HL Deb 26 March 1953 vol 181 cc331-49

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 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 "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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.