Lords Sitting of 26 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL
  Read 2a.
MILFORD DOCKS BILL
Read 2a.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed with her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"Members of The House of Lords,
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address expressing sympathy with Me in the great loss which I and My family have sustained by the death of My beloved Grandmother, Queen Mary.
"I know that all My People share my grief for a great Queen, who throughout a lifetime of devoted service, was happy in the knowledge of their warm regard and affection.
"It is a consolation and comfort to Me at this time of sorrow to have this further assurance of the devotion and sympathy of your House."

FUTURE BUSINESS
2.38 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before we proceed with the Business on the Order Paper, I hope that I may be allowed to make a brief statement on the course of future Business until the Easter Recess. Owing to the Lying-in-State of Her Late Majesty Queen Mary, in Westminster Hall, the House will not meet on Monday next, as originally proposed. We have, therefore, arranged through the usual channels, and with the co-operation of my noble friend Lord Teviot, who has kindly agreed to postpone his Motion on homegrown and home-killed foodstuffs, that
310
the remaining Sittings until the House adjourns for Easter shall be used as follows.
On Tuesday next, March 31, we shall meet at 2.30 p.m. and take the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill, sitting late if necessary. On Wednesday, April I, we shall meet at 2.30 p.m. and take the Motions on Central African Federation now standing on the Paper for Tuesday, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Bukton, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester. As there are a very large number of your Lordships who have indicated their desire to take part in this debate, we propose, if your Lordships agree, that the House should adjourn at about seven o'clock and resume the debate after the Royal Commission which is expected on Thursday morning. On that day, the House will meet at 11 a.m. when we shall resume the debate on Central African Feceration. The Royal Commission will sit at 12.30 p.m. I think it will be most convenient to sit through luncheon, in order that the House may rise at 4 p.m. or shortly after.
When the House reassembles on April 14, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Second leading of the Prevention of Crimes Bill, which deals with the carrying of offensive weapons and which is expected from the Commons on Tuesday next. We shall take the Defence debate on Wednesday and Thursday, April 15 and 16.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House one question? It concerns a matter which interests a good many of us. I refer to the Motion on social legislation standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Sheffield. As he is not here, I am raising the matter on his behalf. This Motion was down for April 15, and it is, I think, a matter which excites a good deal of interest—and not on Party lines. I do not want an answer on the spur of the moment, but I should like the noble Marquess to know that we on this side of the House, and I am sure many noble Lords on the other side, regard this as an interesting and important matter which merits discussion, and as soon as we can have the discussion I think we should be glad to do so.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Earl that we shall keep this matter very much in mind. There is just one other point that I should like to make while I am speaking. It has been explained by the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, that the debate on Central African Federation will start on the Wednesday, and will continue, if necessary, over Thursday. I think that we should all infinitely prefer that, if there is to be discussion on the Thursday, it should be of a short character. Many Peers have to go away, and although the last thing I want to do is to curtail discussion on a matter of such importance as this, if it turned out to be the wish of the House that we should go on a little later on the Wednesday, in order to shorten the proceedings on Thursday, that would be quite acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the event of a Message being received from the Commons that they have passed the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the said Bill over the other Orders of the Day, and for the purpose of passing the Bill through all its stages.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911 and read 1a.
Then, Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I rise to move the Third Reading of this Bill. I am glad to have this opportunity to tell your Lordships what a great regret it was to me not to be able to be present during the Committee and Report stages. It is always unsatisfactory, when one has had a hand in shaping something and getting it started, to be prevented from seeing it through. However, it is something of a consolation to me to be here this afternoon, though I should have been much happier if I could have been through the Bill at all stages.
Of course, I followed the arduous proceedings of your Lordships' House with much attention and with great interest, although from afar. Indeed, perhaps the fact that I was not present but merely an onlooker, who proverbially in that position sees the best of the game, makes it a little easier for me to make comment. I have seen how the Bill has been amended as is customary in this House. In fact, I should like, if I may, to say with what admiration I read the Reports of the debates. Indeed, when I saw what a range of knowledge was exhibited on all sides of the House, I did feel some measure of trepidation and not a little respect for the way in which my noble friends dealt so thoroughly with the points raised. I hope I may equally be allowed to thank noble Lords opposite and noble Lords behind me and in all parts of the House for the public-spirited way in which they have made their contribution. I realise what time and trouble they must have given to the matter, and we are certainly indebted to all parts of the House for the help which they have given.
I am told that nearly a hundred Amendments out of a total of 211 on the Order Paper will have been incorporated in the Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House and, of these, over thirty must rank as major or important items. No mean achievement. The time was certainly usefully spent. As I said at the beginning of our proceedings at

313
the time of the Second Reading, the Government have been ready at all stages, as indeed we should be, to listen to suggestions and have not hesitated to amend the Bill by a proper response to public opinion. I hope it will be accepted that this attitude has been maintained in your Lordships' House. Indeed, whatever may be the rights and wrongs in the matter in the reform of this House, it does seem to me—and I have not been here so long that I cannot still take a fairly detached view—that the manner in which this Bill has proceeded and the improvements which have been made in it are very strong evidence that this Chamber has a most valuable part to play in the framing of legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Leathers.)
2.47 p.m.
THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, when we finished the Report stage, there were two questions to which I promised that the Government would give further consideration. First, there was the provision in the Bill that the Commission and the Board could reject a tender on the ground that road haulage might become concentrated in too few hands. I was impressed by the argument that this was a political rather than an administrative decision, and that it was, therefore, a decision for which the Minister should be responsible. The House will see that I have put down Amendments to Clause 3, which deals with the sale of units, and Clause 5, which deals with the sale of shares in companies, both of which Amendments provide that, where rejection is proposed on the, ground of the elimination or undue restriction of competition, the consent of the Minister shall be required.
The words "wholly or mainly" are used in those Amendments because there might be a case where restriction was a minor element but where the Commission and the Board have agreed that the tender ought to be refused on other grounds, even if the element of restriction were not present. Obviously, if the ground of rejection is quite irrespective of restriction, that is a matter which ought to rest with the Commission and the Board. The House will also see that I am asking them to substitute for the
314
expression "too few hands," which I must admit is slightly vague, the words
"likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire, or reward."
That is exactly what was meant; and if it is what we mean, than we may as well say it as clearly as we can.
The other matter, which was a larger matter, was the procedure to be followed when the Minister presents to Parliament the railway reorganisation scheme. As I said in the last debate, we are all agreed that if there were substantial criticism, the Minister would want to take time to consider that criticism and to decide whether and in what way he should amend the draft Order which the Government would ask both Houses to approve. I think there is almost certain to be a good deal of discussion on the details as well as on the general principles of arty reorganisation scheme. After full consideration, the Government think it would be right to adopt the suggestion which was made by the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, that the Minister should produce a White Paper, which would contain all the details of the scheme, and that the draft Order should not be tabled at that stage. There would then be a debate in both Houses on the White Paper. The Minister, having considered all that was said in the debates on the White Paper, would table his draft Order end ask both Houses to give the necessary Affirmative Resolution.
It will not be practicable to insert provisions about laying a White Paper in the Bill; but I can give an undertaking that this is the course which will be followed in both Houses. The Bill will therefore stand as drafted, but the draft Order will not be tabled for approval until after the debate on the White Paper. In giving that undertaking, I should make it clear, as I did in an earlier debate, that this undertaking is intended to apply only to the original reorganisation scheme, what I called "the master plan," and is not intended to apply to subsequent amendments of the scheme, which under the Bill also require to be approved by Affirmative Resolution.
I should also make this further reservation. In another place a Select Committee is now sitting on the whole question of procedure by Order and Resolution;

315
and there have already been discussions between Party Leaders in your Lordships' House on the question of setting up a similar Committee in this House. Clearly, if Parliament were to adopt some new procedure for dealing with Affirmative Resolutions in both Houses, an Order for railway reorganisation would fall to be dealt with under that procedure. But assuming that the procedure in Parliament has not been changed before the Minister presents his reorganisation scheme, then the undertaking which I have given to-day will stand. I am glad that we are able to propose these solutions of our two outstanding problems which will, I think, be in accordance with the general wishes of the House.
My Lords, I need not say much about the rest of the Bill. It has been fully debated in Committee and on Report, and a large number of important Amendments have been made. Among more important Amendments the House will recall that we extended the levy exemption limit up to 30 cwt.; and also laid down that when the scheme comes into being it shall provide for regional operating costs and statistics. We considered fully the size and character of the Transport Commission. This has now been enlarged to fifteen, and the Commission is to include four whole-time members in addition to the chairman; and last, but not least, the Commission will include at least two persons conversant with the special circumstances and requirements of Scotland. Then the pensions of the Commission's employees have been further safeguarded. Urban authorities with a population of over 50,000 are now to have a right of objection before the Transport Tribunal; and individual harbour authorities will be able to complain about railway rates placing them at an unfair disadvantage compared with the rates ruling to the Commission's ports. We have introduced an important new clause providing, in appropriate cases, for the constitution of companies, and for the sale of shares in these companies as an alternative method of sale to that of sale in transport units.
The position of the Transport Commission has also been improved in a number of respects. The number of vehicles the Commission will be entitled to keep has been increased to five-fourths, with a wider measure of latitude between the
316
different types of vehicles which the Commission will be entitled to retain. Almost at the last moment on the Report stage we also made provision to increase the value of the assets of the Commission under the Third Schedule by £2 million in respect of tyres, tarpaulins and other articles, the purchase of which had been charged to revenue. The Commission have been given power to run contract vehicles from Sheffield and certain other towns, and they are to be free up to the end of September to carry all private parties booked up to the passing of the Act. The Commission will not be compelled to dispose of money or debts. In these and certain other respects the Bill leaves this House in a form considerably more favourable to the Commission. The Commission have always expressed a wish to retain a larger number of vehicles, and they have complete power to select vehicles of any kind. But in the opinion of the Government, and, as the House has shown, in the opinion of the House, to go further than we have gone would breach the essential purpose and structure of the Bill.
In general I think we can say that, subject to the rejection of Amendments which would have destroyed or gravely prejudiced the main object of the Bill, Amendments of a character that any Government, of whatever complexion, would have been bound to resist, a great number of Amendments have been considered impartially and on their merits, and as so often happens in this admirable revising Chamber a large number of Amendments have been made. I think we can say we have fully fulfilled the purpose which I invited the House to set as their goal when I wound up the Second Reading, in these words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 180, col. 817):
"…if we think that a Bill is a good Bill we try to make it better, and if we think a Bill is a bad Bill, we try to make it less bad."
We certainly have made this a better Bill, and I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to that result.
3.0 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this is not an altogether easy speech to make. I wish I could concur with the views which have been expressed by the two noble Lords opposite. I am bound to say I

317
can do no such thing. I can, however, strike this happy note. I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, back in his place. Fortunately, political differences in our public life are never allowed to obscure personal friendships, and the noble Lord knows full well that he has as many friends on this side of the House as on the other side. We all rejoice to see him restored, and I hope soon completely restored, to his former good form. We are bound to ask ourselves at this stage, critically and seriously: What have we achieved by our intense labour on this Bill? I can say "intense labour," because your Lordships all know what a vast amount of work and interest my noble friend Lord Lucas has put into this task. I doubt whether there is anyone, even on the Ministerial side of the House, who knows more about this Bill than does the noble Lord. Certainly he has spared himself to no extent whatever in bringing his clear mind and his great experience of this problem to bear.
It is eminently satisfactory, I think, that we have got rid of that clause about "too few hands." Speaking as a fairly old Parliamentarian, and having had charge of a great many Acts of Parliament in my time. I say that I have never in my life seen such an utterly "half-baked" clause as that was. The provision that the decision as to what were "too few hands" should be left, not with the Minister, whose job it is to take a political decision, but with the Commission, was quite unparalleled, I humbly say, in its folly, in any Act of Parliament which I have ever seen. It is a striking fact, however, that to get that provision in more sensible form and shape we have had to wait until Third Reading. Fortunately, in this House we have the very valuable power to move Amendments on Third Reading. I am glad that that Amendment has been made. It was in no sense a Party political point. It was, in fact, a perfectly sound Parliamentary point, as every person who cares about the condition of the Statute Book and the elementary principles of government will realise. But I am bound to say that I think it is a matter of regret that this Bill has had that obvious blot upon it for so long.
I am very pleased at the acceptance of the suggestion which I made—though I
318
believe it was Lord Fairfax of Cameron who originally threw it out—that we should have this procedure of a preliminary canter on the proposals with regard to the railways, so that we could look at them before the Minister propounded his ultimate solution. That, again, is in no sense a Party political point. It is in accordance with what your Lordships were always telling me for many years when I occupied the position of Lord Chancellor, and I should like the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to understand plainly what I feel about it. I realise that the proposal I originally made—as a matter of fact, I raised it simply for the purpose of discussion—of having Amendments moved to a statutory instrument, is quite impracticable. We cannot make the two Houses work together on that basis. I said that at the time. I simply raised the proposal for the purpose of discussion. Where you are doing what is obviously a very important thing, namely, reorganising the railways, for a Minister to stand up, as Lord Leathers stood up, and say: "We are not going to air our views about what ought to be done about the railways what we are going to do is to get an enabling Bill, discuss it with other people, and then come here and give you a piece of paper on which is set out what we are going to do"—that, as I said, is a Parliamentary outrage; and I believe that statement to be true. I may have done worse myself in the past; I do not know; but I think it utterly wrong that such a proposal should ever have been made. The Government have seen fit to give way on this point.
When we come to points which are not Parliamentary points, but points in which Party politics are concerned, I am bound to say that we have achieved almost nothing. It is true that we have got some concession about the size of the Commission. I think it is common knowledge that the Minister had previously said to the T.U.C. that he was prepared to make that concession; consequently, we did not really need to have much debate about it here. We have had a concession about pensions. We pointed out some slight error in the Bill about pensions, which the Government were quite ready to put right. We have also got, from our point of view, this most substantial Amendment made, whereby the six-fifths of the vehicles taken over in 1948, being

319
the quantity of vehicles which the Commission were to be allowed to keep, became five-fourths. That improvement, however, was rather destroyed by the acceptance of the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, saying that in no particular category of the three categories mentioned—I think this is in Clause 4 at page 5—could the increase be more than thirteen-tenths. We moved an Amendment to omit the words "other motor vehicles," but we failed to get it carried. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, during the course of the discussion on that Amendment was clearly under a misapprehension. He said to the House, not once but several times, that the Commission had expressed the view that this provision was workable and they were satisfied with it. If necessary, I can turn up the quotation. It is obvious to me he was under a misapprehension.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I was not. I have asked again about this, and I am informed that the Commission have never contended that this division into three categories was not entirely workable.
EARL JOWITT: Would the noble Viscount do me the goodness to consult the Minister about this?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have done so.
EARL JOWITT: It might be possible to do it again. I have seen a letter about it. I am not accustomed to making wild statements about these things. The Commission have expressed the view in plain terms that they are extremely dissatisfied with this arrangement about categories. What the noble Viscount said was that the Commission had expressed the view that they were satisfied. It does not follow that the Commission are right or wrong, what we have here is a pure issue of fact as to the satisfaction of the Commission with regard to this scheme. As I say, I have seen a letter, and the Commission have, as I know, expressed the view that the yare entirely dissatisfied with the scheme.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Will the noble and learned Earl permit me to intervene again for a moment? I, also, am rather careful in coming to the House and making statements. Not only did I consult the Minister, who met me throughout every stage during the proceedings,
320
but I have also consulted the Minister, and my noble friend Lord Leathers this morning, and the statement which I made to-day is, I am sure, absolutely accurate. The statement was to the effect that, so far as the practicability of the scheme goes, the Commission are satisfied that it is completely practicable. Actually, under the Bill as it stood, the Commission would have been rigidly limited in the different classes of vehicles. What Lord Teynham's Amendment did was not to restrict the power which the Bill gave the Commission, but to give them further power by giving a wider margin of tolerance. That, I am assured—and I have asked again this morning—is practicable. As regards my statement that the Commission were satisfied, I said quite clearly that the Commission would like to have far more vehicles than five-fourths, and that they would also like to be able to choose the whole of one class of vehicles. I also said—and I stand by it—that the Commission preferred, not unnaturally, to have five-fourths rather than nothing, which they had to start with, or the smaller amount which was given later, and preferred to have a wider measure of tolerance than no tolerance at all.
EARL JOWITT: There is a very remarkable difference of view about this. This Amendment, of course, has to go back to another place, and the Minister will be able to look at the matter and, in particular, will be able to look at the letter. I hope he will quote the letter which I have seen, which indicates to me plainly that the Commission are completely dissatisfied with the arrangement proposed by Lord Teynham. So, if it proves that I am right, I hope that the Amendment will be reconsidered.
With regard to the Bill as a whole, I am bound to say that the results we have achieved seem to me to be very meagre. The mountain has laboured, there is no doubt about that; but all that it has produced is a ridiculously small mouse. I entirely agree that no Opposition can expect to have Amendments on points of principle accepted. I will go further: I think no Opposition can complain if their Amendments, even on points of detail, are not accepted. The Government must govern. But what every Opposition are entitled to expect is

321
that all their Amendments shall be carefully considered and treated as serious Amendments, and that argument shall be met by counter-argument. That is the minimum—I think we shall all agree about that. Whether or not you should accept certain Amendments depends, to my mind, not on Parliamentary tactics but on different considerations altogether. In the political circumstances of to-day, I should have thought it wise in framing any legislation to consider what the consequences were likely to be, and not to trail one's coat. If there was a reasonable opportunity of compromise without giving anything away, I should have thought it was desirable to lake that opportunity in the circumstances of today. I am bound to say I cannot think that that opportunity has been taken.
Divisions in this House prove nothing at all. We all know that there is a great Conservative majority in this House, and the Government can obviously vote us down. What does matter in this House is that we shall go away satisfied that our reasoned Amendments—and we have not put them down lightly and without consideration—have been met by counter-reasons, which we may not accept but which should make us feel to ourselves that the Government had good ground for taking that line. One of my noble friends in the course of the debate—the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will remember it because he picked him up at once—said something about obstruction. That we have not done. We never have, we never shall, and we never can. That is not our tradition at all. What is likely to occur is something different and much more serious.
To tell the truth, some of us are getting rather old; and some of us have not very much money and we are bound to ask ourselves, "Is our journey really necessary?" When we come to the House on these Committee stages and find we are not going to do any good or make any alteration, it well may be that we shall gradually fade away. Your Lordships know that that is a real danger which confronts us. There it is.
For that reason I very much hoped that we should get more satisfaction. It is too early to judge on this Bill, because it is only the first of the highly controversial Bills which are being brought forward. I should be wrong not
322
to tell your Lordships that, far from being satisfied with what we have achieved, we are completely dissatisfied. We think there were ample grounds on which we might have been met. After all, the two points we sought to achieve were simply these. We accept the principle, because the Government plainly had a mandate for carrying through this Bill, but we wanted to get disposal at the best possible price—and I cannot think there can really be any conflict of interest about that, because it is the taxpayer's property which is involved and we should realise it at the best advantage. The second point was about the size of the fleet to he left to the Commission. We wanted them to be able to carry on, at any rate with the main trunk routes, though subject to competition. As it is, they are so reduced as to be quite unable to carry on trunk services or anything else efficiently.
Let me deal with the first of those two points. As I said it is the taxpayers' money which is concerned. We all want to make the levy as small as possible, if we are to have a levy. The noble Lords opposite have said that goodwill is already lost. In the balance sheet, which is signed by two of the most eminent accountants in the City of London, the goodwill stands at some £33,000,000 for the road haulage vehicles; that is said to represent a true and fair account of the companies' business, and signed in the ordinary way. I cannot accept the view that the goodwill is not there to-day. What the Government are doing about this Bill, by breaking this organisation up into a thousand parts, may well be to destroy this goodwill. But that is their deliberate act. That is why a levy has to be introduced, to make good that serious loss of goodwill. According to the poet:
"You may shatter the vase if you will, But the scent of roses will cling to it still."
It may be so in poetry but it is not so in real life. And if we shatter the Commission into a thousand pieces, the goodwill, the smell, and everything else might easily be destroyed. I can well understand that the goodwill will be destroyed, but it is there to-day.
In the first clause of the Bill, which deals with the disposal and sale of the Commission's road haulage assets, we asked that the words "as quickly as is

323
reasonably practicable" should be taken out, because, though we have no objection to doing this quickly, we do want to have regard to another factor—the doing of this efficiently. By that, I mean doing it in such a way as to get the best price. We did not like the emphasis which was placed in that first clause on speed, without some corresponding emphasis on efficiency. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, regarded that as a matter of great principle, and he so said. But the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, thought it a matter of mere detail, because he thought the principle was conceded in a later clause. If that was so, why were we not given this Amendment? But apparently the two noble Lords differ on this point. There it is, in the very forefront of this Bill the Government emphasise speed, and do not take the trouble to emphasise that the Commission should also get the best price.
I want to ask a question, to which I know I shall get a perfectly clear and categorical answer. It is being said and I am only giving voice to rumour—this is very important, and I would ask the noble Marquess who is going to reply to listen to me for a moment—that the United Dominions Trust, or some similar financial corporation, are to be placed in a privileged position. Is that so? Are the provisions of Statutory Instruments Nos. 121 and 724 going to be waived? It is being said (I myself have had people say it to me, though not allowing me to quote them) that the banks have been "tipped off" to relax credit restrictions and give credit facilities to the buyers of transport units. I thought it desirable that I should mention this rumour and get a categorical answer and, I hope, a denial of it. But if it is so—if the rumour is true—we ought to be told quite plainly that a privileged class is being created. A builder or an engineer who wants to extend his business at the present time has to face all the rigours of credit restriction. But is it to be said that by Government decree one cannot have credit facilities to extend this business or enter that trade, but that one can have the facilities if entering road haulage? If this is so, I feel, and I am sure your Lordships would agree with me, that we should be told quite plainly, so that the public
324
may know that a privileged class is being created. I very much hope that the noble Marquess will be able to give a perfectly clear and categorical answer to this question, and that his answer will be that there is no truth in this rumour which I, and I strongly suspect many of your Lordships, have heard.
I pass to the second point. Under the Bill, the Commission are allowed to operate vehicles only to the extent of some 17,000 tons. If you express that tonnage in terms of 3½-ton vehicles, you get one result; if you express it in terms of 8-ton vehicles, you get another result—a smaller result. But, however expressed, it is far too small a figure to enable the Commission to continue even their trunk service. Surely, here was a case where we might have been met. It was not as though you were destroying the Commission altogether: you are allowing them to continue in business to some extent. Certainly you allow the Commission to continue in competition although you destroy their monopoly—that is part of the scheme, and I do not question it. But why not put the Commission in a position where they can be effective competitors? Why make them go into the competition with their hands tied behind their back? Why limit them to such number of vehicles as will make it impossible for them to carry out the trunk services which have been so efficiently carried out in the past? I said the other day, and I say it again, that I think the doctrine that private enterprise is always efficient and right and that the competitive system must always be adopted, is a foolish doctrine—almost as foolish as the doctrine that public enterprise is always right; that every public enterprise is efficiently run, and that every problem is solved by nationalisation. Those are pagan gods, and sensible people should worship at neither shrine.
This is a case where an ugly and awkward fact has overthrown a preconceived theory. The fact is that the transport service run by this Commission has been an exceedingly efficient service, and for that very reason it has got to be sacrificed. The instinct of humans to sacrifice to the gods is a very old one, from Abraham to Jephthah—who in some respects resembles the noble Viscount opposite—who, in return for his victory over the children of Ammon (and I do

325
not refer to our late Chief Whip), promised to sacrifice whatever first met him on his return. What first met him on his return was his own daughter. After two months of bewailing, she had to be sacrificed. This public enterprise has had to be sacrificed, just because it has proved itself so completely efficient. There have been 2,691 columns of Hansard spoken about this Bill. Not one single instance has been given by any person speaking on behalf of the Government of any single efficiency against this organisation—save one: the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred to a gentleman who lived at Welwyn Garden City who had had three parcels misdelivered—and that out of a number of parcels delivered of the order of 1,500,000 a week. It is the literal fact that no endeavour has been made to prove that this has been an inefficient organisation. I maintain that, so far as the main trunk services are concerned, this has been a wonderfully efficient organisation. If your Lordships want proof of that, it is to be found in the fact that such a tremendous proportion of the vehicles are fully laden on their return journeys. We who have to use these outmoded roads in this country will find what is going to happen to us if the number of these great vehiclesis largely increased, because the same vehicle cannot be used fully laden on its return journey. I quoted before, and I do so again, what the Vice-President of the Association of British Chamber of Commerce has said—and, of course, he is in favour of private enterprise. He said:
"Experience has shown that there are services which can best be given by a larger and co-ordinated road haulage unit."
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, wound up his speech on Second Reading by quoting as the higher objective of the Bill the attainment of a properly coordinated system in which each form of transport was able to render those services which it was economically and technically best suited to do. What hope have the Government of doing that now under this new scheme? That is surrendered for ever, unless and until this Bill is repealed. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said in his speech that there had been little progress in integration. He never referred us to the statement, published in 1950 by the British Transport Commission, Integration of Freight
326
Services by Road and Rail. There, a complete scheme of integration is set out, which it was proposed should serve as a directive from the Commission to the Railway and the Road Haulage Executives. I wish the noble Lord had told us about that. It is quite idle to say that there were no plans for integration—there were. Under the new scheme there is no hope of integration.
There it is. We are not going to divide on the Third heading of this Bill. Your Lordships plainly have a mandate for it, and it has been discussed. However, I am bound to say that I wish I could feel happier about the whole procedure. This House—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, here—as it is constituted to-day, was of great value when we had a Labour Government. The mere fact that the greater numbers were on the opposite side made it necessary that Labour Minister; should go out of their way to conciliate and meet, and should try to deal with the arguments advanced. Do not let it be said that this House is effective only when a Labour or Liberal Government are in power. If it be the fact that we have a bicameral system only when we have a Labour or Liberal Government. and that when we have a Tory Government in power we have a single-Chamber system, then indeed, the ranks of those who desire to speak against our House will be greatly increased.
TEE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, perhaps I might answer one point that has been raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He asked whether any privileged class had been created. That is not so. What the Treasury have done is this. They have informed the banks that they consider this—that is, the action under this Bill—a suitable subject for credit in the national interest. This is common practice, just as a particular line of business or export may get dollars.
3.29 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, if my noble and learned Leader found his speech difficult to deliver, I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that my speech will be even more difficult to deliver: first, because I am a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, and secondly, because I have to follow someone of such outstanding importance and

327
ability as my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt. I hope it may be understood when I say, as one who has been actively associated with the transport industry from 1900 for more than half a century—a lifetime spent actively in transport work—that the passing of this Bill is to me a matter of profound regret, sorrow and disappointment. As long ago as 1918, the Association in which I took some part sponsored a Bill for the co-ordination of all forms of inland transport under public ownership. In season and out of season, responsible trade union leader sin this country have urged that the right and proper way to ensure for the trading and travelling public the best possible service and, at the same time, to maintain reasonable standards of employment, is a co-ordinated system of inland transport under public ownership. That solution became all the more urgent and pressing when, almost immediately after the end of the First World War, the railways were confronted with bitter and intensive road competition.
If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to illustrate that point by reading an addendum to the findings of the National Wages Board for March, 1931—an addendum signed not only by the trade union representatives but by two of the independent members of the tribunal, Mr. Henry May and Sir Arthur Pugh. If my recollection serves me aright, I think the railway companies were asking for a 10 per cent. reduction in wages and salaries and for an easement in conditions of service generally. This is what the addendum said:
"Whilst concurring in the findings which provide a measure of assistance for the purpose of enabling the companies to encounter the immediate difficulties, we desire at the same time to state that in our opinion this inquiry has clearly revealed the necessity for other action, in order that the industry may be in a position to provide the transport facilities desired by industry, commerce and the travelling public.…Modern requirements make further co-ordination imperative, and the present inquiry has reinforced our opinion that only along the lines of comprehensive national organisation of all forms of transport under public ownership and control can the problems of the transport industry be overcome."
More than twenty years ago, representative men with whom I was associated put that opinion on record.
328
As I ventured to say in my Second Reading speech, enlightened railway administrators, from Sir Eric Geddes in 1918, to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, himself, in 1944, came round to that point of view. I will not trouble the noble Lord with the quotation, because I am sure that it is well in his mind. I submit to your Lordships that, broadly speaking, the 1947 Act gave expression to those conceptions of a co-ordinated system of inland transport under public ownership. I should be the last to claim that the 1947 Act was the final word; that is was not capable of amendment, adjustment and improvement. But I do submit to your Lordships that, without our departing from the fundamental principles embodied in the 1947 Act, that Act was capable of adjustment and amendment. In that connection, I should like to refer your Lordships to a remarkable paper read to the Institute of Transport on March 16, by Mr. A. J. Pearson, Chief Officer (Administration) The Railway Executive. I will quote to your Lordships his opening sentences. This is what Mr. Pearson told the Institute of Transport:
"In the years 1935 and 1945, Lord Hurcomb"—
who, owing to the working of the machine, has been unable to be here to state the facts accurately—
"recorded for the Institute of Transport, in memorable form, the developments that occurred in the co-ordination of inland transport in this country after the First World War. The outstanding trend of those developments in the twenty-five years was from unrestricted competition towards a harmony of operation of the different agencies of transport in the interests of the community. Lord Hurcomb did not conclude that harmony had been achieved, nor did he minimise the difficulties still to be faced, but he did outline the steady progress that had been made towards that goal."
This Bill completely reverses that trend of transport development. In the words used in a leading article in The Times a little while ago, it will be, with some insignificant exceptions, war to the knife between competing forms of inland transport. I recall a profound saying of Bishop Butler:
"Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be. Why then, should we deceive ourselves?"
This Bill will not bring harmony, good will and prosperity in the transport

329
world; it may well bring bitter industrial strife. I ask your Lordships to remember that wages and salaries absorb almost 70 per cent. of the net railway revenue. As a matter of fact, in 1932 the railway companies put the proportion as high as 75 per cent. With a due sense of responsibility, I say that any attempt to worsen these conditions of service must inevitably lead to a bitter struggle. Should that unfortunately arise, as a direct result of this Bill, and should there arise bitter warfare between all forms of transport, and pressure aimed at bringing down rates, at a time when the energies of us all should be concentrated on restoring economic stability to this country, then a very grave responsibility will rest upon the shoulders of those responsible for this measure. Finally, may I mention that on the morrow of the return of the Conservative Government the chairman of one of the road haulage associations claimed the fruit of victory. I would ask the road haulage interests to bear in mind that it may be that, instead of rare and refreshing fruit, the fruit of victory, as provided for the road haulage industry under this Bill, will prove to be both bitter and dangerous for them.

ARREST OF FORMER NAZI LEADERS
3.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (TEH: MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, intervene for a moment to make a brief statement on the subject of the present position on the Naumann proceedings?
In my statement to the House on January 28, on the detention of seven former leading Nazis by the British authorities in Germany I said that the investigation of the evidence was continuing and would take several weeks to complete. The results have now been communicated to the German Federal Chancellor, who has asked that Naumann and his associates be handed over to the German Federal authorities for investigation and prosecution by them in a German court. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has authorised the High Commissioner to comply with this request and the High Commissioner is,
330
of course, also handing over to the German authorities the seized documents and the evidence collected during the investigation. The German authorities may decide not to prosecute some of the seven men detained. In that event those not to be prosecuted will be released, but their detention and interrogation and the impounding of their documents will have provided valuable evidence for the prosecution of Naumann and his associates.
The matter will now come before the German courts, and it would not be proper for me to attempt to foretell their verdict. I think, however, that the decision now taken by Dr. Adenauer and the German Federal Government, which is welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, fully justifies the action taken by the British High Commissioner on my right honourable friend's authority in detaining these men for interrogation, under his special powers. Our intention from the beginning has been to frustrate a serious potential danger, to bring the facts to light and to enable the German authorities and the German people to form their own judgment upon them. I trust that this purpose will now be served and this important matter should, I think, at this stage be left in the hands of the German Federal Government and the German courts.
EARL JOW1TT: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess one question. I suppose it is plain that the German authorities will make up their minds promptly whether they are going to prosecute any of these men. I take it that the men the authorities decide to prosecute will be handed over to the German authorities, and we wash our hands of the matter; and that the men who are not to be prosecuted will be discharged, so that we shall be out of the matter altogether.
TEE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, my Lords, that is the position. The German authorities now have all the material which we have been able to collect. They will no doubt make up their minds, having already begun to consider the matter, in a brief space of time. Those whom they desire to prosecute will be handed over to them. The remainder will be released. In regard to them all our responsibility will be terminated.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.45 p.m.
Debate on Third Reading resumed.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I rise for only two or three minutes in consequence of something which was said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He referred to a scheme prepared in 1950 for the integration of the transport of this country. That scheme is now thrown aside. I was interested in this matter because last summer I attended a conference on transport, which was held in Stockholm, where for one or two days proposals were discussed for the integration for the transport of Europe. That, my Lords, is not a wildcat scheme; the discussions were most interesting. Proposals were put forward by great experts in the matter, and I do not doubt that one day such a state of affairs will come about. My hopes are encouraged by the fact that quite recently six nations of Europe decided to refer to a committee or a commission the feasibility of doing away with the customs barriers between their countries. I believe that that also will come about. If it does, it will be a great step forward and will be of great assistance in this matter of integrating the transport of Europe. Yet at a time when such a scheme is being proposed for Europe, we are taking the step of tearing up the possibility of integrating the transport of this country alone.
The industry which had much to gain by the integration of transport here was the coastal shipping industry. In the course of the lengthy debates on this Bill I have heard nothing which leads me to feel at all hopeful or clear that coastal shipping will not find itself exposed to severe and very difficult competition from the road haulage industry. I think it will be found, when the road haulage industry comes into private hands, that for a great many of those engaged in it their main business will be that of undercutting—which is not a very good outlook for coastal shipping. And although I know that it is proposed to bring in representatives of the road haulage industry to discuss these questions of competition I think—and here I believe that noble Lords on the other side will agree with me—it will be difficult to find men who can speak for the road haulage industry; that is to say, who speak for it knowing
332
that the views they express and the undertakings they give will be faithfully obeyed by all engaged in that industry.
Nor have I heard during these debates anything to alter my opinion that this is a very clumsy Bill. I give an instance—this question of a scheme prepared for the reorganisation of the railways. This Bill is like the play Hamlet: there is a play within a play. The real gravamen of the Bill is this scheme which is referred to in Clause 16, and it seemed that Parliament would have no opportunity of criticising or pronouncing upon the scheme before it was put in execution. But perhaps the announcement made by the noble Viscount means that that possibility is now at an end, and that Parliament will have an opportunity of commenting on the scheme. The fact remains, however, that I still regard this as a clumsy Bill. When I was first looking through it I came upon the words:
"abnormal and indivisible load."
I thought that those words referred to the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility as applied to this Bill—and the load, would indeed be a heavy one to bear, for I think this Bill will be found to be a very difficult one to work and that in the long run it will prove to be a setback to British Transport.
3.49 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has complained that Her Majesty's Government have been unwilling to compromise on any of the Opposition Amendments. He has also stated that he could understand that the Opposition could not expect Amendments on policy to be accepted. But surely practically all the Opposition Amendments were on matters of policy. I think that during the discussion on this Bill too much emphasis has been laid on the road haulage side. This Bill is not really a denationalisation Bill at all. It is a Railway Bill, and I think it will be a landmark in railway history. Clauses 1 and 3 will have the effect only of denationalising a very small section of the road haulage industry. The British Transport Commission will remain the largest road haulage organisation in the country. It is really rather nonsense for the Opposition to talk about integration under the 1947 Act. If the

333
"C" licence holders had been included in the Act, some sort of integration might possibly have taken place; if the passenger area schemes had become effective, something more might have been done. But, in fact, the real purposes of the 1947 Act had become almost completely nullified before it came into operation. I think it is true to say that the 1947 Act could not have remained in its present form. I maintain that the Bill which is before the House is a real attempt to produce a workable transport organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, suggested that the passage of the Bill might bring industrial strife. I would say that this is extremely unlikely. It has also been said in some quarters, as your Lordships are aware, that the loss of personnel from the Road Haulage Executive to private enterprise was due to the advent of a Tory Government. In fact, the political colour of the Government has not the slightest effect on the matter. What really matters, of course, is the condition of employment in the industry. I would say that this Bill produces the first really workable organisation for transport that has ever been produced, and I have every confidence that it will become a success.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask one brief question on the White Paper and the draft Order which, of course, is particularly applicable to Scotland, and in which we in Scotland are therefore most interested. Did I understand the noble Viscount to say that he would produce a White Paper; that then there would be a discussion on the White Paper; and that, subsequent to the discussion, he would introduce his draft Order? I take it that the Order will be the final thing, that the draft Order will not be capable of being amended, and that he will not withdraw the draft Order after discussion and bring in a revised one, as, on Committee stage, he told me he would.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There really must he some finality in this business. It cannot go on for ever and ever. What is going to happen is that there will be a White Paper, which will set out in full detail the whole of the scheme. That will then be debated in both Houses. No draft Order will have been laid at that time. Then the Minister, having considered all that has been said in debate
334
in both Houses, will table the draft Order, which will be debatable, and will be debated in both Houses before the Affirmative Resolution is taken.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: But it cannot be amended?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No; of course, it cannot be amended. Even the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that that would be a perfectly impossible procedure.
3.54 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Loris, it falls to my lot to speak the last words on this Bill from this side of your Lordships' House. Before I address myself to the few observations I intend to make, may I join with my noble and learned Leader in a very personal sense in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, back into harness? I happen to know that he spent a few brief days of recuperation in the sunshine of the Hampshire coast where I should think the only thing he had to worry about was to read his daily edition of Hansard. Why he did not spend his lime doing what all prominent Cabinet Ministers are supposed to do—that is, read the latest "thriller"—I do not know. I am certain that, when he read the daily editions of Hansard, he must have been amazed at some of the statements which emanated from those who had care of his Bill during his absence.
I am not going to traverse very much the ground that has already been traversed this afternoon, because this is not the last time that we shall debate transport in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, accused us on this side of the House of "nonsense," and then followed that up by saying that, in his opinion, the Bill now before your Lordships was the first real attempt to put the transport of this country to rights. But if that is not nonsense, I do not know what is; because, if ever there was a Bill brought in by any Government that put the clock back thirty years it is this Bill. It is an admission by the Government that they cannot face the problem of the inland transport of the country. It is an admission by the Government that they have not applied themselves to thinking about it. Their only attempt to face up to the problem is to create cut-throat

335
competition, and to hope that some result will arise from the battlefield that we knew so well in the 1930's. They are trying to deal with the transport problem of this country by sectional legislation. They might just as well try to segregate the iron and steel industry, and have an iron industry and a steel industry, as to try to segregate road and rail transport on the main trunk routes of this country. They know that it cannot be done.
It has often occurred to me to wonder why, if the Government are such lovers of competition as they say they are, they have never tried to denationalise the railways. Why did they not hand the railways back to private enterprise? Why did they not have an all-out competition, a real "free for all," and go back to the fifty different railway companies which we knew so many years ago? Why did they not do that? That would appear to be the logical sequence to their policy. But I suppose what they said was: "There is no queue of buyers for the railways." There was, at one time, a queue of buyers for the road haulage assets, but time, I am afraid, has damped their ardour. No: frankly, this Bill is about the worst piece of legislation I ever remember in my experience of politics.
It is a strange thing that truth will out, even in a Government White Paper. The Government knew the chaos they were going to bring about because they said in that White Paper that they must have a levy to recompense the railways for what they were going to lose by this great increase in road transport. What they did was to give up half the levy, and then they were supposed to give the railways freedom. As I have said before, I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. They have gone a long way. I am not going to deny that what they have done is a step in the right direction. But if the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, had been sitting in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage, he would have seen the attempts made by noble Lords opposite to nibble and nibble away that freedom. He would have seen them nibble away a little bit here, and a little bit there, and put another shackle around the freedom of the Transport Commission in relation to charges. Now I see that the Association of British
336
Chambers of Commerce have asked publicly that the man who puts his goods on rail shall have as much right to protest against unfair rates and unfair treatment as the man who is "tied" to the rail and who, quite rightly, has that right in the Bill to-day. My Lords, the nibble is going on. As my noble friend Lord Winster has just said, coastal shipping interests have the right of appeal to the Tribunal about unfair treatment by the railways. Have they any right to complain to the Tribunal about unfair competition by road haulage?—oh dear, no! Why not? What is this so-called freedom? I am afraid we shall find that out.
I ask, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, what does Clause 16 do? The Government have been in power long enough to ask the Commission to submit a scheme for the reorganisation of the railways. What is going to happen? The scheme is to be submitted to every vested interest in the country—all the nibblers and people who want now to contract this new freedom of competition. Then it will come to your Lordships' House, and I should imagine that we may perhaps see a scheme for the reorganisation of the railways in two years' time. What is going to happen in the meantime?
Then there are the financial provisions. What is the real basis of the financial provisions in this Bill? Nobody has yet explained them. I had a good deal to say about this matter on the Committee and Report stages. As my noble and learned Leader has said, throughout the passage of this Bill we have fought to protect the interests of the taxpayer. For the last time, I am going to say quite bluntly to noble Lords opposite that it is just nonsense to talk about goodwill worth £33 million having been lost. It is there. The way in which it will be lost is by a forced sale. That £33 million purchased the monopoly. This Bill is breaking the monopoly. If the monopoly is broken, then the £33 million will be broken. But I tell the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, that the loss in regard to the monopoly right and the real value of the physical assets of the Commission as a result of their being sold below true value will fall upon the Commission, and the gain will go into the pockets of those who buy the assets. Noble Lords on this side of the House

337
have protested about the formation and personnel of the Disposal Board. We made strenuous efforts to got one independent member appointed to the Board after consultation by the Minister with the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. That was one Amendment which my noble friend put forward but which met with a stubborn refusal.
So, my Lords, we come to the end. We are going to see what noble Lords opposite have called a "fruitful partnership in some aspects of the Transport Commission's undertaking between the road passenger business and private enterprise. Fruitful to whom? Who is going to run the un remunerative routes? In the White Paper the Government admit as plainly as can be admitted that there can be no real basis of competition between the public transporter who has to give a public service and has to absorb fluctuations in demand, and the private enterprise transporter who "creams" the traffic as he will. You cannot have competition in those circumstances. The noble Lord knows that. What are we going to have in the future when the British Transport Commission want to close down a branch line for economic reasons? In the forty-odd bus companies which are now controlled100 per cent. by the British Transport Commission they will have only a minority interest, as a result of the Minister directing that they shall sell all but their minority interest holdings. Therefore, they will have no direction of policy enabling them to fill the gap caused by the shutting down of a branch railway line. Are we going to see a repetition all over the country of the practice now obtaining in the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland, of private enterprise being subsidised by the Government in order to run unprofitable services? That is exactly what it will come to. It is no use going over all the old arguments, bit this is what we foresee.
My Lords, there is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. I do not expect an answer now. One striking thing throughout the debate has been that the only argument for the Commission has been put up by noble Lords on this side of the House. It is only when they have spoken that the Commission's case has been stated at all.
338
There has been no advocate for the British Transport Commission on the other side of the House, and especially on the Government Bench.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord tell us how we are to ascertain the views of the British Transport Commission?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In the same way as we do—by asking them, and responding to the invitation given by the Minister in another place. That is how we get our information. We on this side of the House have no source of information which is not open to noble Lords sitting on the Back Benches opposite, and noble Lords sitting on the Government Front Bench have far more opportunity of gaining information than we have. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who led for the Government all the way through the passage of this Bill, was a self-constituted prosecuting counsel, judge, and foreman of the jury against the Commission. Now that the Commission is launched into this sea of competition perhaps we in this House shall have a Government spokesman who will state the case fairly. Let me give the Minister in another place his due. Throughout the debate in another place the Minister was at great pains to be scrupulously fair to the British Transport Commission, and to a marked degree he succeeded.
LORD TEYNHAM: May I ask the noble Lord whether he can repeat anything which was said at any time during the passage of this Bill through this House which supports the contention that the Transport Commission have not been given a fair deal. I can think of nothing which does.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes: the criticisms that were made about the Commission's services. There were criticisms made about its services and statements were made about "frittering away goodwill", and a number of other things.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Did not the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, say that there was no criticism except in one particular instance?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There was no direct criticism—that was what the noble Earl said.
LORD TEYNHAM: The suggestion is made of unfair criticism.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: All we have heard are wild generalisations, and only one specific case was brought to your Lordships' notice throughout the passage of this Bill through this House. That case related to three or four parcels which were despatched by someone at Welwyn Garden City, someone who thought it would be of political advantage to write to the Minister here instead of writing to the Transport Commission, with the result that the letter found its way into the hands of the noble Viscount. As I say, what we have heard have been wild generalisations—such as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has made this afternoon about integration—and only one specific case has been quoted. The noble Lord got up and purported to reply to my noble friend about the charge relating to the efficiency of the British Transport Commission, and he said there had been no integration at all. Perhaps, in future we shall have something different. I think we shall have something different in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. I think he would follow the example of the Minister in another place and see, at least, that justice is done; because it may be that the British Transport Commission, in this matter, is going to prove the salvation of the transport system of this country.
The noble Lord is launching on the country this auction sale and chattel disposal scheme at what could not be a worse time. I feel very sorry for him about that. The market is about as bad as it can be. There are £10 million worth of new vehicles coming into the possession of the British Transport Commission, because they do not want to cancel the orders and so cause chaos in the producing factories in this country. I believe that some £8 million worth of vehicles are to be delivered to the British Transport Commission in the next twelve months. And I believe that prices are not going to be what the noble Lord thinks they will be. One of the noble Lord's "bull-points" was that in order to help this sale the 25-miles radius is going to be retained for another eighteen months. My information is that the 25-miles radius has practically gone already; progressively it will go—it is honoured to-day more in the breach
340
than in the observance—and chaos is going to rule. So let us hope—and in this the noble Lord will have all the assistance that can possibly be given from this side of the House—that in the fierce, competitive system which is going to be established this nationally-owned body will be given every chance to prosper. Let us hope that by reason of its efficiency it will stand a fair chance and will benefit the taxpayers and the business and industry of this country.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I say this. I noticed that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and said that they were against this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said more or less the same thing—
EARL JOWITT: Forgive me, I never said that. They are very much in favour of this Bill. What I said was that they had never expressed the opinion that the services rendered by the Transport Commission were inefficient.
LORD TEVIOT: I beg the noble and learned Earl's pardon, I must have misunderstood him. But the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, did say that there was adverse criticism of the Bill by the A.B.C.C. I happen to be, as the noble Lord has mentioned, the honorary treasurer of the A.B.C.C. While, at the beginning of the investigations into this Bill, apprehensions were felt by the investigators for the A.B.C.C., they have now definitely come round to the view that this is a good Bill, and they are most grateful to the Minister for having met them in a great many ways. I want that on record, because I do not want there to be any misapprehension in the public mind as to the attitude of the A.B.C.C.—they are not against this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I said was this. I said that only within recent days the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have come out with a public statement asking that those who send their goods by rail should have as much protection in the future as those whose goods are tied to the rail, and that the Minister should safeguard the position with regard to any

341
possibility of the Commission abusing its competitive powers. That was what I said.
4.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this Third Reading debate unless it was absolutely necessary; for, as your Lordships know, I have had to be away during a large part of the time when this Bill has been passing through your Lordships' House. I am certainly not rising this afternoon to reiterate arguments of a general kind, with which the House is probably already familiar, about the step which the Government are taking. Those arguments have been dealt with by other speakers, with far more knowledge of the subject than I have, again and again, earlier in your Lordships' discussions. But one point has been raised this afternoon—it was made by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition and also, I think, by other speakers—about which it is clear that the Leader of the House should say something. This point was actually made earlier in the passage of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just after I came back, and it may well be that it had been made many times still earlier than that.
The suggestion as I understand it—I do not want to misrepresent noble Lords opposite—is, in effect, that the House of Lords is a revising Chamber only when the Labour Party are in office; that when the Conservative Party are in office, it is merely a rubber stamp. That, as I understand it, is the suggestion. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, first say this, with considerable fire and eloquence, it seemed to me that he was giving an entirely distorted account of the position. I felt it was not one which should be allowed to go without some reply. For, if I may be allowed to say so, the impression which it created on this House—and possibly, on wider circles outside this House—was that the Labour Government, unlike the present Government, were open-minded and very ready to accept Amendments, however far-reaching those might be. I therefore had inquiries made, and this is what I found—and I would confine myself entirely to the question of transport, the two Transport Bills, as that is the subject which is under discussion this afternoon. These are the results of
342
my investigations. During the passage of the Transport Bill which was introduced in 1947 by the late Government, there were, indeed, as is always the case—particularly when a Bill passes rather rapidly through the House of Commons—a considerable number of Amendments on points which had hardly been discussed at all; and Amendments to deal with those points were inserted, I think, by agreement between both Parties in this House.
There were also certain major points of policy on which the Opposition disagreed with the Government, and these questions were ultimately submitted to Divisions in the Lobbies. Those points, which were incorporated in a large number of Amendments, were finally concentrated in ten which were sent down to another place. What happened to those Amendments when they got there—those Amendments, which noble Lords opposite said were inserted by a revising House? They were one and all rejected, at the demand of then Government. Then the Bill came back to this House, in accordance with our Constitution. This House is always a sensible place, whichever Party are in office, and on that occasion the Conservative Opposition decided not to insist on four of these Amendments; and, in the case of four others, substitute Amendments were inserted to give the other place a chance of further consideration. Of the remaining two, on one the Opposition accepted the substitute Amendment inserted in another place, and the other was not insisted on. Further, in addition to those Amendments, on which there had been Divisions, there were five other Amendments which were inserted in the Bill without a Division. All these five were struck out of the Bill by the Labour Party in another place.
That is the record of noble Lords opposite with regard to the revising powers of this Horse, as evidenced in their Transport Bill of 1947. They could not prevent some revision being done here, because, as your Lordships know, the their Opposition had a majority in this House; but in another place they voted down every disputed point of any real substance. I am not complaining of that. I know—and the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition knows—that many Amendments put down by an Opposition are regarded by

343
the Government of the day as of so fundamental a character that, in our parlance, they would "wreck" the Bill. And in such cases the Government of the day always insists on its own views. I am not complaining of that. But it hardly accords with the rosy picture of the actions of the last two Labour Governments painted by the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Now, for a moment, I should like to say something about the record of the present Government over the present Bill. We have accepted a certain number of Amendments. I am not going to pretend that we have accepted an enormous number, but we have accepted about eight of some substance which were proposed by the Opposition. I understand that to be the position, and I have a list of them here, including some on issues of considerable importance. There was the question of "too few hands," to which the noble and learned Earl referred earlier. I am not saying that he was wrong. All that I am saying is that we accepted his view on what the Opposition considered to be an important point; and it has been accepted by the Government. There was also the point that the railway reorganisation scheme should be submitted in a preliminary form to Parliament. I myself heard the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, press this point, because I was here by then. The noble Earl urged this strongly as something of almost vital importance. I do not say that I altogether agreed with him; but the Government have met him. It is surely a little ungracious now for the noble Earl to say that we did nothing to meet the points raised by the Opposition, especially as there was no provision at all in the Labour Government's Act for putting such schemes before Parliament.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, will the noble Marquess forgive me? He will find that I did not say that. I stated that on these Parliamentary points the Government had met us, but that on points where there was a clash of Party points of view they had not met us on any single important Amendment made from this side.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl said—and he has just said so again—that what we might
344
call technical points had had no consideration. I repudiate that absolutely. The points raised by noble Lords opposite had the fullest consideration, and I think that is an unworthy aspersion. The fact that a point is not accepted does not mean that it is not considered. What I have said about the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, I would say equally about other speeches that we have heard this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, seemed to hug a rather gloomy hope that the passing of this Bill would herald the arrival of violent industrial struggle. He may be right. I should be prepared to have a small bet with him on the subject, but he may be right. I cannot, however, feel that that portion of his speech was very happy or helpful to the interests of the country, and I am sorry that these views should have been expressed in this House this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with equally gloomy gusto, prognosticated a disastrous future for the whole industry of transport in this country. He said that this was the worst piece of legislation he ever remembered. I seem to remember that tremendous phrase used about almost every piece of legislation that has been introduced by this Government since we were fortunate enough to be chosen by the electorate to represent them. No doubt it makes a very good Party line, and no doubt, too, the noble Lord is going off at the week-end to repeat it on a platform to whatever audience he can find. But it would be a good deal more convincing if it were made in the light of experience. Like the late Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, I am very ready to wait and see about that.
Moreover, with regard to the Amendments which have been inserted by the Government, to two of which I have already referred, I should like to repeat that undoubtedly they were of substance. And I understand, from what was said on the subject by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition and others, that these Amendments are vital to the success of the Bill. That may be so, and I hope and think that, when they go down to another place, they will be accepted. At any rate, I hope they will have a much better reception there than our Amendments had in the days of the late Government. But if noble Lords who have spoken here this afternoon really meant to argue—I hope they did not; I

345
do not expect they did—that the Government should accept all the Amendments moved by the Opposition of this House, however fundamental they might he, however disastrous they might appear to us to the future of the Bill, merely because the Opposition here are in a minority and, therefore, deserve special consideration—if they meant that, I could not accept it, and no Government could accept it.
EARL JOWITT: I do not admit any such thing. It is ridiculous.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very glad to hear it. And now, my Lords, the last thing I want to say is that when these two Transport Bills are compared in times to come, when our successors and descendants come to examine the Opposition Amendments proposed to the Bill introduced by the Labour Government and the Opposition Amendments proposed to the Bill introduced by the Conservative Party, I do not think we shall have the worst of the argument by any means.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Marquess sits down, may I say that I thought he was going to complete his list of the eight Amendments accepted. He mentioned two, and I thought he was going to mention the other six. I cannot recollect them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The first point to which I referred dealt with the undertaking on the railway reorganisation scheme order. The second was the Amendment about the maximum number of the Commission, inclusive of the chairman. That was passed before I came back, but I understand it was a point made by the Opposition. Then there was the Amendment to safeguard the pension rights of the Commission's employees, even if they were moved to a lower grade.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That was merely a matter of drafting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord may say that, but it was one that he proposed and one that we accepted. There was the proposal that annual financial statements required of the British Transport Commission road haulage companies should be so framed
346
as to prevent them from being forced to disclose information of value to competitors.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is a very minor one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, what noble Lords opposite seem to want is to have their grouse and eat it. Further, there is the Amendment under which the power of the Commission to incorporate road haulage companies was made permanent. There is the Amendment about "too few hands," to which I nave already referred. Then there is the Amendment about Disposal Board rep arts to set out any Ministerial directions—that again was discussed before I came back, and I am afraid that I cannot amplify it. Those are the main Amendments to which I referred. I frankly admit that some of them are less important, and others are more important—that applies to all Amendments. But there were some points of considerable substance over which my noble friend Lord Swinton took great trouble to meet the Opposition—the results of some of them have been announced to-day. I repeat, I do not think it was very gracious of the Opposition, in the circumstances, to suggest now that no attempt has been made to meet them.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 3:
Sales of transport units
(6) In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted and which refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is the first of the Amendments to which I referred when I spoke earlier on the Third Reading, relating to the "too few hands." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, leave out from ("avoiding") to the end of line 17, and insert:
("any step which is likely to lead to the elimination of undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender shall be refused

347
wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares
(2) Where any property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section it shall be made over at a price equal to the net value thereof as shown in the books of the Commission (but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over thereof so far as not already taken into account), increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the Commission made over therewith, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any liabilities of the Commission made over therewith.
In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to values shown in the books of the Commission are references to the values so shown after making, if the Commission, in making up their books for the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two or any subsequent year, depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by them for the years falling before the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure.
(4) In determining whether any tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the second paragraph of subsection (2)
"and the requirement that the net value shall be adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over of the property shall be construed as a requirement that the additional depreciation shall be allowed at the rates at which, and in the cases in which, depreciation was allowed under the said principles and practice."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a little more than drafting; it is really for clarification. The provision in the Bill requires a system of ascertaining net book value for property made over to the company, so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of making over, in so far as it has not already been taken into account. That might have been interpreted as requiring an assessment of depreciation in respect of
348
property which either is not usually subject to depreciation in the books of the Commission—like buildings—or a reassessment of depreciation where the rates allowed have proved inadequate, having regard to the actual wear and tear of the particular property. That is not what was intended. Our intention was that in a broken period depreciation should be assessed in the way in which the Commission had hitherto assessed it, if it was a case where they had, in fact, provided for depreciation. The words at page 9, line 13, will make it perfectly clear that that is the intention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a complementary Amendment similar to that to Clause 3, to apply where it is a case of sale of shares in a company. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert ("any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender or offer shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Disposal of property otherwise than in transport units]:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, leave out the second ("the").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Meaning of "Road Haulage Capital Loss"]:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 46, leave out ("and").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think I need hardly say that this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 46, leave out the first ("and").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment to carry out in the Schedule the complementary provisions to those which the House has just accepted as Amendments to Clauses 3 and 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 7, at end insert ("and the requirements that the net values shall be adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to a particular time shall he construed as requirements that the additional depreciation shall be allowed at the rates at which, and in the cases in which, depreciation was allowed under the said principles and practice.").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

POST OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order), on re-commitment of the Bill: the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL
Reported, with amendment.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2),

Royal Titles,

Diocesan Stipends Funds Measure.

House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.