Lords Sitting of 5 June 1956

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
prayers
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR IN SAUDI ARABIA
2.35 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether this country maintains an Ambassador in Saudi Arabia and, if so, why it is thought necessary to maintain an envoy of such rank at a post so inconsiderable and so hostile.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the United Kingdom does maintain an Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, since Her Majesty's Government are in diplomatic relations with the Saudi Arabian Government. As the noble Lord is aware, the practice of appointing Ambassadors only to a few great Powers has long since ceased to be observed. It is true that there are aspects of Saudi policy to which Her Majesty's Government take exception, but the existence of differences surely makes it more rather than less important that an Ambassador should be maintained in Jedda.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, is there not some danger that the whole status of Ambassadors may be debased by accrediting one to a régime of this kind?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as I have said in my original Answer to the Question, the number of Ambassadors has increased very largely. Her Majesty's Government, whose responsibility it is, consider that an Ambassador in Saudi Arabia is valuable for their purposes.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am not asking for any action at the moment, because I do not wish to embarrass the incumbent; but when his term expires, would it be possible to reconsider the question?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it is always possible to reconsider any question, but I do not hold out any very optimistic hopes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I raise a question? Can the noble Marquess tell us whether the diplomatic representation at Jedda of other Powers is of the same status as ours?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, there are certain other Powers which are represented on the same level as ourselves. I am not able offhand to give the exact number, but certainly there are other ambassadorial representatives.

CAPTURED GERMAN ARCHIVES
2.38 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to give an undertaking that they will not agree to the German archives which were captured by the Allies in 1945, and in particular the German Foreign Office Documents, being handed over to the Federal German Government without their being first micro-filmed.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the German archives captured in 1945 are held jointly by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government. All the principal archives of the German Foreign Office for the years after 1918 have been, or will be, microfilmed. A large number have already
706
appeared in the officially sponsored volumes of Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918–1945, and further volumes are due to appear in this series. It will also be possible, owing to the generosity of private sponsors, to microfilm all the more important documents of the German Foreign Office for the years before 1918, before they are returned to the Federal Government. The return of the Foreign Ministry archives to the Federal Government will be completed, under an arrangement recently concluded with the Federal Government, by the end of 1958. As regards the captured German documents which do not emanate from the German Foreign Office, microfilms of the great majority of them have already been made. No negotiations have yet taken place with the Federal Government about their return.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, may I thank the noble Marquess for his reply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a Question on Business. I received my Minutes of Proceedings for May 31 down in the country and then Business was as I left arranged with the Government Office last week. There was to be considered to-morrow a Motion by my noble friend Lord Ogmore on Welsh afforestation. This morning, on arriving at the House, I found that the Business has been entirely altered; that the Motion which was down for to-morrow has been withdrawn and the Motion which was to have been discussed to-day in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has been transferred to to-morrow—through no fault of the noble Lord, I am sure. As the arrangement about Wednesday had previously been discussed between the Government Office and myself, and as I had made a firm arrangement for it, I fail to understand why this rearrangement was not done through the usual channels. I hope that the noble Marquess knows that we want to facilitate Business all we can, but if it is to be done on the basis of real co-operation and amity, then I think we should slick to the usual channels.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS-BURY): My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked a Question of which he was good enough to give me notice. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, who conducted the actual negotiations, would himself like to explain exactly what happened. I would suggest that when he has done so, I should say anything more that has to be said.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, I must take full responsibility for this situation. I approached the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, earlier last week, suggesting that he might wish to postpone his Motion. He made it clear that he did not wish to do so. My reply was that I hoped that I should be able to give the answers to the sort of questions that were likely to be raised in the debate. Unfortunately, it was not until Friday that I was certain that I should not be able to give the kind of answers to which I think your Lordships would be fully entitled. I therefore got in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and asked him whether he would be prepared to postpone his Motion until such time as I was in a position to answer the questions which were likely to be asked. I appreciate that it was short notice, but unfortunately I was not in a position to say whether I could answer the questions or not until Friday.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two more before the noble Marquess replies. As I have already indicated, this matter had been under discussion before, through the usual channels, and we had decided that, although the request had been made to us, we must adhere to the taking of the Motion as on the Order Paper. We understood at that time that the debate would be replied to on behalf of the Government by the representative of the Home Office who answers on Welsh matters. It is curious to find that a separate approach is made on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, who, of course, is entitled to represent his office how he likes—that is not my business. The whole aspect of the situation seems to me to have completely changed. We never heard a word about not being able to answer questions
708
on afforestation, and notice of the Motion was given six weeks ago—two or three weeks with no date named and the last three weeks with a fixed date. We feel that we are not being quite rightly treated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount will realise that it was not the intention of the Government. As my noble friend has already explained, the point is that there turned out to be no possibility on this particular date of giving the House an adequate answer. If the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had felt that he wished to have his debate and was quite prepared to have no answer to it, then it was open to him, as it is open to any noble Lord, to say that he would stand by his date. I think the Government were in duty bound to tell the mover of the Motion that if he had his debate on this particular date he would get an inadequate answer, but that if he postponed it for a short time he would get an adequate answer. Where the pity comes in is that it was only so late that it was possible to give him that information. I can assure the noble Viscount that it will be my object, and I am sure the object of all noble Lords on the Front Bench, to see that it does not happen again. As my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn has explained, he did hope early last week to be able to justify the debate with the Government answer that would be given, and it was only further inquiries that convinced him that that was not the case. It is open to noble Lords on the other side of the House to proceed with a debate knowing that they will not get an answer from the Government; but that is not very satisfactory to the House.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, there is another aspect of this matter, in that not only the mover of the Motion but other noble Lords make arrangements to be here on a particular day. In this case that was so. They, too, are inconvenienced by this sudden withdrawal at so late a date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I say, frankly, that the notice was short; I am sorry that it happened, and I will do my best to see that it does not happen again.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Marquess has said, and I

709
am obliged to him for his answer. But when an Opposition is behind a Motion, as we are in this case, then we sometimes feel—and I have known it expressed in another place in the same way—that whether the Government are ready to answer or not, it may well be that the Opposition have something constructive to offer that may be of some help to the Government in making up their minds what they are going to do. I do not think we should be turned away from our determination, as we have been in this case, without the matter going through the proper channels.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it would have been open to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to say that he would rather not postpone, or that he felt that he ought to consult with the Leader of his Party. He did not do that. I am not complaining of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who was most helpful, but we were not bringing any pressure on the noble Lord, but merely informing him of the facts.

CHARITY OF FRANCES BARKER AND CERTAIN OTHER CHARITIES (CITY OF YORK) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be pointed.
CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL CHARITY AND CERTAIN OTHER CHARITIES (LUDLOW) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOSPITAL OF ROBERT EARL OF LEICESTER CHARITY (WARWICK) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SUTTON'S HOSPITAL (CHARTERHOUSE) CHARITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; react 1a, and to be printed.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

TRANSPORT (DISPOSAL OF ROAD HAULAGE PROPERTY) BILL
2.50 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Disposal of property to companies remaining under Commission's control]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in the proposed new subsection (1) (b), after "thirty-six thousand," to insert "three hundred and fifty-four" [tons]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name upon the Order Paper is a sequel to the Amendment I put down on the Committee stage to alter the maximum unladen tonnage limit of the vehicles which it had been decided should be handed to the British Road Services in consequence of a decision of the Government to alter the system of disposal. At that time, I had put down an Amendment to alter the maximum tonnage to bring the number of vehicles on an average unladen weight basis up to the number recommended by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, the Chairman of the Disposals Board—7,750. It was my view that if this tonnage were limited to 36,000 tons, as was stated in the Bill, eventually the British Road Services would get fewer vehicles than the 7,750 which they required to maintain the network of long-distance road haulage recommended to the Minister by the Chairman of the Disposals Board.
Your Lordships who were present in the House upon that date will remember that the Minister in charge of the Bill could not give the specific number which would fulfil the recommendation of the Chairman of the Road Haulage Disposals Board. I said that I would apply to the British Transport Commission for the number. I applied to them, and without any hesitation—as they said, there is no secrecy about this—they gave it to me, and it is the figure that I now wish to insert in the Bill of 36,354 tons. They further gave me the information that immediately the Chairman's report was received, the Ministry asked the British Transport Commission to designate the number of vehicles they required to fulfil what the Minister had said they should fulfil, and the unladen weight. The

711
British Road Services immediately designated the vehicles; they had them weighed, and submitted to the Ministry that the 7,750 road vehicles which they would require to maintain the network of long-distance haulage would come to an aggregate weight of 36,354 tons. For some reason, when the Bill was printed the figure of 7,750 vehicles was left in, but the aggregate unladen weight was altered to 36,000 tons, which meant, on the disclosure by the Minister in charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House in reply to a Question I asked a week ago, that if the British Road Services were required to keep within the aggregate of 36,000 tons, they could have only 7,649 vehicles. The total unladen weight of those vehicles is 35,991 tons and the Commission will then he 101 vehicles short of 7,750.
I think that that is grossly unfair to British Road Services. It is also a negation of the undertaking which the Minister gave in another place. I have here precisely what the Minister stated. On July 21, 1955, the Minister made a statement in another place, when he said in terms that the Government had decided to alter their disposal policy, and that British Road Services should retain a number of vehicles necessary to carry on the network of long-distance haulage. I need not go into the reasons for the Government change. I will be charitable enough to say that it was brought about by the pressure of the industrial and commercial interests of the country, who did not want to see the excellent service offered by British Road Services disintegrated further. This is what the Minister said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 544, col. 573]:
"In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have decided not to dispose of such vehicles as are required for the continuance of the trunk service network."
The Minister went on to say:
"Her Majesty's Government have asked the Chairman of the Disposals Board to advise them as to the number of vehicles"—
I emphasise "the number of vehicles"—
"required to be retained for this purpose over and above the total of 3.500 vehicles for all purposes already authorised for retention under the Act of 1953."
I read into that that the Minister had decided that the number of vehicle needed to be retained for the continuance of this network was based on the vehicles that
712
British Road Services were operating for that network on July 21, 1955.
Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, in his report, went fully into how the trunk network of British Road Services is made up, with the feeder services and the ancillary services—I need not weary your Lordships by reading the details—and he finished up by saying:
"I accordingly recommend that it would be reasonable to leave with the Commission 7,750 general haulage vehicles. The effect of this recommendation, if it is accepted, is set out in a table attached."
Surely, it is common sense to assume that when Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve on July 29, some few days after the Minister had made a statement, said that British Road Services should retain 7,750 vehicles, he meant 7,750 vehicles of a like nature that would carry on the trunk service network that existed at that time. In the paragraph previous to the one I have just read, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve said:
"I am asked to report to you in terms of vehicles, but the Amending Bill will presumably have to authorise tons of unladen weight."
I suppose Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve knew this. But when British Road Services were approached by the Ministry to say precisely what 7,750 vehicles would mean in weight, they immediately, or within a reasonable time, said that it would mean 36,354 tons. Why was that figure cut down? Why was it reduced to 36,000 tons, which meant that the British Road Services would be further curtailed and left with 101 vehicles fewer than the number that everybody took for granted they were going to have?
Another disturbing feature is that there had to be amending legislation and in between the two Bills there was a change of Minister. I think I should mention that to your Lordships, because perhaps the present Minister was landed with an unfortunate situation. But right the way through the whole of the proceedings in another place on the Bill which your Lordships have before you now—right through the Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading—it was never disclosed to Parliament that the number of vehicles handed over to the British Transport Commission to carry on their existing trunk services in this country would be other than 7,750. I think it is unfortunate, to say the least, that Parliament was misled.
It is obvious that it was misled, as I will show by quoting what the Minister in another place actually said. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill new before your Lordships, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 548, col. 1821]:
"The effect of the Bill will be to increase the number of general haulage vehicles left in the hands of B.R.S. from 2,350 to 7,750."
He did not say "7,750 or 36,000 tons aggregate unladen weight, whichever is the greater". The Joint Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
"This change is made by Clause 1, which provides for the taking over of this number of vehicles by companies under the control of the B.T.C. This figure was arrived at by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, who was asked to make an estimate of the number of vehicles needed to preserve the trunk services in being. The number of special A licences which B.R.S. will retain will be 7½ per cent. less than that number."
Your Lordships will have heard my argument when I moved an Amendment which was defeated in your Lordships' House on Committee stage. The 7½ per cent. was what I called the "mothball" fleet. It was 582, which was 7½ per cent. of the 7,750, and not 7½ per cent. of any other number. It was never disclosed that there would be a likelihood of another number. All the way through we get the same thing. Right the way through the Second Reading there is this 7½ per cent., which those of your Lordships who have followed the debate in another place will know was a great bone of contention—the 7½ per cent. which was always supposed to be under repair. The fact that the 7,750 vehicles would be limited to the aggregate unladen weight of 36,000 tons was never disclosed.
During the Committee stage in another place, the Minister answering an Amendment which had been moved, made the categorical statement that the granting of licences would be for the total number of lorries, 7,750, less 582—the 582 being the 7½ per cent. —never disclosing then that there might be a further reduction of one hundred or any other number if the 7,750 added up to more than 36,000 tons. Further, the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, when confronted with an Amendment moved from the Government side of the House to reduce the number of vehicles to 6,000 and the aggregate total unladen weight to 30,000— which, incidentally, was calculated on the
714
same basis as that which I erroneously took: an average of 5 tons unladen weight per vehicle—said, in turning down the Amendment:
"I am bound therefore to say that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment moved by my honourable friend because they regard the figure of 7,750 as being the best that can be provided."
Right the way through the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, it was never disclosed to Parliament that the number of vehicles to be handed over to B.R.S. would be computed at less than 7,750. Therefore, I do not think that I am exaggerating or over-stating the case when I say that it was unfortunate that Parliament was misled and was never told that the number would very likely be less unless, of course, B.R.S. had reduced the weight of the vehicles; I expect that with the limit of 36,000 tons they could have had 10,000 vehicles if they had attempted the ridiculous task of trying to carry on the trunk services of this country with 7 cwt. vans. That is my second point.
When the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replied to the Question that I asked him, whether he would set out—which he very kindly did—the number of vehicles which the British Road Services, having perforce to keep within the 36,000 tons, would retain, he stated that the number was 7,649, short by 101, and he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 197, col. 542]:
"The British Transport Commission, I have no doubt, would like to retain the 35,000 vehicles. The major complaint of the private road hauliers is that they have had an inadequate opportunity of buying in small numbers the large vehicles, and it is intended that they should have at least some opportunity of doing so."
I do not know whether I put the right construction on that, and the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is putting forward as a reason why the tonnage was altered from 36,354 to 36,000; British Road Services were to be forced to forfeit some of their larger vehicles so that these larger vehicles could go into the pool which would have to be disposed of when the Bill became law. That is the only construction I can put upon it. That was the reason for this diminution of the aggregate unladen weight. Before I quote the Minister's own words on this point I should like to ask the noble Earl why that information was not disclosed to

715
Parliament. Why did it have to come about as a result of a fortuitous inquiry from my unfortunately inquiring mind, as to why the figure of 36,000 tons was in the Bill? It would not have come out in your Lordships' House if I had not accidentally stumbled upon it. It was never disclosed in another place. Does the noble Earl think that the Government were being quite fair to Parliament in not disclosing it?
Now to deal with the noble Earl's reason, for I can only assume it is the reason, why overnight—because I believe that the night before the Bill was printed the 354 tons was erased from the 36,000 and the Bill was printed with the figure of 36,000 tons so as to give the private haulier the opportunity to buy some of the larger vehicles—this manœuvre (I do not use the word "manœuvre" in any derogatory sense) was thought of. In the Second Reading debate in another place, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport, referring to some of the complaints of the road hauliers that were expressed on the Committee stage here by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said that he had been at pains to find out the figures for these large vehicles. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 548, col. 1929]:
"Open A licences for British Road Services amounted to 3,718. Open A licences for independent operators were 3,881. In other words there was a perfect balance. There were just as many open A licences in the hands of the independent operators as in the hands of British Road Services. If one includes the contract A licences and the B licences, independent operators had 5,800 compared with 3,749 for British Road Services. As the right honourable Gentleman knows, these are the heavy lorries, the 12-tonners. This is where it is always contended that B.R.S. has an unfair lead over private interests. Those figures show that it is not so, and already a lively and expanding private enterprise part of the industry has not only caught up B R.S. but, indeed, surpassed it."
That is the Minister's answer to the charge that the independent haulier wanted more of the large vehicles. It is unfortunate, is it not, that here the Government have said, with sincerity—I have not yet had the temerity to doubt it too much—that what they want is to take politics out of this industry. If my surmise is correct—and it is not surmise that this information was withheld from Parliament—to me it savours of the worst type of political manœuvre and I really
716
do not think that the Government should do that.
Therefore I have put down this Amendment, first of all because I consider that the Government have gone back on the Minister's statement in another place on July 21, and secondly because they have not implemented Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve's definite statement that the Commission should retain 7,750 vehicles—and, in all sense, he means comparable with those they are operating to-day. If your Lordships would care to look at the statement you will see that attached to it is a most carefully worked out balance sheet, which shows that when these vehicles numbering 7,750, are handed over to the British Transport Commission there will still be left for disposal to the private haulier 2,295 vehicles. What is going to become of those vehicles if they are not sold is a matter for conjecture, and I expect it will be a matter of debate in your Lordships' House. We have always maintained, and maintain now, that the British Transport Commission should retain all the vehicles which remain unsold at the time when this Bill becomes law. There are 3,000 surplus vehicles, and if they are not sold evidently somebody will have to take them under their wing, and I expect it will be the British Transport Commission.
Those are my reasons for moving this Amendment, and I ask the Government to accept it on two grounds: because I think it is fair, and because it fulfils the Minister's pledge, which I have read out, and the undertaking which he gave. I think that this Bill should go back to another place with this Amendment incorporated in it, so that they can have the opportunity of considering this particular clause in the light of the information which has now come to light in your Lordships' House but which was withheld from another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, after ("thousand") insert ("three hundred and fifty-four").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.18 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has obviously

717
been to a great deal of trouble in examining this Amendment. Unfortunately, he has missed at the very beginning two absolutely fundamental points which put a completely different light on practically everything that he has said. The first quite plain thing is that the Commission are perfectly free to select the number of vehicles they want, provided that they do so within the statutory limits of weights and numbers. If two sets of conditions and figures are put into a Bill it is quite obvious that it is possible to fulfil one but not always the other; it does not necessarily mean that both are fulfilled. up to the hilt.
The second point is this. There is no mathematically calculated and definable fleet which can reasonably at any time be called the trunk fleet. There were in some cases a number of vehicles in the same depôt—some of them doing long distances, some of them doing short distances, and some doing both. The figure quoted by the noble Lord was quite specifically stated not to be a mathematical figure at all. In those circumstances, it was quite clear that what we have reached here is a compromise figure, which is intended reasonably to fulfil the purposes of the Bill. But what I should like to say is this. After these most exhaustive inquiries, and having examined every source he cart, and having obtained a large number of statistics from me in this House, the noble Lord has apparently come to the conclusion that the addition of another 350 tons to the maximum permitted would be the right amount. That is 1 per cent. of the figure already in the Bill. If the Minister's decision as to the size of the trunk service is within 1 per cent. of being right, then he has done extremely well. If we all got 99 per cent. of what we wanted I think we should all be extremely happy in this life. And, so far as I can see, that is what the noble Lord is complaining of.
This Bill is almost wholly in favour of the Commission. It increases the size of the Commission's fleet by about three times, and considerably increases the average weight of vehicles in that fleet. The criticism levelled against Her Majesty's Government is that we have given inadequate consideration to small hauliers. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, should have pointed out that we have not given the Commission everything they wanted. We
718
have given them very nearly, but not quite, everything they wanted. Bearing in mind the basis on which these calculations are made, the number of vehicles is a matter which the Commission must themselves decide. There is no specific and identifiable trunk fleet as such, and as the noble Lord has shown, we have come extremely near to what is a fair compromise between the small haulier and the Transport Commission. We do not intend that the Transport Commission should have a monopoly in the long-distance haulage field, but it is fair to point out that under our proposals their fleet will be about fifty or sixty times as big as that of any one of their competitors. That puts them in an extremely strong position. I feel therefore, that what has been done in the Bill is a fair and just compromise to meet the requirements we have in mind. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, because I feel that this point is not worth pressing further.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, as always, we have had a very cheerful and clever debating speech from the noble Earl who is doing a lot of good work in the House. We always like to hear him speak, but on this occasion he has not persuaded me as to the real position. He says that the Bill is almost wholly in favour of the Commission; I fail to sec that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: But it is.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I know that could be argued on the allocations in the Bill, but what is the reason for the Bill? It is because you failed to sell anything like the number of vehicles you anticipated and this is your method of dealing with unsold stocks. We had better get a right perspective of the original meaning of this Bill. Speaking from memory, I have an idea that the total number of vehicles left in the pool at the moment is nearer 8,500 than 7,750; so, with 101 vehicles being knocked off the 7,750, Her Majesty's Government are now to try to dispose of well over 850 further vehicles to private interests. I fail to understand why this should not have been fully disclosed all the way through. I am quite sure that had that been done, the fight would have been much hotter than it was in another place. That would have been the result if the facts we have learned

719
in this House had been fully revealed to Members in another place.
When the noble Earl falls back on percentages, and says that the difference is only 1 per cent., I recollect that on a previous occasion my noble friend called attention to the fact that with such a fleet there are always hundreds of vehicles out of action under repair. The loss of 101 vehicles from the original estimate of 7,750 looks a lot worse when put in relation to the number of vehicles that must be spared as being out of action to be given proper overhaul and maintenance. If, on the highest basis, one has a figure between 500 and 600, and then lops off 101 from the total promised by the Chairman in the Report of the Inquiry then the Transport Commission are not being treated at all fairly. The whole attitude of the Government towards road transport in the last three or four years is quite indefensible. In the end, because it proved impossible to sell elsewhere, some of the vehicles had to be restored to the Transport Commission. The Government are beginning to try to undo the damage done to the general transport industry of the country—including the railways; but too late. It has been done by the exercise of a political dogma. As Her Majesty's Government must know full well, it is the kind of thing which
would have to be put wholly right if there should be a change in the composition of the Government as a result of any future Election, and not fiddled with, as it has been in this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I exercise my right to reply only to point out to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, his very great error. I did not lose sight of any fundamental points. I agree that the figure is 7,750 vehicles, or any number for which the British Transport Commission opt, so long as the total does not exceed 36,000 tons unladen weight. Why was that not disclosed in another place?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There was nothing to disclose.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Nothing to disclose? The fact that the British Transport Commission were to be cheated out of 101 vehicles was not worth disclosing? That makes my point clear, and instead of withdrawing my Amendment I shall have to ask your Lordships to express your opinion in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Chorley, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Lucan, E.[Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Faringdon, L.

Mathers, L.[Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kenswood, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Hall, V.

Kershaw, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Latham, L.

Quibell, L.

Amwell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Silkin, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V.(L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Colyton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Conesford, L.

Salisbury, M,(L. President.)

Swinton, E.

Croft, L.

Denham, L.

Sutherland, D.

Devonport, V.

Digby, L.

Furness, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Goschen, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hudson, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Reading, M.

Leathers, V.

Gifford, L.

Willingdon, M.

Margesson, V.

Glyn, L.

Monsell, V.

Hampton, L.

Coventry, E.

Templewood, V.

Hawke, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Hore-Belisha, L.

Halifax, E.

Aberdare, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Howe, E.

Allerton, L.

Leconfield, L.

Munster, E.

Barnby, L.

Lloyd, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Selborne, E.

Clitheroe, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Raglan, L.

Saltoun, L

Strathclyde, L.

Rochdale, L.

Sandford, L.

Templemore, L.

Rockley, L.

Sandys, L.

Teviot, L.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to according.
Clause 6:
Supervision and control of disposal of property, etc.
(2) The Minister may give such directions as he thinks fit to the Commission as to the exercise by them of their powers (whether conferred by this Act or not) as holders of any of the securities of any company to which property has been made over by them under section five of the Transport Act, 1953, and of any powers conferred on them by name under the articles of association of any such company, being directions designed to procure either—

(a) a reorganisation or alteration of the securities of the company; or

(b) the inclusion on the board of the company of directors named by the Minister, not being a majority of the directors thereof.

(4) If the Board is abolished before all the vehicles held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking (other than vehicles falling to be retained by the Commission) have been disposed of, the Minister may from time to time nominate one or more persons to make to him a report giving particulars, in such detail as he may require, of the vehicles forming part of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking which had been disposed of up to a date specified by the Minister, of the manner in which those vehicles had been so disposed of, of the vehicles, if any, which remain to be disposed of at that date or fall to be retained by the Commission, and of such matters connected with the matters aforesaid as the Minister may require.
3.37 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHhad given notice of two Amendments to subsection (2), the first being to leave out the word "either" and the second to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' permission, I should like to deal with the Amendment at page 8, line 7, and the Amendment at page 8, line 9, together, as they are really one. I want to return to the power given in this Bill to the Minister to give directions to procure
"the inclusion on the board of the company of directors named by the Minister, not being a majority of the directors thereof."
As your Lordships will remember, this provision deals rather exclusively with the
722
parcels and meat companies. I was very much impressed by the appeal that was made by the noble Lords, Lord Glyn and Lord Hurcomb, in support of what I said and the arguments which I used. I have really put these Amendments down for two reasons. One is to see whether those words of wisdom have made any imprint upon Her Majesty's Government. I could hardly expect any words of mine to have any impression, but I thought that perhaps Lord Glyn and Lord Hurcomb might be listened to with some respect.
I should also like, with very great respect, to answer one of the points made by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, who spoke in favour of this clause and said one or two things which I feel I cannot allow to pass without reply, I want to assure the noble and learned Viscount that, so far as I am concerned, if I have been defeated in debate I shall always do my best to see that that upon which I have been defeated is carried on in the national interest as I see it. The noble and learned Viscount said that he had been "at the other end of the gun." I am now "at the other end of the gun," and it is not because of any political ideology that I oppose this particular provision. It is due to my experience in commerce and industry, which has extended over the whole of my working life.
I wish to tell the noble and learned Viscount this, if I may put it with all respect—I know he will appreciate that it is sincere. There is a fundamental difference between us. As members of your Lordships' House, we stand in the same position in respect of these companies, when they are formed after this Bill has become law, as a committee representing the debenture holders, because until they are sold, the taxpayers are in the position of shareholders or debenture holders guaranteeing the whole of the money which has been at risk ever since nationalisation. I view it as my responsibility to do the best I possibly can for those who now own the company. From what the noble and learned Viscount said, it appeared to me that his view is that, once Parliament has decided that these companies shall be sold, his

723
responsibility is to see that they are sold; and that his responsibility is far more to the buyer of these companies than to the taxpayers, who are the sellers. That is how I interpret what he said. And that is where we fundamentally disagree.
If I wanted to prejudice the price I could get for any company I own, I could not do better than invite the buyer on to the board before the price had been agreed. That would be entirely foreign to every business instinct I have. Here the Minister has definitely stated that the object of using his power to put directors on the board—whether a minority or majority does not matter at all—is to appoint directors who will be (to use his own words as nearly as I can remember) "acceptable to the City"—who will be the buyers. I cannot think of anything in my experience that would prejudice more the obtaining of the best possible price for these companies in the market. The noble and learned Viscount may have moved in different commercial circles, but that has been my experience. I cannot think for one moment that these directors can do the slightest good.
The noble and learned Viscount said that the object is to ensure continuity. In a matter like this, continuity of directors is not worth a row of beans. What we want is continuity of the senior executive staff. If I were buying a company, I should not buy a bunch of directors: I should buy the brains of the company. And I have always found that the brains of the company lie with the senior executive staff. I can imagine no greater disincentive in any company, whether it is publicly or privately owned, than to fill the board with "guinea pigs"—I use this term without offence; it is a common expression—and not to see that the board is filled with men who have risen from the bottom. When it comes to personnel, that is a valuable asset of the business: not the people who agree to "take over" bids and all the paraphernalia of financial shenanigans which go on over these things and of which we have had a surfeit in this country over the last two or three years.
I should think that, when this company is formed, there will be a different managing director from the one they have now, because at the present time the general manager happens to be the
724
late chairman of the Road Haulage Executive. I should think that he will remain with British Road Services, and that they will immediately appoint another managing director and other directors who are "acceptable." What more attractive proposition for any buyer could there be than a board of directors like that, which, as the Minister has said, will operate for a number of years until the company is a really saleable proposition, with its shares of high value? I ask the noble and learned Viscount to believe in my sincerity. I am out to sell the company for the best price. I have been in commerce all my life and that is my golden rule: to sell for the best price. That is the only object I have in asking your Lordships to accept these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, leave out ("either").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for not delaying your Lordships by a discussion of the merits and demerits of the sale of the companies. Very properly, he has confined himself to the one point which he says he has in mind here—that is, that the companies, if and when sold, should be sold at the best price. I quite agree with that. It is purely a practical question. I think it is fair to say that there are two ways in which a company of this sort is likely to be sold. With great respect to the noble Lord, I think he has in mind only one of these ways. The one of which I think he has probably more experience is the purchase by a group of some kind or another of the whole company. That is the sort of straightforward sale, as it were, "over the counter" which I think the noble Lord clearly has in mind, and of which probably his own commercial experience provides him with the greatest knowledge. In these circumstances I would not disagree with him that probably it would be entirely unnecessary to appoint any directors under this subsection of the Bill. I think that if we put in an accountant to examine the accounts, and perhaps an engineer to examine the quality of the mechanism of the vehicles, that would be all that would be required.
There is, however, a second method—sale by an issue to the general public. It is not feasible to ask the general public to

725
subscribe unless they know the names of the directors who are going to act as trustees of the money which they subscribe. That is laid down in detail in the Companies Act. If this method were adopted, we should have to proceed by something in the nature of issuing a prospectus. In this case the directors could not very well be appointed by the British Transport Commission, because their whole future would be with the Commission.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not necessarily.
THE EARL, OF SELKIRK: I accept that—not necessarily. But at all events extremely probably, because, as the noble Lord is aware, this is not the only road haulage company of the Commission; and it may well be that there will be directors appointed by the Commission to more than one of their companies, for most of them are staying with the Commission. That is really the point. The public would be asked to subscribe to a company whose directors would be changed as soon as the subscriptions had been paid. That is really the nature of the problem which appears to us to make it essential, in order to get the best price, to have directors outside the Commission who will, in fact, continue to be directors of the company. I do not think there is any other way of doing it, if we adopt the method of issuing to the public. I can say that the true interest of the Commission is that they should have directors who can get the best price, and, frankly, if we are to proceed by the second method which I have in mind, I do not think there is any other way of doing it.
I do not think that there is any conflict of duty between directors of this character. They have a clear interest, as all directors have, to see that the company is running as well as possible. It is only in that condition that the company will be of most value to the Commission and that the best price will be obtained by its being of more interest to anyone who wants to buy. If the noble Lord has in mind the fear that directors will be appointed who, if I may quote what the noble and learned Viscount said, are going to practise concealment, or to hide something, or to pretend that something is there that is not there, then he has in
726
mind a situation that we cannot provide for by Statute. If a director does not fulfil his duties as a trustee, it is true that there may be chicanery; but with any director fulfilling his duty as a trustee there should be no conflict of duty whatever. I do not think we are any great distance apart. As I told the noble Lord, we are not necessarily going to use these powers. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I did not intend to ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment, because there is a sincere difference of opinion, but it may be useful if I add a word or two more. The noble Earl has made my case. Any director who is appointed of the type the Minister envisages, or has given tongue to, would never bind himself to the service of that company as I feel it is necessary for him to bind himself. If I were the Chairman of the Commission, I should see that there were appointed to this parcels company directors who, when they had done their two or three years and made the company a success, would bind themselves by agreement to serve it for a specified number of years. If I were buying a company that had three or four directors—a managing director, a general manager and another director—who had been with the company for five years, and had turned it into a first-class profit-earning concern, and they were willing to bind themselves for a period of another five years, I should be prepared to offer a far bigger price for it than for a company with a board adorned by one or two gentlemen from the City who, for some reason that I have failed to understand, seem to be attractive to possible subscribers of money. No one of that type would ever bind himself to serve the company for a specified number of years.
That is the difference of opinion. With great respect to the noble Earl, I say that what he is doing is arguing from some kind of theory of what he would like to happen with these appointed people, while I am arguing from hard practical experience. However, we shall see whether the power is invoked; and if it is, we shall perhaps have an opportunity of debating it again. With your Lordships' permission, I will now withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.55 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have had the opportunity of telling the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I have put this Amendment down only for information; and as this is the last Amendment on the Report stage, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Earl for what he has done. He and I have had a number of conversations behind the scenes about this Bill, and he has, as usual, been most helpful. I told him that I would put down this Amendment to remove this subsection purely to ask him one or two questions.
What I should like to know, first, is this. As this particular subsection deals with the Commission in the event of a dissolution of the Disposals Board—and under the terms of the Transport Act, 1953, the Board can be dissolved at any time, at the wish of the Minister—and as their job now appears to be done, will the noble Earl tell the House when it is the Minister's intention that the Disposals Board shall be disbanded? I do not want him to specify a date, but to say approximately. Your Lordships will recollect that the transport levy ends upon the last day of this year. I am not going to discuss the levy. I did not put down again the Amendment on compensation, because that was the subject of one of the conversations I had with the noble Earl, and he made out a good case for his point of view. If the Disposals Board is in existence after the end of the year, and the levy is stopped, then the whole expense of the Disposals Board will fall upon the British Transport Commission, and therefore the taxpayer. I do not think that is right.
I should like to ask the noble Earl to answer me one more question, if he will. What has been the cost of the Disposals Board to date? I do not know whether he can give me that information; I gave him notice that I should ask this question, but he may have forgotten. I do not want to know just the salaries and the expense accounts of the members of the Disposals Board, because I do not suppose that would amount to a great sum. I would hazard that the whole of the work of the Disposals Board has cost a great deal of money, and the bulk of the administration expenses—and, I suppose,
728
that of the clerical staff, and everything else—has had to be borne by the British Transport Commission, as it has been carried on by their staff. I am sure the British Transport Commission can dispose of 2,000 lorries, and they are the only ones that remain to be disposed of, now that we have agreed that they are to have 7,750, less 101; and it will not take a grandiose organisation to do that. If they are not disposed of, then we can deal with that matter at a later date. I warn the Government that we shall keep a watchful eye on how they are disposed of and on the price realised. If the noble Earl can give me that information, so that your Lordships can have it ever present in your minds, I shall be grateful, beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said about me and to assure him that I am always at his disposal if I can help on any of these matters. The figure that he has asked for, of the cost of the Disposals Board, from its taking of office up to the present time, is £54,800.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Total?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Including any expense to which the Commission has been put in clerical and administrative work?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, I do not think so. I think it is covered under a different heading of the levy, but I should like to reserve that answer. The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would have only one effect, and that is to prevent the Minister from appointing a person—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not going to press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, but perhaps the noble Lord will not mind an explanation. As a matter of fact, the Disposals Board can be abolished under the 1953 Act, and in any case the Minister automatically takes the place of the Disposals Board under that Act. What the noble Lord is interested in is when the

729
Disposals Board is going to be abolished. I cannot satisfy his curosity entirely in the matter, in the sense that I am not able to give a precise date. But if I were to say that it was likely to end before the end of this year, that would be a grossly excessive conservative estimate. What I can say is this. The Board will be issuing, in a matter of days, a further list of transport units for sale, and we think that this is likely to be the last sale of transport units, though it is true there may be a sale of some chattels after that date. As we see it at the moment, the Board will then have to make a final report and wind up its affairs, and I do not think that will take a long time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I take it that it is not the intention to keep the Disposals Board in existence until the last of this new list is sold. It may be six months or the middle of next year before the 2,000 odd vehicles, of which this list is comprised, are sold. The Board, I take it, will not have to be kept in existence until the last vehicle in this list is sold.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would not bind myself. I think this list will be the last sale of transport units. I am afraid that I cannot anticipate when the sale will take place. I have no information on that, but I do not think it will be long. I think the idea is that, after the sale, the Board will be gradually wound up, and the remaining chattels will he disposed of by the Minister. That is the broad picture, but I do not want to be tied too closely to the precise form that it will take. The noble Lord can be absolutely assured that there is no chance, so far as one can possibly anticipate, that the Disposals Board will continue on until next year, so there is not the slightest cause to be anxious that any unnecessary cost will fall to the Transport Commission. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. He is getting more and more forthcoming. Perhaps he is rehearsing for next week when we have the Road Traffic Bill. With those observations, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

OCCASIONAL LICENCES AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HOTEL PROPRIETORS (LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS) BILL
4.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the House decides on this Motion I should like to say a word and ask the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, whether he would be good enough to defer the taking of the Committee stage for a reasonable period. The Second Reading took place a week ago to-day. On that occasion I spoke and made it clear to the House that I, personally, took the view that this was a Bill which required close examination. It involves a number of difficult legal points, many of which have come before the courts without getting decisive results. The Bill itself was based upon a legal decision which it was sought to modify or revoke, and there were a great many points, some of which I set out in my speech, which require to be dealt with. To my surprise, I found that the Committee stage was put down for today. We met last Tuesday, and for the following day I, personally, in common with other Members of this House, had accepted an invitation to go to Harwell, a visit which. I may say, I enjoyed and profited by very much. But that became a dies non. One's desire is always to give to the promoter of the Bill adequate time to consider Amendments, and that left one effective day to go into the whole of this complex question. Frankly, I have not been able to do it. If we took the Committee stage to-day it would become a farce. I have put down a few Amendments, but the Bill requires far more examination and far more legal investigation than I have so far been able to give it.
For those reasons, I hope very much, in the interests of orderly and effective scrutiny of Bills that come before this

731
House, that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will see his way not to take the Committee stage to-day. I may say that if he finds he is unable to do so, then I, personally, would feel that it would be better that I should withdraw from any consideration of the Bill and not move such Amendments as I have down, as I would rather do that than take part in an ineffective and inadequate examination of the Bill.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, whilst I am always anxious to try to meet the wishes of those who take an interest in these Bills, I feel that there is a considerable difficulty in agreeing to the noble Lord's request. May I remind the House that this is not a matter which has been sprung upon anybody? It arises out of a Report of a Committee which reported over two years ago. The Bill has been passed through another place where, on the Committee stage, it was not amended at all, and on the Report stage I believe one Amendment was passed. So there were no great difficulties arising on that score.
There is another consideration, and that is that this is a Private Member's Bill, and, therefore, if it is amended at all in your Lordships' House—and I am one of those who want it to be amended—the question will arise whether there will be time in another place for our Amendments to be there considered. It is now June and not so many weeks until the end of the Session. As your Lordships are well aware, time is not so easily forthcoming in another place for the consideration of Amendments made here. Furthermore, the noble Lord—although I cannot criticise him for this—did not make known to me his request until about half an hour ago. Several other noble Lords besides himself have no doubt come here to-day prepared to discuss, and willing to discuss, the Amendments which have been put down on a Marshalled List. Therefore, with considerable regret, I am disposed, I am afraid, not to agree with the noble Lord's request. I know that I am complying with the Standing Orders of the House in putting down the Committee stage a week after the Second Reading. That being within the Standing Orders, it is evidently considered that at any rate in some cases a week is sufficient. It is not really a very big Bill, although I
732
appreciate that it is technical and that there are Amendments which members will wish to move. I am willing to be guided by what other noble Lords want to do about this matter, but, at the moment, I much regret that I do not feel inclined to agree.
4.11 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have little to add. I do not think the noble Lord is serious when he suggests that I have had two years in which to go into this question. I have had one week, and that is the week since the Second Reading was agreed to. One is under no obligation, and certainly one is not expected, to consider Amendments to a Bill until it has had its Second Reading. The fact that it was not amended seriously in another place may even be an argument for examining this Bill much more closely in this House. We in this House have often found things that ought to be amended but which another place had not amended. There are a great many examples of that. I do not want to weary the House, but I have a considerable list of items which I think need careful examination and on which I am not ready to move Amendments. If the noble Lord wishes to insist upon taking the Bill to-day, of course he is perfectly free to do so. In that case, I shall be forced to put this Bill in my pocket and leave him to get on with it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am in a no more favoured position in regard to a matter of procedure than any other individual member of your Lordships' House but I am very anxious indeed that we should have the advantage of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to this Bill. If I may say what is not strictly in order, I agree with him that the points he has raised are points of importance. For instance, there is one as to whether a hotel proprietor should be entitled to contract out of the provisions of the Bill; and, if he can, how far he can contract out—whether it should be a contracting out from strict liability or a contracting out from liability as a bailee. That raises a point which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, would want to have considered between the Committee and Report stages, because it is a point of great importance, not only to hotel proprietors but to those who use hotels.

733
If I may descend to a point of great practicability—I am speaking entirely for myself here—I am also attracted by Lord Silkin's suggestion of putting the notices in the bedrooms in addition to the other parts of a hotel. That seems to me an important and highly practical point. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would help us here. Whatever may be the strict position as to the discussion in another place of Amendments from your Lordships' House, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Parliamentary programme in another place is very tight. He himself has been a Minister and knows that that is almost invariably so towards the middle of June. It is so this year. It would be an advantage—I do not want to put it too high— if this Bill could be discussed on the last day of Private Members' time in another place, which is, I think, June 15.
I wonder whether the noble Lord would, in order to help us, adumbrate his points. So far as I am concerned—it is a matter for the House and for the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, rather than for me—I should certainly advise the House between Committee and Report stages to give sympathetic consideration to any points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. That would give him another week in which to look at it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and I myself would be pleased to see him in the meantime and discuss any points. I am sorry to put the noble Lord to any inconvenience, but it would be most helpful from the point of view of getting this Bill through. As I said on Second Reading, it is important that these recommendations of the Law Reform Committee should not be pigeon-holed but should be put into operation when both Houses approve. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whether he will help us to that extent, on the understanding that we shall be more than usually ready to consider his points between Committee and Report stages.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is always difficult to resist the blandishments of the noble and learned Viscount. I want to be helpful. My difficulty is that I have a number of points which I have not formulated at all; I have not had the opportunity of formulating them by Amendments or clarifying my own mind on them and ascertaining whether, in fact, there are Amendments which I ought to put
734
down. For instance, I am not at the moment clear on one very simple thing. A man and his wife come to an hotel and the luggage of both is lost. To whom is the hotel proprietor liable? Is he liable both to the person who is the guest and also in respect of the wife's luggage? I do not know whether there is an easy answer to this question. That is only one example of a great many that I should have liked to look into, but I really have not had the opportunity of doing so. I could formulate a good many more: for instance, the question of contracting out, as the noble and learned Viscount has said. I should be perfectly willing to give to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, the ideas—and that is all they are at the moment—which I have in mind, but I could not put down Amendments until some later date.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, offered to give an extended time to the Report stage. I should be willing to curtail that if I could have the additional time for the Committee stage. I myself would be prepared to have the Report stage taken as soon as it may be convenient to the noble Lord, so that, in the aggregate, the amount of time taken would be the same. But, while I am willing to do everything to facilitate the Business of the House, as I am sure your Lordships know, I find it difficult to deal adequately with this matter to-day, before I am really ready for it.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may speak again—I am not sure whether I really ought to—may I say that the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned the time factor. It may be that it ought not to be so, but it is so, that we have to study the time factor in relation to Bills which have to go back to another place. I think it was the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who said that this was deplorable. I feel that most of us would agree that that is so, but it is a fact which we have to face. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, if we cannot get this Bill back to another place by June 15, there is a danger, to be quite frank about it, that it may not be able to get through this Session. I do not want to hide anything from your Lordships, but that is the fact. Therefore, I should like to have the Committee stage to-day and the Report stage a week to-day. That would enable the Bill to go

735
back to another place before the day which I understand is the last day upon which it has a chance of being considered.
4.20 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, if I may add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Silkin, as one who has taken a certain interest in this Bill I would express my own anxiety to hear his points in greater detail. I do not think that any vague formulation or adumbration of them to-day could possibly be as enlightening or as helpful as considered Amendments on the Paper. I appreciate Lord Merthyr's difficulties, and I see the necessity of getting this Bill back to another place by a certain date. I cannot myself estimate the exact urgency of this need, but I have no doubt that, from the point of view of those interested in this particular Bill, it would be much better if the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, could see his way to postpone the Committee stage.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I too had in mind many of the considerations that have operated in the minds of other noble Lords who have spoken. With some experience of another place and the difficulty that can be caused if Bills come too late, I very much hope that what I thought to be the most reasonable proposition of my noble friend on the Woolsack will be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to speak again, I do not know whether, on the basis that I put forward, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would be prepared to continue to-day. Frankly, I am most anxious for the Bill to go on, but the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, helps us so much on so many points that it fills me with complete dismay that he should not be ready to help us on the Bill. I hope that he will be able to go some way. If he cannot, then I am sure that we should all want to consider the position. It will make difficulties, and I hope he will be able to help.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, of course I want to help—I am most anxious to help. I thought I had gone a good way
736
towards helping, after I suggested that we should not take the Committee stage to-day, but should still take the Report stage on the last possible day, so that no time was lost. In my opinion, discussion to-day would be quite unhelpful if one were not able to deal with the particular points that one thought necessary. I have a list of five of them here, but as I said before, they are not at this stage in a state in which I am ready to formulate them. My suggestion is that if we could postpone this Committee stage for a week, we might have a much earlier Report stage. Of course, that we could do by agreement with the House.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the fact remains that if the Committee stage is postponed for a week, it will be too late to get the Bill back to the Commons by the material date; that is just a fact.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, if it is intended to go on to-day, since Lord Silkin does not feel able to offer anything helpful it seems to me that the only course would be to re-commit the Bill for the day which is assigned for Report and to take the Committee on re-commitment before the Report stage. I do not see any other way out of it if we are going to have Lord Silkin's help, as is required.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I do not want to make any difficulty, but I have come here to-day to move certain Amendments. I do not think that I shall be able to come in a week's time. It cuts both ways.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am sure that the House is most anxious to meet the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if that can be done. In view of all that has been said, I am willing to withdraw this Motion to-day that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, and to see the noble Lord afterwards to discuss upon what day the Committee stage can be taken. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for his courtesy.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
FYLDE WATER BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
RUGBY CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.