per cent.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords. I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 14, leave out from ("necessary") to the end of line 26, and insert—
("Provided that the Tribunal, on any such application—

(a) shall not, in relation to any scheme, make any order which will, in their opinion, either alone or together with any other order under this subsection which is still in force and affects that scheme, result in an increase of more than ten per cent. in the revenue of the Commission from the charges to which that scheme relates;

(b) shall not make any order which in their opinion will result in the revenue of the Commission from passenger transport services provided for the purposes of so much of their undertaking as is at the passing of this Act being carried on through the London Transport Executive being increased by more than so much of the increase in the costs of the Commission which was the occasion of the application as is properly apportionable to the provision of such services.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this Amendment carries out my undertaking to the Realm of Scotland. Your Lordships will remember that we agreed to increase the Commission to a number not exceeding fifteen and in that enlarged number I promised there should be two who were thoroughly conversant with Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, at end insert ("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.")—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, on behalf of my Scottish colleagues I should like to thank the noble Viscount for introducing this Amendment, which will ensure that the special interests of Scotland are fully considered by the Commission.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I rise once more to call attention to the due claims, rights and what ought to be privileges of Wales. Your Lordships may remember that last night there was another Amendment on the Order Paper which recognised the due rights and privileges of Scotland. I made no objection to that. Now on this Amendment I am returning good for evil. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, did not support me but, on the contrary, made a strong speech against me on the curious ground that Scotland is larger than Wales and farther away from London. I could turn this argument the other way round, and say that I think the Government ought to look after small countries because the larger are well able to look after themselves. But I do not do that. I base my claim on the justice of the case. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, said in his successful plea for Scotland could be said of Wales. It is a separate nation, with separate problems and it has difficulties of its own. This has been recognised by Her Majesty's Government because they have appointed a special Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs. I want to take Sir David Maxwell Fyfe out of the unemployed list and give him a job in transport. As I said last night, I feel sorry for him when he has to go round Wales, as he will have to do, and explain to the Welsh people why his opinion and advice have not been sought by the Government with regard to transport in Wales.
On the last occasion, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggested that he might approve of the Amendment then submitted on the curious ground that it came within the formula put forward in Lord Goschen's speech with regard to England and Scotland. It seems curious, but that is what the noble Viscount said. He quoted the Goschen formula in his speech, although incorrectly. I mention that because it shows once more that the Government have not really gone into this case as carefully as they might have done. If
210
they had, the noble Viscount would not have quoted incorrectly the formula which Lord Goschen elaborated and which is set out in the report of the Arts Council.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the formula has nothing to do with the Arts Council. I have not the vaguest idea of who the Arts Council are. But I have suffered under the Goschen formula all the time I have been a Minister and those who can go back farther than I are well acquainted with it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I under stand that the Arts Council in Scotland received grants under the Goschen formula. The noble Viscount adduced the Goschen formula and incorrectly de scribed it to the House. I merely mentioned that in passing because I do not think we ought to allow anything incorrect to remain in our proceedings. It does not really matter from my point of view, because, Goschen formula or not, I suggest to your Lordships that once representation has been given to Scotland, representation should be given to Wales and there should be equally representation from England. Once the thing has been put on a nationalistic basis there is no reason at all why both England and Wales should not be equally represented and people appointed to the Commission because they are Englishmen and because they are Welshmen. I should never have made this point, because I do not think it is so important to have people of various nationalities on the Commission, but Lord Bilsland put down the Amendment and the Government have accepted it, and once the Government have accepted a proposal of this kind on a nationalistic basis I think they should carry their nationalism to the full extent and recognise the due claims, not only of Wales, but of England.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I should like to raise another Scottish voice from this side of the House to say that a great deal is contained in the four lines of the Amendment. I venture to express fears and apprehensions about this Bill as a whole, but it seems to me that in these four tines there is provided at least some protection from the damage and disabilities and disturbances that Scotland may suffer under the Bill. To that extent I am grateful for the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I must claim my right of reply. I am glad to find myself on this occasion in the same Lobby, so to speak, as Lord Mathers, but I hope we shall not have to go into the Lobbies over this matter. The Goschen formula, which was alluded to by myself, slightly by way of persiflage on the last occasion, was described with perfect accuracy. I did not refer to the Arts Council, whatever that body is—and I am sure it is an admirable one. No doubt it gets a grant. If there is an Arts Council in Scotland which is entitled to get a grant, then I have no doubt it gets the grant on the Goschen formula. When I described the Goschen formula as eleven-eightieths, that is exactly what the Goschen formula is.
LORD MATHERS: Will the noble Viscount allow me to say this? The Goschen formula is not eleven-eightieths. That does not describe it correctly. The Goschen formula is eleven-ninety-oneths; it is eleven as to eighty; that is, not eleven parts of eighty, but eleven parts of ninety-one.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I bow and apologise. It is then eleven-ninetyone—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oneths!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I never could do arithmetic. I accept that as I often in another place used to accept instruction from Lord Mathers. Be that as it may, there really is complete justification, I think, for giving these two special seats to Scotland or to persons who are particularly conversant with the circumstances and requirements of Scotland.
Let me tell the House in a sentence or two why I think Scotland is distinguishable from Wales. It is not that we want to back Scottish nationalism as against Welsh nationalism. It is not because of the comparative size of the two countries. But, for all these purposes of transport, Scotland will be an entity in a way in which Wales, I imagine, will not. I do not attempt to forecast with accuracy the shape of things to come, but I should imagine—indeed, I think the Bill lays it down—that Scotland, on decentralisation, is to be a region or an area, or whatever it is called. Therefore that is recognised in advance; but when it comes to
212
making the areas under any decentralisation scheme, I should think it extremely improbable that Wales would figure as an area. In nearly everything, certainly in all questions of transport, South Wales and North Wales really fall into different areas. Anybody who has travelled there knows that. The one thing that you certainly cannot do by any known means of transport, except perhaps a helicopter, is get from South Wales to North Wales, or North Wales to South Wales. If you are going to use the railway you have to go right round, almost to Holyhead, to get across.
I imagine that when it comes to Wales —which shall have full consideration; I will not go through what I said again but I recited last time the provisions regarding the special consultative council and so on, for Wales under this Bill—and when it comes to splitting up under any decentralisation scheme, it will be almost certain that South Wales, Cardiff, and that area, will fall into the south-western area, linking up with Bristol and so on, and North Wales will be much more likely to link up with Cheshire and Lancashire. Though I appreciate that as a good Welshman Lord Ogmore had to enter the lists on behalf of Wales, I really think there is a good case for putting Scotland in this special position.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the clause:
"(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the matters to which licensing authorities for public service vehicles and licensing authorities for goods vehicles are to have regard in exercising their discretion to grant or refuse applications for licences do not include the duty imposed upon the Commission by paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section three of the Transport Act, 1947, as amended by subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is one of the exceptional cases where I am advised, and therefore think, that it is desirable to avoid doubt. The question was raised whether the words in the Bill as it stands could or might conceivably lead a licensing authority to consider that where an application is made for a licence the Commission have some special position of privilege or preference. I declined to accept an Amendment earlier because I wanted to be sure that I was

213
not unnecessarily putting in some interpretation clause when it would have been wrong. I have now consulted the legal authorities, and I am advised that there might be such a doubt and that therefore this is one of the cases where it is wise to put in a clause of this kind. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment which does in fact meet an Amendment which was introduced during the Committee stage in my name and the names of noble friends. We had drawn attention to the statutory duty imposed upon the Commission to run a passenger service on the roads, and we had rather hoped to leave it that the Commission should have the power to run the buses bat should not be under a duty to do so. We were nervous because we thought that where the duty was imposed upon them by the Act they would have an advantage when they applied to licensing authorities for licences. We feel that this important point has been covered, and on behalf of my noble friends and myself who raised the point originally I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26:
Provisions as to pension rights
26.—(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 with that employment, having had pension rights under pension schemes (hereafter in this section referred to as "existing pension schemes"), cease to be in the employment of the Commission 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 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
214
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 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.
3.30 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHhad given notice of three Amendments to subsection (1), the first being after "emoluments" to insert:
"or change in the nature or terms of their employment."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 together. Noble Lords will remember that on the Committee stage I raised a point as to whether a Government Amendment moved to this clause did what it purported to do. It purported to make crystal clear the position of an employee who was in a pensionable job inside the British Transport Commission, whether or not he lost his compensatory rights if removed from that pensionable job to a non-pensionable job. There was no question of his rights being affected if he had left the employment of the Commission, but only if he remained in the employment of the Commission. The noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, and I had quite a discussion about this matter. I preferred what was in the Bill the noble Earl preferred what he was moving into the Bill. I have taken legal opinion, as high as is open to me, and that legal opinion, with great can dour, said that we were both wrong and that this was the only way to put it right. Therefore, I have put down these three Amendments to make it quite clear that an employee who is in pensionable employment within the Commission, who through reorganisation envisaged under this Bill goes to a non-pensionable job within the Commission, does not lose his compensatory rights. Noble Lords can see the Amendments, and I do not think I need explain how the clause will read. For the purpose of any discussion that may be necessary, I beg to move Amendment No. 58.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 35,after ("emoluments") insert ("or change in the nature or terms of their employment".—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that this was the only occasion during the whole of the Committee stage on which discussions were asked for.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know of no other. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me of any other occasions.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, six of them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am referring to occasions when discussions were asked for, and held. What I say is that, so far as I know, this was the only occasion when discussions were asked for, and they were certainly held in this case. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the point of a possible change in the Commission from pensionable to non-pensionable employment. I said on the Committee stage that I thought it unlikely that there would be a case of that character at all; I have no ground for changing my mind in that respect. How ever, if there should be one case of that character, it is right that provision should be made, and accordingly we are happy to accept these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 38, after ("in") insert ("or consequential loss of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Earl for accepting these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 38, after ("may") insert ("or might have").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Amendments as to Trans port Tribunal]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) It is hereby declared that the repeal by the Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act, 1949, of section seventeen of the
216
Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (which contained provisions as to appeals from the Railway and Canal Commission), and of all enactments applying that section, did not affect the said section seventeen as applied to the Transport Tribunal by section twenty-six of the Railways Act, 1921, and by that section as extended by subsection (13) of section thirty-seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and paragraph 5 of the Tenth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage, we had an Amendment much in the same terms, which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor withdrew owing to a certain decision in the courts. This Amendment has been drafted in a more appropriate form, and is now submitted to your Lordships. The position is this. The 1921 and 1947 Acts transferred from the Railway and Canal Commission to the Railway Rates Tribunal (now the Transport Tribunal) certain jurisdiction, and applied the same procedure for appeal. In the Act of 1949 the Railway and Canal Commission was abolished, and with it the right of appeal. Doubt did arise as to whether the Act also abolished the right of appeal from the Transport Tribunal. Now that right has been upheld in England, but there is still the possibility that it may not be upheld in Scotland. Accordingly, to avoid doubt, this Amendment has been put down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 13, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
1. If the Commission, before the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, apply for the grant of an A licence or a C licence authorising the use of any motor vehicles which at the passing of this Act belonged to the Commission and no other motor vehicles—

(a) the application shall not be refused; and

(b) the licence shall be granted for so much of the five year period (as hereinafter defined) as remains unexpired on the date when the licence is expressed to take effect, and subsections (1) to (4) of section three of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall not apply to the licence; and

(c) no fee shall be charged in respect of the grant of the licence:

Provided that no application for an A licence shall be made under this paragraph in

217
respect of any motor vehicles which at the passing of this Act were being used by the Hotels Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive or the London Transport Executive, exclusively for purposes other than hire or reward.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKhad given notice of several Amendments to Paragraph (1), the first being after "vehicles" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
"then, subject to the provisions of this paragraph."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on be half of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Teynham in Committee, which my noble friend Lord De La Warr undertook to look at. It is this. It is known that at the present time the Commission have a considerable number of vehicles in store. It is at least theoretically possible, as the Bill reads at present, that for each vehicle they possess in the road haulage undertaking they are entitled to an automatic "A" licence. Some of these vehicles are obsolete vehicles of little value, but they could be replaced by brand new vehicles. If this were done, it would have a depressing effect on sales under this Bill. Accordingly, we think it desirable that the position should remain as it is.
This Amendment, together with the next three, has this effect. The Commission may license eleven-twelfths of the vehicles which they held in the road haulage undertaking in December, 1952, and they will, of course, be entitled to an automatic licence for all these vehicles. They are also entitled to similar licences for other vehicles, except those used exclusively for purposes other than hire and reward at the passing of the Act. This refers, to a great extent, to the 14,000 vehicles used for collection and delivery by the railways, and probably to a few held by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. With regard to the remainder of the vehicles, they may obtain "C" licences if they so desire. We suggest that this is fair and just to all parties, and leaves the Commission with sufficient margin to meet obligations which may arise in the event of trade or seasonal fluctuations. If I may refer to the proviso in Amendment No. 65, the effect there is this: that as the numbers
218
of vehicles held by the Commission are reduced by sales, the number of "A" licences to which they will be entitled will be correspondingly reduced. And the Commission, under subsection (4), are obliged to furnish to the licensing authority a certificate that the grant of an "A" licence will not contravene this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 22, after ("vehicles") insert the said words.— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Government for setting down this Amendment, which well covers the point we raised On the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 30, leave out ("Provided that") and insert ("(2)").— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 32, leave out from ("used") to the end of line 33.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 34, at end insert—
("(3) The total number of motor vehicles the use of which is authorised by A licences granted under this paragraph shall not at any time exceed the sum of the two following numbers, that is to say—

(a)eleven-twelfths of the number of motor vehicles which. at the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two, were property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage under taking; and

(b)the total number of motor vehicles belonging to the Commission at the passing of this Act, not being property then held as aforesaid and not being vehicles which were then being used exclusively for purposes other than hire or reward:

Provided that where any motor vehicles are sold as or as part of transport units, the total number of vehicles the use of which is allowed by this sub-paragraph to be authorised as aforesaid shall be reduced by the number of motor vehicles so sold.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after the Second Schedule to insert following new Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE
Meaning of "Road Haulage Capital Loss"
1. In section thirteen of this Act the expression "the road haulage capital loss" means the amount, as determined by the Minister, by which the aggregate of the sums referred to in paragraph 2 of this Schedule exceed the aggregate of the sums referred to in paragraph 3 of this Schedule.
2. The sums first referred to in paragraph 1 of this Schedule are the following sums—

(a) the aggregate net value of the property sold under section three or subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section six of this Act, as at the time of the respective sales, as shown in the books of the Commission but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the sale so far as not already taken into account;

(b) the aggregate net value of the property of any company the shares of which are sold under section five of this Act as at the time when the shares are transferred in pursuance of the contract of sale, as shown in the books of the company but—

(i) adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the transfer so far as not already taken into account; and

(ii) increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the company as at that time not already taken into account; and

(iii) decreased by the value, if any, as so shown of the liabilities of the company as at that time;

(c) the expenses incurred by the Commission in connection with—

(i) sales under the said section three and the said subsections (1) and (2);

(ii) the making over of property to companies under the said section five; and

(iii) the sale of the shares of any company under the said section five,

so far, in any case, as not included in the sums shown in the books of the Commission as expenses deductible in computing sums shown therein as net traffic receipts;

(d) such amounts as may be just in respect of any sums paid or liabilities incurred by the Commission before any sale under the said section three or the said subsection (1) or subsection (2) or the making over of any property to a company under the said section five, being sums paid or liabilities incurred for rights or benefits which, as results of the sale or, as the case may be, the making over of the property, are not, or are not wholly, enjoyed by the Commission; and

(e) so much of that part of the sums shown in the balance sheets of the Commission as goodwill which is ascribable to the road haulage undertaking as—

220

(i) ought justly to be apportioned to the property which was the subject of any sale under the said section three or the said subsection (1) or subsection (2) or was made over to a company under the said section five; and

(ii) is not otherwise taken into account under this paragraph;

(f) any losses incurred by the Commission in respect of contracts entered into by them for the purposes of the existing road haul age undertaking, being losses incurred as the result of the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes thereof and not being losses which could reasonably have been avoided by the Commission; and

(g) two million pounds (in respect of assets forming part of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking the cost of which has been charged by the Commission to revenue):

Provided that, if under the contract for the sale of the shares of a company under the said section five, the price paid there for depends to any extent on the position as respects the company on a particular date, sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall have effect as if the references therein to the time of the transfer of the shares were references to that date.
3. The sums secondly referred to in paragraph 1 of this Schedule are the prices at which property is sold under the said section three or the said subsection (1) or subsection (2) and the prices at which shares are sold under the said section five.
4. In this Schedule—
"price," in relation to property sold under section three of this Act, means the aggregate of all the sums for which the purchaser becomes liable to the Commission as the result of his purchase of the transport unit in question, irrespective of whether the sums are ascribable to property or to other rights which he obtains as the result of his purchase, adjusted, however,—

(a) by adding the value, if any, as at the time of the purchase. as shown in the books of the Commission, of any liabilities of the Commission to third parties taken over by the purchaser from the Commission; and

(b) by subtracting the value, if any, as at that time, as so shown, of any obligations of third parties to the Commission taken over by him, not being property;

"net value" means value after deducting depreciation;
and the references to values and sums shown in the books or balance sheets of the Commission or a company to which property is made over under the said section five are references to the values and sums so shown after, making the appropriate adjustments of provisional items, and, if the Commission or the company in making up their books or their balance sheet for the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two or any subsequent year,

221
depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by the Commission for the years falling before the year nineteen hundred and fifth-two, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. The Amendment is basically drafting. It is the movement of subsections (4) and (5) from Clause 13 into the Schedule, to which I referred yesterday. I should state, as was said yesterday by my noble friend Lord Swinton, that it does include two Amendments. The first is that in calculating the road haulage loss under sub section (2) there will be included a sum of £2 million for equipment and stores purchased by the Commission out of revenue. This was explained in detail by my noble friend.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is paragraph 2 (g).
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes. The other point is to make clear the meaning of "net value": that the methods of accounting in 1951 are to be the basis on which the calculation of net value of property is to proceed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the Second Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new Third Schedule (Meaning of "Road Haulage Capital Loss"), in sub paragraph (a) of paragraph 2, to leave out "as shown in the books of the Commission" and insert "at replacement cost at date of sale." The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I attempted to convince your Lordships that the basis upon which an endeavour is made in this Bill to arrive at the road haulage capital loss is inequitable and unfair, both to the Commission and to the taxpayer. I want to argue the point again this afternoon. We view this as a very serious matter from the point of view of the taxpayer's interests. What we are seeking to do is to arrive at the value of the assets of the British Transport Commission to which this Schedule applies, for the purpose of determining the capital loss after the battle of disposal is over and the curtain comes down.
If your Lordships will read one or two sub-paragraphs of this Schedule you will see how the computation is made. The basic question is: What is the value of the asset? If your Lordships look at sub paragraph (a) you will see that it says:
"as shown in the books of the Commission."
I argue that no company, no businessman or set of business men, if they were disposing of a business, would ever base the price which they would ask for their business upon the basis of book value. If they were prudent business men—and we must assume that the Commission is composed of prudent business men—they would write their assets down, not only to the limit which would be allowed for tax purposes, but also below that limit. It is well known that many companies write their assets down and down, and their policy is a good policy. It is true that when they come to be assessed for tax, very likely the inspector will write some of those assets up again.
We say that it is grossly unfair that the assets of the Commission should be taken at their book value in order to arrive at the loss, if any, which will be established and which the levy will have to recompense. I am not going to say anything about the levy; I have talked enough about that. I hate the levy. I think it is the most atrocious piece of financial jugglery that has ever been instituted by a Statute of this country. But there it is. Your Lordships have decided that you like the levy. All I am trying to persuade your Lordships to do is to say that the levy shall be applied to any loss that the Commission make, equitably and fairly. On the Committee stage I sought to substitute for the words "as shown in the books of the Commission" the sane formula as was used in the 1947 Act, when these self same or similar assets were purchased from the haulage industry and the concerns that were taken over. When I did that. I argued the case as well as my ability would allow ate, and in his reply the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said quite a lot of things. The noble Viscount started off by saying (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 1272):
"This would be an odd Amendment coming from any quarter, but t is odder still when moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas."
When the noble Viscount starts off like that I always know that his case is

223
pretty thin. That I feel instinctively. The noble Viscount went on to say:
"The whole object of Amendment after Amendment which the noble Lord has moved is so to delay in every way the operation of this Act that it may fail completely. I think the noble Lord has been perfectly frank about this and has not concealed it. His attitude has been: 'If we are not going to win by hook, we will win by crook.' The noble Lord said. 'By hook or by crook'."
Well, I said nothing of the kind.
The noble Viscount said just now that he hoped that all the words he has used during nine strenuous days would never be enshrined in an Act of Parliament. I am sure he also wishes that no word he has used against me and my arguments—and they have been many, and sometimes they have been potent—will be enshrined in my heart. I can assure the noble Viscount that that will not be so. I bear him no malice. They have amused me considerably at times, but they have not concerned me. I know that the noble Viscount is a good sports man and that he will take that in the spirit in which I mean it. I am not concerned with the noble Viscount's odd pleasantries, but what I am concerned with is that, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, he should say this (col. 1274):
"The procedure suggested would be extremely inconvenient."
It would be. It would be very inconvenient to have to write these assets up to their true value. As the noble Viscount said:
"It would lead to the maximum of delay."
May I invite your Lordships' minds back to the first Amendment I moved on this Report stage—as to the essence of speed?
The noble Viscount goes on:
"If, instead of a plain statement in paragraph (a), we substituted the current replacement value, as the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to do, every vehicle would have to be valued by reference to the current replacement value of a similar vehicle, depreciated (as the clause in the Act cited runs) at 20 per cent. We should have to revalue every single one of 40,000 or more vehicles which are to be sold. This revaluation, with the revaluation of all other property, would be a difficult and laborious task and would involve considerable delay."
That is what we had to do when we took these assets over— we had to have valuers. Suppose we had gone to the road haulage industry under the 1947 Act, and said:
224
"The only value at which we are going to buy these assets is the value at which they stand on your books. If you are prudent men—and we know some of you have been—and have written them off altogether, you w ill have to give them to us; we are not going to pay you any thing for them. If we had come to the House with the argument that all we were going to pay for these assets was the value at which they actually stood in the books of the concern, I wonder what the noble Viscount would have said to my noble and learned friend who was then leading on the Transport Bill?
What did we do? We set up a most elaborate system of valuation and replacement value right the way through. We engaged valuers to see that the proper value was established, on the best professional valuation. We then set up a Tribunal to which these concerns could appeal if they were not satisfied with the valuation. Only last week, one of the decisions of this Transport Arbitration Tribunal came before this House, sitting in its Judicial capacity, and the verdict went against the British Transport Commission. And I should estimate that it will cost them about £2,500,000. When the State buys from private enterprise a true value has to be paid. But when private enterprise purchases from the State another and depreciated value is paid.
LORD HAWKE: Can the noble Lord say whence he draws that statement? This has nothing to do with the sale price.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are assessing the value of the assets.
LORD HAWKE: At sale price?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord will do me the honour of reading my Amendment he will find that it says:
"at replacement cost at date of sale."
That is exactly the valuation that we gave when we took over these assets. I say that the assets that are now left with the Commission should be valued on that basis, to see what compensation is payable out of the levy. The noble Viscount says that this would cause undue delay. He also says that it would mean revaluing every asset. But they have got to do

225
it now, because if the noble Viscount will read the fourth line of the suggested new Paragraph 2 (a) of the proposed new Schedule he will find the words:
"…as shown in the books of the Commission but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the sale so far as not already taken into account;"
So every asset has got to be picked out: every one of these 40,000 vehicles—or all that remain of them. They have to be depreciated by the accountants who do the job. I say that if they have got to be depreciated down to that written down value, at the same time they could he appreciated up to their replacement value.
LORD HAWKE: All that happens after the sale.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes—I have explained that. It is one of those peculiar bookkeeping transactions that will have to take place to arrive at the value of the assets after the sale, to see what has to be paid from the levy. I beg noble Lords to look at this as a strictly business accounting transaction. It means that, until the thing is done in the way in which I am suggesting it should be done, in honesty and fairness to everybody, the only compensation which the British Transport Commission will receive out of the levy is that amount by which the sale price falls below the book value. I say that the amount of levy should be that by which tae sale price falls short of the replacement value. It may be that while there will be no levy to be paid, the cost to the taxpayer will be millions of pounds, because the price that the assets fetch over and above the book value but below the market value will have to be met by the Commission.
The Government have conceded my point—that was evident in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, yesterday. He said that the Commission have now convinced the Minister that they had been so prudent in their finance that they purchased £2 million worth of tyres, tarpaulins and ropes and charged them not to capital but to revenue. The transaction, therefore, did not appear on the capital account of the Commission. So if the book value had been taken at any time in that year—I suspect it was the year ended December, 1951—it would not have shown that £2 million. How many more such cases are there? This
226
is a common practice among business men—to charge what they can to revenue and never capitalise anything at all if they can help it. What did the noble Viscount say on this subject? He said yesterday afternoon (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 146):
"Naturally I have inquired why this new element has to be introduced at this late stage. The explanation is that, in taking the value of the assets which have been included in the Schedule, the Ministry naturally confined themselves to capital assets, as shown in the books of the Commission. The Commission have now represented to the Ministry that if they"—
that is, the Commission—
"had contemplated that the Road Haulage Executive would have a comparatively short life they would not have charged these items entirely to revenue but would have charged them, or a good proportión of them, to capital, subject to depreciation."
I say that that is the very case which I made on the Committee stage—word for word. I said that if the Commission had been told when it started its life in 1947, "You have only five years to run: you will be sold up at the end of that time," their financial policy would have been entirely different. They would have charged everything they could to capital. But, being good business men, they did not. And now they have to suffer for their business acumen by not getting it back under this valuation.
The noble Viscount also said that if you want to make this charge at replacement value, then you have got to take goodwill at replacement value—and that goodwill has gone. With great respect, the noble Viscount used there another most fallacious argument. It does not hold water. Goodwill is one of those telegraphic expressions: you can call any thing goodwill. It was really compensation for the cessation of business on a basis of what profits were likely to be earned. You can call this £33 million "purchase of monopoly," and if the monopoly has been broken the £33million has gone. But the £33 million is only a bookkeeping entry and what we set against that £33 million will be what the Commission get for the sale of their assets over and above what they cost. What is going to be done with the rest? I am not going to enter into an argument on that point this afternoon, and I do not suppose that any noble Lord can tell the how that is going to be apportioned. I

227
have said enough to convince any fair-minded business man that the proper basis to adopt is:
"at replacement cost at date of sale."
"Replacement cost" is a very easy term. You find that valuers use it every day in the week, and it is going to cause no hardship and no harm.
Let me give your Lordships a simple illustration. If any of your Lordships has a motor car insured, and it is written off by an insurance company as a total loss, they will give you back its replacement value—what it would cost to replace that vehicle by another in the same condition as the vehicle was in when it became a total loss. I think I have said enough— at least, I hope I have—to convince your Lordships that in the tax payers' interest the levy should be based on all these other considerations of plus and minus, about which I have no com plaint at all, except that the assets of the Commission should not be taken at book value because it has been proved conclusively by the noble Viscount him self that book value is an entirely fictitious figure. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In sub-paragraph (a) of Paragraph 2, leave out ("as shown in the books of the Commission") and insert ("at replacement cost at date of sale").— (Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, at first sight the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has proposed looks very clear, and perhaps more simple than it really is. As the noble Lord went on speaking, I began to think that the matter was more and more complicated, whereas, when I read the Amendment on paper, I though it was extremely simple. Let us get clear one thing first: my noble friend's Amendment has no reference to what price the purchaser pays for an undertaking which is sold. He will pay the right commercial value, and if a motor vehicle is worth more than the book value, he will then pay for it; otherwise the Board or the Commission, or whoever it is, will not receive the tender. So what we are dealing with is: what should be paid to the Commission for the loss of the goodwill of those vehicles?
The one word which the noble Lord opposite did not use quite so freely as
228
I thought he was going to at first was the word "goodwill." May we look into that a little more closely? From the bookkeeping point of view, I think noble Lords will agree that, if you write down, if you depreciate machinery or vehicles and want to show them in your balance sheet at a higher value than the depreciated value, the only proper way to do that is to raise the item for goodwill. Are we not getting to the point where, if we want to make a higher value than the depreciated value, we must include an amount for goodwill representing the difference between the depreciated value of these vehicles and the actual value which it is thought they would have in the market? Goodwill comes into this matter already, and the Commission is being given goodwill on the basis of the value they paid for it. That, I think, is treating the Commission very generously. After all, that goodwill, in our opinion, has been very largely dissipated, but we are leaving the figure as it was. If we want to deal with the matter which has been raised by the noble Lord opposite, I think we should deal with it not in the way that he suggests but by dealing with this increase as goodwill. I believe that that is the right way to do it, because I do not think that you can deal with good will differently in one breath from what you can in another. I do not believe that we should be right to do what is suggested. If we are going to reject the book value for the physical assets, we should also reject the book value for goodwill. If we are going to deal with goodwill at all, let us deal with it either in one way or in the other, but let us be consistent. I think the way my noble friend intends to deal with it is the consistent way.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment to my Amendment has said quite frankly that he was asking the House to reverse the decision which they took after a full debate when we were in Committee. That, of course, is quite true, because he asked us last time to substitute for our words the words "current replacement value." To-day he is asking us to substitute "replacement cost at date of sale." Those two sets of words, for all practical purposes, are identical. There is no doubt at all that if we were to do this it would involve Great delay. The noble Lord said we ought not to conduct

229
these valuations by taking the values as they stand in the books but to conduct the valuations exactly as they were con ducted under the 1947 Act. I have just been informed that though the 1947 Act was passed in 1947, the valuations are not yet complete, so even if we speeded up this operation it would take a long time.
Observe that it would mean revaluing 40,000 vehicles, and the delay would certainly adversely affect the price. We all want to get the best price we can for these assets. In a sense, I might almost say, the only people to whom it does not much matter what the price is are the Commission, who get this tremendous amount as payment for goodwill. But everybody who will have to pay the levy is very anxious that the price should be as good as possible. As was pointed out over and over again yesterday, and at other stages in the debate, one of the things which will affect the price is the speed with which this sale can be conducted; and we do lay some stress upon speed. We lay stress upon speed, for two reasons: first, that the trader will get an efficient service as soon as possible, and secondly, that we may get the best possible price, because when you are selling a unit or shares in a company you are selling an asset with an "A" licence attached to it and the value of that "A" licence diminishes as the date for the lifting of the 25-mile limit draws nearer. You have got to build up your trade around what you buy, except in so far as it comes naturally with it; and you naturally want to build that up before a very large amount of extra competition comes in. The moment the "25-milers"are launched freely upon the roads, of course, the competition will be greater. Therefore, this delay would quite definitely diminish the price which these vehicles would fetch on sale.
These assets also include buildings. It really is an odd thing to say that we should take the replacement cost of buildings, irrespective of what may be the market value of the building to-day, or the condition that the building is in. The noble Lord said that it is unfair to take this figure, because no doubt the rate of depreciation has been very generous and because the Commission would have run their finances quite differently if they had known that the Read Haulage Executive
230
was coming to an end. I have just asked whether there is anything in that point, and I am informed that there is not. I am told that the rate of depreciation has been a normal rate of depreciation and very much the rate of depreciation pro vided for in the 1947 Act—in other words, that the depreciation has been normal.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said we ought to make some exception because yesterday I asked the House to bring in £2,000,000 for tyres and these other things. Of course, that has nothing whatever to do with it. The reason I asked the House—I admit at the last moment, because the Commission made their case only at the last moment—to bring in £2,000,000 for tyres was that these tyres and tarpaulins and so on, though they were going to be sold, did not appear in the books as capital assets. They had been bought out of income and had been charged to income, and what we were doing was to write them back from income to capital, treating them as if they had been capital assets. I think the House accepted that as a fair thing to do. But the fact that we are doing that is certainly no conceivable argument for altering the basin of valuation provided in the Schedule.
Finally, my Lords, there is, of course, the overwhelming argument used by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. Obviously, you must play fair all round. If you are going to take replacement value or current value for the physical assets, you must take current value for the goodwill. You really cannot say," I am going to conduct this valuation on a selective basis. I am going to take the system of valuation which will suit me best, although it may be entirely different for one set of assets as against another. "Certainly the Commission would not thank the noble Lord if we carried out this Amendment to its full and logical conclusion, although the people who are going to pay the levy would be quite delighted to see it done.
If we take current value for these physical assets I do not know whether the amount would go up or down very much, but I think that probably it would not make much difference. But you cannot take current value for goodwill on the basis of the £8 £9 million or £10 million a year which was being made by the nationalised companies before they

231
were nationalised but which to-day, alas! is no longer represented, by reason of the failure of the Commission to make a real profit. I am not blaming them; I think they were given an impossible job to do, and that is why we are getting rid of it all. Where a large profit has turned into either a loss or, at best, on the most liberal showing, one-tenth of what the profit was before, obviously the goodwill is down by something like one-tenth. If this were an ordinary commercial transaction between two companies, the Commission could never have got anything like as good treatment as they are getting under this Bill. We are asking the House to treat this non-existent goodwill as if it still existed, and, for the purposes of the levy, to take it at the value at which it still stands in the books; and we are going to levy the difference in so far as the sale does not diminish that amount. It may be that the whole of that goodwill will have to be found out of the levy, and the only justification for doing that is, that if you do not do it, the taxpayer will have to pay it.
It is said that this is an unfair provision so far as the Commission are concerned. In answer to that, I would say that in the whole of my business experience I have never known any company treated as fairly or as generously as the Commission have been treated in this matter. For all those reasons I certainly hope that the House to-day will reaffirm the decision which it took after a full debate on the Committee stage, and will declare that it thinks the proposals standing in this Schedule are fair and reasonable, and should remain in the Bill.
4.14 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it would take a long time to answer all that the noble Viscount has said, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships for that length of time. I must confess that it is very strange to me. Perhaps the noble Viscount is suffering under the great handicap of having had to take charge of this Bill at the last moment. He made many erroneous statements—I am sure not wilfully. He spoke of delay. First of all, in this Schedule we are dealing with the question how, in the last and final budget, we are going to get at what really has been the loss, if any. It says in the
232
Schedule "after the sales have been made. "There is no delay in this whatsoever. The sales go on and instalment payments from the levy are made to the Commission. That is quite plain. I know the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is following that. In the end, how are you going to get your final balance? How are you going to get at what has been the road haulage capital loss? This is the procedure by which you are going to do it. To get at that loss you have to take every single asset that has not been sold. You have got to depreciate it; but nothing is allowed for appreciation.
At this time in the proceedings, and after all the debate we have had over the last few days. I am not going once again to refute this alleged £10 million that the road haulage industry was supposed to have made before nationalisation. In the opening speech which he made on Second Reading my noble and learned Leader disposed of that. The noble Viscount has taken no account of the goodwill. The goodwill figure in any business is what that business will fetch over and above the value of the physical assets. Anybody in your Lordships' House who has done any business knows that you go into a transaction as a seller with a buyer; your physical assets are such-and-such and your goodwill, if you call it goodwill, is anything you can get over and above that, and it is a bargain between two people. I deny completely that there is not a substantial amount of potential goodwill in some of these companies and units that are going to be formed. That will of course be taken into consideration over and above the price.
I maintain that my point is a sound one. Time will tell. I do not suppose that now this loss will be so substantial out of the levy. It may be substantial out of the Commission. It will have to be amortised and perhaps be a cost to the taxpayer. I cannot convince noble Lords opposite, but after all this is over I think they will come to the conclusion that I am right, and that this is the only possible way in which to do it. This would be the course that they would adopt if they were dealing with their own businesses in their own private avocations.
I am not going to discuss the matter further. I do not know how many

233
speeches I have made during the course of the Committee and Report stages—I should not like to count them. But as this is the last speech I shall make on this Bill, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the whole House for the tolerance and courtesy that they have shown me during all the many arguments we have had, ranging over about 130 Amendments on the Committee stage
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
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 SELKIRKhad given notice of three Amendments to Paragraph 5, the first being, after "body" to insert, "being either a harbour authority or a body." The noble Earl said: My
234
and nearly seventy on the Report stage. I very much regret that my final words on the Report stage of this Bill have to be to ask your Lordships to indicate your opinion on this matter in the Lobbies.
On Question, whether the Amendment to the Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mathers, L.

Greenhill, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ammon, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Ogmore, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Pakenham, L.

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

Kenswood. L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Winster, L.

Crook, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wise, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Freyberg, L,

Buckmaster, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Falmouth, V.

Gifford. L.

Furness. V.

Hacking, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L.

Reading, M.

Long, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ridley, V.

Jeffreys. L.

Simon. V.

Jessel, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Swinton, V.

Layton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Trenchard, V.

Llewellin. L.

Birkenhead, E.

Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Abinger. L.

Moyne, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Audley, L.

Palmer, L

Baden-Powell, L.

Rea. L.

Hardwicke, E.

Barnby, L.

Remnant, L.

Ilchester. E.

Belstead, L.

Rossmore, L.

Iveagh, E.

Carrington, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cawley, L.

Schuster, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cherwell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Munster, E.

Derwent, L.

Teviot, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Dorchester, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Rothes, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Waleran, L.

Selkirk. E.

Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegall.)

Webb-Johnson, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Wolverton, L.

Allenby, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. Under subsection (6) of the Third Schedule, the provisions of Section 39 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, are applied so that representatives of harbour authorities may make representations to the Transport Tribunal if they consider that they are being unfairly treated in comparison with the way in which the Commission treat their own harbours. The Amendment enables individual harbour authorities to make representations in the same way. May I add one point? It has been represented to us that individual harbour authorities

235
should be able to make representations to the Transport Tribunal on the ground that they are unfairly treated in the matter of railway charges in comparison with other individual harbour authorities, not connected with the Commission. We do not think there is any need to put provision for that in the Bill. Under thesection of the Transport Act, 1947, dealing with consultative committees, it is possible to make representations to an area committee which will come to the Minister, who, if he were satisfied that there was a genuine and proper case, could issue a direction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 31, after ("body") insert ("being either a harbour authority or a body").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—
("(b) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the said section thirty-nine to coastal carriers being placed at an undue or unfair disadvantage and the references in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the said section thirty-nine and paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (2) of this Schedule to coastal carriers being placed at an undue or unfair disadvantage in the competition were references to any harbour authority being placed at an undue or unfair disadvantage; and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 46, leave out ("harbour authorities") and insert ("any harbour authority").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EASTER RECESS
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the House adjourns, it may be convenient to noble Lords if I give the dates for the Easter Recess. It is proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, April 2. On that day the House will meet at eleven o'clock, when a Royal Commission is expected. The House will meet again after the Recess on Tuesday, April 14, on which day, your Lordships may like to know, the Chan-
236
cellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget in another place.

WRITTEN ANSWER PRESERVATION OF BEAUPRE HALL
LORD METHUEN LORD METHUEN asked Her Majesty's Government if steps can be taken to schedule (or make a Preservation Order) and to maintain the important Tudor building known as Beaupre Hall (Norfolk) which is empty and in a ruinous condition.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): The Minister of Works has certain powers under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1913 and 1931. Briefly he can safeguard an ancient monument by including it in the List of monuments prepared under the Acts. In this event the owner is required to give the Minister of Works three months' notice before carrying out works affecting the monument. Where a monument is in danger of demolition and its preservation is considered of national importance, it may be safeguarded by a Preservation Order made by the Minister under the Acts. When a Preservation Order is in force, work can be done to the monument only with the written con sent of the Minister.
Beaupre Hall was included in the List of Ancient Monuments in 1947 and therefore the owner is required to give notice of any intention to carry out works affecting the monument. No Notice has been received of intention to demolish Beaupre Hall, so that the question of making a Preservation Order under the Ancient Monuments Acts has not arisen. In 1949, Beaupre Hall was offered to the National Trust, who asked the Minister of Works whether he would become guardian of the monument under the Ancient Monuments Acts, if they accepted it. In cases where the Minister accepts guardianship of a monument he becomes responsible for maintenance. The funds available for ancient monuments are strictly limited. In 1949 the estimated cost of initial work necessary at Beaupre Hall was £25,000 and after careful consideration, the Minister refused the National Trust's offer. If a Preservation Order were made, the Minister of Works would be empowered to take compulsory

237
guardianship on the ground that the monument was being neglected; but in view of the cost of repairing and main taining it, which would be considerably higher than in 1949, I can hold out no hope that money could be spared for this purpose.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before five o'clock.
*See Cols.135-6 and 193-4

*ERRATUM: TRANSPORT BILL DIVISION
Following is the revised Division List (referred to by the Marquess of Salisbury at the start of to-day's proceedings) on the Amendment to Clause 4, moved yesterday by Lord Lucas of Chilworth:—at page 7, line 20, leave out ("five-fourths") and insert ("seven-fourths").
Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

Jowitt, E.

Haden-Guest. L. [Teller.]

Pakenham, L.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence. L.

St. Davids. V.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi L.

Archibald. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Uvedale of North End, L

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

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Winster. L.

Mathers, L.

Wise, L.

Burden, L.

Noel-Buxton. L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Davidson, V.

Gifford. L.

Falmouth. V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President)

Furness, V.

Hawke, L.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Harcourt. V.

Hylton. L.

Long, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Bathurst, E.

Swinton, V.

Kinnaird. L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leconfield, L.

De La Warr, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Llewellin L.

Mansfield. E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Mancroft L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Braye L.

Moyne. L.

Onslow. E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Palmer, L.

Radnor, E.

Cawley, L.

Rea, L.

Rothes, E.

Cherwell, L.

Remnant L.

Selborne, E.

Derwent, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Selkirk, E.

Digby, L.

Schuster, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Teviot, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teynham. L.

Bridgeman, V.

Freyberg, L.

Wolverton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.