Lords Sitting of 3 May 1955

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

  SANDOWN-SHANKLIN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Read 2a, and committed.

  NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a.
  CHESHUNT URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Read 2a.
  MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, there is nothing unusual in this Order to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. Accordingly, I beg to move that it be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Clevedon, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
  FINANCE BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  2.38 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, this is another of those Bills, of which your Lordships have been fortunate to have a number lately, which I think command the support of all Parties, and it passed through another place without a Division. That is a tribute to the skill of Sir William Darling, the Member of Parliament who piloted it through another place, but it is also, I think, a measure of the merits of the Bill, because the need for it is widely recognised. It is something like a hundred years since, by the Act of 1854, the State took the first tentative steps to provide a public library service. There has been little change since then. That is a tribute to the pioneers and to the sound lines on which they proceeded. But, inevitably, there are one or two places where the Victorian shoe pinches, and certain modern adjustments are required.
  The Bill has two main purposes. Until now, local authorities have been subject to a limitation of a 3d. rate: they have not been able to levy a rate of more than 3d. for this service. That limit the Bill removes. The cost of books, the cost of bookbinding and costs generally have risen in the last twenty years or so, with the result that local authorities have found it impossible to provide an efficient service with this rate limitation. Indeed, quite a number of the local authorities have been compelled to promote Local Acts in order to contract out of this very inconvenient limitation. Therefore, it seemed to the Secretary of State, and to all of us that it was a common-sense thing to get rid of it for all local authorities, particularly since there is no corresponding restraint on library authorities in England.
  Secondly, the Bill empowers local authorities to co-operate among themselves in the exchange of books and for the support of the central library services—the Scottish Central Library is there to act as a clearing house for inter-library lending. Under the nineteenth century legislation which I have just mentioned,

  695
  no powers have been available to library authorities to enable them to lend to each other the more rare and important books. Local authorities have long wanted these powers. There have been disputes from time to time as to the actual conditions, but I am glad to say that the proposals in the Bill as it is drafted and put forward to your Lordships command the support of the three local authority associations in Scotland.
  My Lords, I am glad that we in this Parliament are able to complete this legislation, and I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. Not only is it necessary; it is also opportune. Your Lordships will remember the great part which the late Andrew Carnegie played in originating and largely sustaining the library services in Scotland: he was an extraordinarily generous and farsighted benefactor. Up till now much of the finance has been supplied by the Carnegie Trust, but they say that they cannot continue to do that after this year. If this Bill is passed the finance for the Scottish Central Library will be provided partly from Treasury grant, with, in addition, a grant from local authorities arrived at according to a formula on which they are all agreed. As we have a large measure of agreement, and as I believe that everybody in Scotland feels that this is a modest advance which should be made, in order to bring our library services up to modern conditions, I commend this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
  2.42 p.m.
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to add a word of commendation of this Bill. I can say from personal experience that it ends years of agitation on the part of library associations for the abolition of the rate limitation. The Bill implements one or two recommendations contained in a report on libraries issued some time ago by the Scottish Advisory Council on Education. It extends to town and county councils the powers which other authorities
  696
  already possess by virtue of the fact that they have promoted private legislation, either on their own behalf or through other channels. In this particular regard the Bill satisfies the views of municipal associations. I think it will mark a great advance in library activities in Scotland, and I have much pleasure in supporting it.
  2.45 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords we are told that this Bill was originally piloted by Sir William Darling, whom we may see though not hear. We have had the Second Reading proposed by a Scotsman. We have had the Question, That the Bill be now read a second time, put by another Scotsman, and we have had the Bill supported from these Benches by still another Scotsman. I find myself asking, in these circumstances, what should an Englishman do? I feel quite certain that all of us who are English will say we should do everything we can to increase the educational facilities of the Scots. We should remember what Dr. Johnson said:
  "Much may be made of a Scotchman if he be caught young."
  In these circumstances, from this side of the House and on behalf of all Englishmen in all quarters of the House, we cordially welcome this Bill.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl. We in Scotland have sometimes been accused of retarding education and civilisation for something like 300 years; perhaps had we known what it was going to be like we should have retarded it for a good deal longer. But we here are in harmony on this Bill and I am grateful to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked whether a library authority which felt that the public would get a better service if it surrendered its authority to a local education committee could take that step. The answer is that under this Bill a library authority can do so if it feels that in that way the public will have a better service.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL [H.L.]
  2.48 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be, now considered.
  Moved, that the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The references are to Bill [53] as first printed for the House of Commons]
  Cause 3, page 4, line 40, leave out from ("and") to end of line 42 and insert ("'occupier,' in relation to any such thing as is mentioned in the preceding provisions of this subsection, if it has no occupier, means the owner thereof and, in relation to a railway wagon or road vehicle, means the person in charge of the wagon or vehicle and not the occupier of the land on which the wagon or vehicle stands.")
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, among other things this clause deals with the liability of occupiers of land in respect of the discharge of oil into water. The Amendment defines rather more closely the meaning of "occupier of a place on land." Where it is not possible to define "occupier" the liability falls on, the owner; and in respect of a vehicle, whether a railway vehicle or a road vehicle, the liability falls on the person in charge of that vehicle rather than the occupier of the land. I feel that this is a useful clarification. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 4, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
  ("(7) The last preceding subsection shall apply to the exercise of any power conferred by section thirteen of the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865 (which relates to the removal of obstructions to dockyard ports), as it applies to the exercise of any such power as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, as if references to the authority exercising the power were references to the Queen's harbour master for the port in question.")
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords the liability placed by Clause 1 is an absolute liability, and accordingly Clause 4 deals with certain special defences. It deals, amongst other things, with authorities responsible for removing wrecks. These defences are of no avail, however, if it is shown that these authorities have failed to take such steps as were reasonable in the circumstances for stopping or reducing the discharge. The Amendment makes these defences available to anyone exercising the powers conferred by Section 13 of the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865. These particularly include the Queen's harbour master who in this respect has certain duties to perform not so far covered by the special defences. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 8, page 9, line 27, leave out from ("facilities") to end of line 29.
  Page 10, line 40, at end insert—
  ("(9) As respects any harbour in the United Kingdom, subsections (1), (2), (5) and (8) of this section shall have effect in relation to arrangements for disposing of oil residues discharged or deposited by vessels using the harbour's oil reception facilities, and to the making of such arrangements, as those subsections have effect in relation to oil reception facilities and the provision of such facilities.")
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As the first and third Amendments on Clause 8 fall together and are not much more than clarification I will take them together, if I may. The clause as drafted already gives harbour authorities power to make arrangements for the disposal of oil residue. It also gives the Minister power to order them to make such arrangements. It is not only necessary to have facilities for ships to dispose of their oil residues, but also subsequently to dispose of this oil residue itself. These Amendments make it quite clear that the harbour authorities have such power, and that the Minister may direct them to provide arrangements for disposal of this oil residue, just as he can also give directions for the provision of facilities. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 8, page 10, line 26, leave out ("a") and insert ("an effective").
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment makes it clear that the harbour authority is not required to receive untreated oily water unless it has been subjected not only to separation treatment but to effective treatment. I think this Amendment makes the matter quite clear, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 9, page 11, line 22, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("one hundred")
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this clause continues previous legislation which makes it necessary to inform the harbour master when oil is transferred at night. The Amendment increases the fine for failing to do so from £50 to £100. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 11, line 42, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this clause deals with the duty to inform the harbour authority of discharges of oil from ships—discharges which may be legitimate under the Bill—or of the escape of oil from a place on land. The fine here is increased from £100 to £200. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 12, page 13, line 46, leave out from ("for") to end of line 48 and insert ("any such offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.")
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment has resulted from discussions with the River Boards' Association. The clause deals with prosecutions. Under the Bill as printed, the Minister, or a person authorised by him, may prosecute in respect of a discharge of oil from a ship. This Amendment extends this power and enables the prosecution to be instituted by the Minister or person authorised by him in respect of discharges either from a ship or from a place on land. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 12, page 13, line 48, after the words last inserted insert—
  ("(2) The provisions of this subsection shall have effect as respects dockyard ports (within the meaning of the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865), that is to say—

  (a) in relation to so much of a dockyard port as is comprised in a harbour in the United Kingdom, the preceding subsection shall apply as if the reference to the harbour authority included a reference to the Queen's harbour master for the port, and

  (b) in relation to any part of a dockyard port which is not comprised in a harbour in the United Kingdom, the preceding subsection shall apply as if references to such a harbour included references to a dockyard port, and the reference to the harbour authority were a reference to the Queen's harbour master for the port.")

  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this clause deals with prosecutions in England and Wales. The definition of "harbour authority" in the Bill as drafted is not wide enough to include the Queen's harbour master in dockyard ports. It is clearly necessary that such a person should be included. The effect of the Amendment is to put the Queen's harbour master in the same position as the harbour authority in regard to instituting prosecutions for offences committed within his harbour. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Cause 18, insert the following new clause—
  Annal report
  (". The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year, make a report on the exercise and performance of his functions under this Act during that year, which shall include such observations as he may think fit to make on the operation during that year of this Act, of the Convention of 1954 and of any subsequent Convention, and he shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.")
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a new clause which requires the Minister to make an annual report of the progress made under this Bill. I suppose it is true to say that there seems to be no end to the making of reports, but none the less this is one way of giving Parliament an opportunity of seeing from a practical point of view what progress has been made in this important subject. In moving this Amendment perhaps I might say one thing. It is rather less than twelve months since the International Conference in London finished its work, so I think we have lost very little time in putting into effect the conclusions of that Conference. In doing so we have given a lead to the whole world in this sphere, and I think I am correct in saying that the action taken by Parliament in this country has been widely reported in many other parts of the world.
  I can tell your Lordships that as soon as the Royal Assent is signified to this Bill it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accept the International Convention. It will not come fully into force, however, until nine other countries, of which four must have tanker tonnage of at least 500,000 tons, have also accepted the obligations of this Convention. As I said, on the Second Reading, twenty countries have already signed the Convention, subject to acceptance, and we look forward eagerly to seeing the extent to which they are able to accept their obligations. I am sure the House is very glad that it is possible for this measure, upon which we are all agreed, to be passed in this foreshortened Parliament.
  702
  I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (TRAVEL CONCESSIONS) BILL
  2.56 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Bill started life as a Private Member's Bill and now, after various changes and vicissitudes, it has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. The actual occasion for the bringing in of the Bill by Mr. Short was a judgment in the Court of Chancery in the case of Prescott v. The Corporation of Birmingham. The Corporation introduced into their bus services concessionary fares for aged people, and Mr. Prescott, a ratepayer, challenged the legal right of the Corporation to do this. The Court upheld his contention, and that judgment was, in turn, upheld in the Court of Appeal.
  This decision led to immediate repercussions, because various other local authorities all over the country had been giving various other kinds of concessionary fares on their buses, trams and trolleybuses. Some ninety-six local authorities operating their own vehicles, allow cheap fares to children; ninety allow them to the blind; fifty-nine allow them to the disabled, and twenty-eight allow them to the aged. The statutory authority for this concession is nebulous or non-existent. For instance, the children's concession is believed to derive from ancient railway legislation via the tramway age. There are a few authorities who have specific legislative authority in the matter. On the other hand, so far as we know, there are no local authorities that have specific legislative backing for the other concessionary fares, though there is a possibility that schemes under the National Assistance Act, 1948, might cover the blind and the disabled. So, as the result of this judgment, virtually all concessionary fares are in jeopardy, and some authorities have already started to prepare Private Bill legislation.

  703
  It was in these circumstances that Mr. Short brought forward his Private Member's Bill to cover this situation, though at the same time he inserted various clauses dealing with totally different matters. Her Majesty's Government thought that in so far as it protected those in receipt of concessionary fares which had been put into jeopardy the Bill fulfilled a public purpose, and they were prepared to adopt those portions of the Bill which dealt with this particular aspect. In addition to the omission of some parts of the Private Member's Bill, some redrafting and rearranging was necessary, and this was sponsored by the Government.
  The Bill which I now submit to your Lordships for a Second Reading legalises the giving of concessionary fares to the aged, to children, to students, to the blind and disabled and to members of local authorities engaged in the performance of their statutory duties; but it authorises concessions only where they were already being given in the year 1954 up to November 30, which was the date of the judgment in Prescott v. Birmingham Corporation. I emphasise the fact that the Bill legalises the status quo, but it does not authorise local authorities which are not now giving these concessions to do so. If they want to do so, they have the usual course open to them: that of consulting their ratepayers and promoting Private Bills. If there is any dispute about whether or not a concession given is truly a concession under this Bill, the matter is to be settled by the licensing authority. That carries us in the Bill up to subsection (3) of Clause 1.
  Subsection (4) of Clause 1 allows local authorities to pay for concessions granted on vehicles operated in their areas by neighbouring local authorities. Subsection (5) allows the general rate fund to be used for paying for these concessions. Subsection (6) covers the case of joint undertakings. Subsection (7) takes jurisdiction over concessions to these particular persons out of the hands of the licensing authorities. Subsection (8) is an indemnity clause. Clause 2 provides that expenditure of this nature will be out of purely local funds and will not attract Government grant. Clause 3 is an interpretation clause, Clause 4 applies the Bill to Scotland, and Clause 5 provides that it shall not apply to
  704
  Northern Ireland. In the Schedule is set out the procedure for getting a certificate from local authorities that a concession in operation is one duly covered by the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  3.3 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Lords, as the noble Lord who introduced this Bill has rightly said, it started life with an honourable Member of another place as father; and before I make any comment on the Bill itself, I think it would be without impropriety if I said that there are thousands and thousands of people in this country who will be grateful to that honourable Member for producing this Bill for legalising the concessionary fares that have been granted by many municipalities to the classes of people mentioned by the noble Lord. But the Bill as it now reaches your Lordships' House is somewhat different from the Bill produced in another place. I think the Bill and the history of the Bill provide a good example of the peculiar method by which Her Majesty's Government have dealt with various pieces of legislation. It is a case of Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing.
  When this Bill was introduced in another place it had three clauses of substance. The first clause gave the right to municipalities to run contract carriages. When I tell your Lordships that this Bill was in its first stages in another place at precisely the same time as the Road Traffic Bill was going through your Lordships' House, you will see that the situation was quite Gilbertian. In one Bill—this Bill—in another place, the Government strenuously opposed the right of local authorities who operated a transport service to use it to the best possible and most economic advantage by running contract carriages, while in your Lordships' House the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, produced a Bill which opened the doors of contract carriage operation wide to everybody in the country with the exception of the municipalities. If that is not a contradiction in terms, I do not know what is. It is a sample of the slipshod legislation to be seen in one or two Bills which I could name—but I

  705
  will not detain your Lordships by naming them—which Her Majesty's Government have tried to foist upon an unsuspecting populace.
  The arguments that were advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in another place against granting to municipalities who were operating transport services the right to run contract carriages was based upon the view that these wicked municipalities who had access to rate funds might subsidise the rate of hire of contract carriages in order to cut out private enterprise. I think most of your Lordships know that in many towns in this country private enterprise, and not the municipalities, runs the bus services. British Electric Traction, the biggest private enterprise bus service in the country, runs the bus services in exactly the same way as they would be run by municipalities, but it also has the right to run contract carriages. I do not think it was argued by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, but it has been argued, that one of the reasons why contract carriages should be curtailed on the one hand is the impact which they might make on the stage carriage services of this country. In other words, if the stage service contractor has to run unremunerative services, he wants contract carriage business to put a little butter on the ever-drying piece of bread. That was the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary in another place: that we could not increase competition by allowing municipalities to make the most economic use of their bus services, although we know that all bus service operators, including municipalities must have perhaps 60 per cent. of their fleets idle during the off-peak hours in order to give a proper and adequate service in peak hours.
  But the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when he introduced the Road Traffic Bill, by Clauses 20 and 21 opened the door wide to private enterprise to run contract carriages to their hearts' content, without any licensing and without any restriction. According to the clause in the Road Traffic Bill—a Bill which went through your Lordships' House with more opposition than any Bill has suffered for quite a long time, and then died a well deserved death half way between this House and another place—no concerns need have a licence to run a contract carriage service, but could run a contract carriage service
  706
  to their hearts' content; their fares were not to be regulated by the licensing authority, and they need not have a public road service. That applied to all, except, of course, a municipality, and that, as I say, was prohibited because of the peculiar argument that was put up in another place. So—I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I use the only expression that comes to my mind—a little accommodation, a little blackmail or bribery, call it what you will, was quite legitimately enacted. That clause had to be dropped by the promoter of the Bill in another place in order to ensure that Clause 3 survived. Perhaps in the not too distant future there may be an opportunity to have that matter put right.
  I think it is a scandalous thing that when the Government have always argued that competition is the breath of enterprise, the only people in the public transport world they should seek to restrict are municipal people. Why should a municipality be prohibited from using its transport to the best advantage, so saving its ratepayers money, as opposed to allowing the British Electric Traction to run their service to the best advantage for the benefit of their shareholders? I expect the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, could ride me off quite successfully by saying that I am now discussing something that is not in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Hear, hear!
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl says "Hear, hear!", but on Second Reading one is allowed to discuss all those things that one thinks should be in the Bill and were in the Bill when it was originally introduced. Therefore, although I am not within the approbation of the noble Earl, I am at least within the rules of order of your Lordships' House. I expect that the question I have asked is beyond even the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to answer.
  The second clause that was in the Bill originally has also gone the way of all flesh. When we seek to follow the excellent example of the Government to "set the people free," we are frustrated. The second clause that was in the Bill originally was a clause to free the British Transport Commission, the taxpayers' own concern, from the prohibition to run contract carriage services. The nice distinction between a concern that is owned by

  707
  the taxpayers and one owned by the ratepayers was not observed, and that had to be taken out of the Bill in order to save Clause 3. Perhaps the grounds why the Government opposed that clause are more humorous than the others. The only excuse that the Parliamentary Secretary in another place could find was that the Government did not think it right that a major Act of Parliament, such as the Transport Act, 1953, should be amended by a Private Member's Bill. That, I suppose, was as good an excuse as any other at the time.
  Then we come to Clause 3. As originally in the Bill, Clause 3 gave all municipalities who were operating transport services the right to give concessionary fares. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, there were about ninety-six or ninety-seven who were giving concessionary fares to the blind, to the aged, to schoolchildren and to other folk, and in a test case in the courts that was held to be ultra vires. The promoter of the Bill in another place, Mr. Short, the honourable Member for one of the divisions of Newcastle on Tyne, sought to give all municipalities permissive powers to give these concessionary fares if they so desired. But that was far too much for the Government, and they whittled it down to the ninety-six or ninety-seven who had given them before the introduction of the Bill in another place—which, if my memory serves me, was November 15 last year—and any other municipality who wished to give concessionary fares on the same grounds would have to promote a Private Member's Bill. I can only think that that was done to safeguard the last bastion of private enterprise—the legal profession.
  That is the history of this Bill: it is really a modified form of one clause of the Bill introduced in another place. But as it is, it is good; and we on this side of the House are going to give the Bill a Second Reading and facilitate its passage through this House before Parliament is dissolved at the end of this week. We think it is a valuable Bill and it may make a considerable contribution to the aged. I do not know what some of your Lordships will do, but in ninety-seven municipalities in this country, after this Bill becomes law, you will probably be able to ride in public transport at conces-
  708
  sionary fares. The Bill does not make any discrimination; it does not even have a means test.
  LORD HAWKE: I think you have to register at the town hall—which might be inconvenient to passers through.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should not think it would be inconvenient for some of your Lordships to save 50 per cent. of your fares. Noble Lords may be resident in the town and not passers through. If they are resident in the town, they can get their concessionary fares, just as today one can get a workman's ticket, even if one is dressed in a top hat and morning coat—but perhaps that is not altogether a bad thing, as we are all workmen, whether we work in your Lordships' House or in a factory. There is one point which I would commend to all the municipalities. The other day I came across an example of a concessionary fare which is most valuable. Perhaps the noble Lord will convey this suggestion to the Minister of Transport. In one town where concessionary fares are already in operation there is a central park, and the local authority are charging a fare of 1d. per child under fifteen years of age from anywhere in that town to the central park, the purpose being to get them off the streets into the park for play, and so to contribute to road safety. I understand that in that particular town the casualties have gone down considerably.
  There is only one question I want to ask the noble Lord. In one of the clauses in this Bill the statement is made that none of these concessionary fares is subject to grant. Do I understand that to mean that, for whatever purpose it is made, the concession comes out of either the profits of the transport department or the rate fund of the municipality? Is there not an exception in regard to concessions for children who are attending school? If a municipality puts on a bus service to take children at a concessionary fare from their homes to school, would that not come under a grant from the education authority? That is the only question I have to ask. With those observations we wish the Bill well. We promise that perhaps on some future occasion we shall try to do all those things which the first and original Bill

  709
  introduced in another place set out to do, and we hope your Lordships will give this Bill a speedy passage to the Statute Book.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, my original intention in speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill was to indicate briefly, at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations, some Amendments for your Lordships' consideration. But I have gathered that, even were Her Majesty's Government able to accept those Amendments, the time factor is such that it would endanger the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has said, we are in favour of the principles of the Bill, so far as they go, and it is our desire to facilitate its passage. Therefore one is not in a position to pursue the Amendments. However, that fact ought not, I think, to prevent one from protesting that your Lordships are not being given sufficient time to do what I think is the right thing in regard to this Bill—that is, to give adequate consideration to Amendments which we feel should be considered.
  I have been making some inquiries, and I find that of some thirty Bills which will, it is hoped, receive the Royal Assent, only one, the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, was introduced into your Lordships' House first. As my noble friend has said, it is true that the Road Traffic Bill was introduced in this House, but that Bill received such a mauling from both sides—being such a thoroughly ad Departmental Bill—that we hope we have heard the last of it. Not only was only one Bill introduced in your Lordships' House, but of the Amendments which this House made and considered to those thirty-odd Bills, only one was accepted. I understand that we are a Revising Chamber. If we go on as a revising Chamber of that kind we shall revise ourselves out of existence.
  I remember my noble and learned Leader Lord Jowitt making a protest on one occasion that this House was not given sufficient time to consider Bills, and that there was always a rush at the end of a Session. It is true that this Bill does not reach us in a rush at the end of a Session, but even this small Bill is not receiving adequate time for proper consideration. As my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has said, we shall do everything to facilitate the passage
  710
  of this Bill and nothing which would retard its progress through its various stages. I do not propose to pursue the Amendments to which I referred earlier, but I do protest at the fact that any attempt to consider Amendments which ought to be considered would endanger the Bill. I feel it right to make that protest.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had a good time—a brief and merry innings. He reminded us that many of us have a vested interest in these matters. Perhaps I should declare my interest, which is rather larger than that of most of your Lordships, because I have six children who come within the concessionary age group; but as we do not live in a municipally conducted transport area, up to now it is of no benefit. The question of contract carriages does not arise in this Bill. The noble Lord dealt very fully with them, and I must say he has caught me out, in that I did not listen to every word of the debate we had the other day on the Road Traffic Bill, though, so far as I am aware, he advanced to-day arguments which he did not advance then. I am not aware that in the course of the progress; on that Bill he proposed that local authorities should run their contract carriages. He may have done so, but, as I say, I am not aware of it.
  I do not think it would be right to accuse us of inconsistency. I should say the very reverse. We have at least been consistent throughout, because when adopting this Private Bill or any other legislation we have consistently opposed the running of contract carriages by municipalities. That may be Gilbertian—I think the noble Lord called it Gilbertian—but I am not sure whether consistency or inconsistency is Gilbertian. At any rate, it is consistent. The noble Lord is perfectly free to discuss anything in this House. We always do discuss anything, otherwise our debates would be rather shorter than they sometimes are. The noble Lord is entitled to an answer, I think, to the degree that I have given him. I am not prepared to take shelter behind the fact that there is nothing in the Bill about contract carriages, but at the same time I am not prepared to enter into a long discourse on a very complex subject when there is nothing in the Bill about it.

  711
  The other matter the noble Lord raised was the second missing clause, which was apparently to allow the British Transport Commission to operate contract carriages: in other words, to restore the status quo of the 1947 Act, whereby the London Transport Executive could have operated them. It was stopped from doing so by the Act of 1953. But I would remind the noble Lord that over a very wide field of road traffic the British Transport Commission do, in effect, operate contract carriages already, because they are the owners of Tilling and the Scottish Motor Transport group; and they are shareholders in others as well.
  The noble Lord's other main point was the question of the possibility of the provision of concessionary fares by local authorities who, at the moment, are not giving them. We believe that if their ratepayers wanted them to give them, they would be giving them now. There are long precedents for some of these concessions. They go back as far as twenty-five years. We think that those people who want to give them had a good opportunity to do so. In all local government procedure there is the old and tried case that when the authority want to take up some project which they have no power to do at the moment and which may be controversial, they shall go to their ratepayers and ultimately get private legislation passed. That, we think, is the right way to deal with this question. As adopted, this is not a Bill in which we seek primarily to amend the law; it is a Bill in which we really indemnify and make restoration to people who have had certain concessions taken away from them. Therefore, it would not be suitable to make far-reaching changes in the law in a Bill of this nature. The noble Lord also mentioned a point which was raised in Standing Committee in another place, about bringing children into the play parks by concessionary fares. I have no doubt that these things are being examined by local authorities. It is really for the local authority, rather than for the Minister, to initiate these matters. They know their own local position.
  The noble Lord asked me an important point and I shall reply to it as I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I
  712
  understood that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, was going to put down certain Amendments to this Bill. I was informed roughly of the substance of those Amendments. Had there been time, we should have accepted those Amendments in some form or another—not that we think that they are vitally necessary, because we believe they are not; but, at the same time, they would have clarified the Bill, and particularly the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised, whether the question of the cost of transport under an education scheme should, or should not, fall within this Bill.
  The procedure which I was going to suggest was that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, should put down his Amendments and, in reply to those Amendments, I should make a short statement so as to get on record precisely what the view of Her Majesty's Government was of the intentions and effect of this Bill, so that when it came to the question of the local authority audit, the local government auditor would at least know exactly what Her Majesty's Government intended by the Bill. Of course, he is not the last authority. If his decision is tested in the courts, that is a different thing. But I suspect that the right step is, first of all, to convince the local authority auditor. So, if the noble Lord would like to put down his Amendments and let me treat them in that way, I think it probably would be for the ultimate benefit of this Bill.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will make a reply to my specific question now.
  LORD HAWKE: The reply to the noble Lord's specific question is that it is not intended that any concessions under this Bill should be part and parcel of those under separate legislative procedure, such as the Education Act or the National Assistance Act. If there is a power to operate cheap fares under an education scheme which would attract a grant, it is not intended to detract in any way from the grant by the fact that the concessionary fares under this Bill do not attract a grant. It is not an easy matter to deal with, and I do not know whether I have made it clear. I shall certainly make it clear on the Committee stage, because the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will cover that point.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: All I ask is this. Paragraph (c) of Clause 1 (2) says, as regards a qualified person—that means a person who can have a concessionary fare—
  "persons whose age exceeds fifteen years but does not exceed eighteen years and who are undergoing full-time education."
  The question I ask the noble Lord is a very simple one: will the cost of granting concessionary fares to that category of person fall upon the rate fund, the profits of the transport undertaking or the education authority's grant in respect of the transport of young persons going to school? It is a simple question.
  LORD HAWKE: If the transport is provided under Section 55 of the Education Act, 1944, it is not a concession given by the transport undertaking but a facility bought by the local education authority and paid for by them. It attracts a grant of 60 per cent. Is that clear to the noble Lord?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No. Will all the young persons who are transported under this clause come within that definition as well? Or does the definition which the noble Lord has just given deal only with classes where there is specific transport provided for a specific purpose? We know that the transport provided under the education scheme is specific transport—for instance, buses specifically provided for children going to school. If the same children travel on public transport, transport provided for the ordinary class of passenger, at the concessionary fare, will the cost of the concession fall on the local authority?
  LORD BURDEN: May I put it in this way? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, can put me right. Would any local authority transfer to their transport undertaking the cost of conveying those school children, so that the whole cost would be borne by the ratepayers and the 60 per cent. grant of the Ministry of Education would be lost? That is really the point.
  LORD HAWKE: I am advised that it is not intended that this Bill should in any way detract from the grant received from the Ministry of Education or in any other direction.
  LORD BURDEN: That is right.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I understand the noble Lord to say that the cost of transporting children under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of Clause 1 will attract the grant and will not fall on the rate fund or on the profits of the transport undertaking. That is what I understand the noble Lord to say.
  LORD HAWKE: That is the intention of the Bill.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Good.
  LORD HAWKE: There may be borderline cases which are difficult to work, but that is the intention of the Bill.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord very much.
  LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord, Lord Burden, made one general point which it is not really for me to receive, but my noble friend the Leader of the House will, I know, read his remarks with interest, because it is a subject in which he takes a keen personal interest. I regret that the noble Lord's arithmetic has turned out quite as it has. I had not appreciated it.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [H.L.]
  Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.