§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to publish the Report of the Stedeford Advisory Group on British Railways, and how the Plan (Cmnd. 813) for the modernisation and re-equipment of British Railways will be implemented.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, it is not intended to publish the recommendations of the Group. This was made clear by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport when the Group was set up and in subsequent statements. On the second part of the noble Lord's Question, my right honourable friend is expecting shortly to receive from the British Transport Commission a four-year programme, on the preparation of which the Commission have for some time been urgently engaged. As soon as this has been received, my right honourable friend will examine it and discuss its implementation with the Commission, in the light of present and probable future needs.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, can the noble Lord say when 1124 the Report of the Stedeford Group was received and why it is not proposed to publish it? This is a matter of public interest, whether it concerns a publicly owned or a privately owned industry. Why is it not proposed to publish it and why is it proposed to publish only the proposals of the British Transport Commission? Does not the noble Lord think that this is an extraordinary state of affairs, when the results of a much-publicised inquiry which has been conducted into the organisation of the British Railways are not proposed to be published?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, no, I do not think it is in the least an extraordinary matter; and, frankly, I am a little surprised that the noble Lord should ask this question, because, for the sake of the record, the matter was made perfectly clear by my right honourable friend on April 13 this year in another place, by my fellow Parliamentary Secretary on October 26 in another place, by my noble friend, Lord Mills in your Lordships' House on November 7 and by my right honourable friend the Minister again on November 9 of this year. But, to start with, the noble Lord seems to be under some little misapprehension, in that this Group have produced recommendations. They have not made a Report at all.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHWell, well!
§ LORD CHESHAMThere seems to have been a good deal of rather inaccurate thinking about this Group, which was set up in order to advise my right honourable friend and the British Transport Commission. As they made recommendations from time to time they sent them to the British Transport Commission and to my right honourable friend at the same time. What matters to Parliament, it seems to me, is the proposals which Her Majesty's Government, after considering the recommendations and after consultations, including consultations with the British Transport Commission, will put to Parliament; and those will be forthcoming in due course.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, does it matter what the right 1125 honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport said when he appointed this body? Is it not most unusual publicly to announce the appointment of a body to inquire and report and then, afterwards, to refuse to publish what they have recommended? The noble Lord says that they are making recommendations: but how could they make recommendations without a report? Does the noble Lord not think it is setting aside the public interest and, indeed, legitimate Parliamentary expectations if, after an investigation of this importance and character takes place in regard to the British Railways system, a matter which is of profound public importance, Her Majesty's Government refuse to publish their report—or observations, if the noble Lord prefers it—and their recommendations? Is that not contrary to the public interest and is it not an extraordinary state of affairs?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, it matters extremely what my right honourable friend said when he announced the setting up of this inquiry, because he made it perfectly clear at the time that the findings, the recommendations of this Group, were to be confidential to Her Majesty's Government and to the British Transport Commission. The Group undertook their work in that light and witnesses gave evidence to the Group on that understanding; therefore what my right honourable friend said is of extreme importance. In regard to obtaining these recommendations, I repeat, it is not an extraordinary way of going about it. I do not think it is necessary in the public interest for the recommendations of the Group to be published, any more than it is necessary to disclose what advice any Minister may have had from his advisers when he makes any public pronouncement.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I must say there seems to be little regard by Her Majesty's Government—and I have raised this question before on another Report, the Chandos Report—for the responsibilities of Members of either House of Parliament; little regard at all. If what the noble Lord says is true, that Her Majesty's Government have had no Report but only recommendations, what is the basis of submissions by Ministers to the House, for the House to make a 1126 decision, in another place or here? What will he the arguments used in favour of such submissions? Will they be made without any disclosure of the interests which have been covered by the inquiry? On what basis do we come to consider the justice of the decisions of the Government unless we have what was in the minds of those concerned, and know the contingent factors which, in the ordinary way, would have been in the Report from the Stedeford Committee? I think this is a scandalous precedent.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, again I am a little surprised to find that the noble Viscount should feel that such things are scandalous. I believe it has long been accepted by Parliament in this country that Ministers make statements to both Houses on their own responsibility, and that it is their own responsibility to justify those statements to the House; rather than to justify, in some curious way which is alleged to be against the public interest, the advice they have received which has led them to come to the conclusions they have reached. It is the conclusions that Ministers themselves must justify to Parliament.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, the noble Lord has still not dealt with the point as to how Parliament itself is to get at the facts. We are not going to get at the facts on that basis. We shall be able to get at the facts only when we know the real reasons for each step in the recommendations of the Stedeford Report. Are we to accept the word of the Minister in this case that what he is saying is not disclosing the real views of the people who were interviewed by the Committee, or anybody else, but what Her Majesty's Government want to say to us?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, naturally, that is the whole process of the working of democratic Parliament.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, on the contrary, I think it is an accepted principle for a Minister to come to either House and make an announcement. It is then up to him to justify that; or it is up to the Members of either House to go on at him until he has justified it.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the right honourable gentleman the Minister came to the House of Commons and announced the appointment of this body. Having done so publicly, surely the Minister cannot justify his own position without revealing the Report and recommendations of the Group concerned. Is it not monstrous, from the point of view of Parliamentary government and Parliamentary democracy, that a Minister should publicly announce in Parliament his decision to appoint a Group or Committee and then afterwards flatly refuse to give publicity to the Report and recommendations of that Committee? Is this not absolutely contrary to the principles of Parliamentary government?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, no; it is nothing of the kind, if I may say so. I believe it is quite right and proper for any Minister to come to Parliament and tell the House what he is doing to get on with his job.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHIt is a miserable job, anyhow.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government approved in 1955 plans for the modernisation of British Railways, can the noble Lord say whether the new decision to ask British Railways for a four-year plan has anything to do with the recommendations made by the Stedeford Committee?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I think that when you are building a great enterprise over the years there must always come a time when you have to stand back and review your progress in the light of circumstances which may be changing; in the light of growing competition, perhaps, from other forms of transport, and of changing social aspects; and the normal commercial thing to do is to stand back and look at it in company with your banker. And that is exactly what the B.T.C. and my right honourable friend are doing.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, whilst appreciating what the noble Lord says 1128 about the Government's standing back from improving British Transport, will he now answer the question: has a new situation arisen concerning the recommendations of the Stedeford Committee?
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHBe careful!
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am always deeply grateful for advice from the Benches opposite. In this case, of course, it is redundant. The B.T.C.—I must be careful; the noble Lord is quite right—and my right honourable friend have been discussing this matter before the Stedeford Group were set up, during the process of their work and since; and therefore certainly the recommendations will be under discussion. The whole matter is all one matter, but I could not stand here and say honestly that the whole thing stemmed entirely from those recommendations, as I understand it. But undoubtedly the whole discussion is bound up in one.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, are we to gather, then, that out of this sort of arrangement we are now to come to a point where we receive a Minister's recommendation through the Stedeford Committee; where we are not to know what their real views are, while knowing about the mortal blow the Government have dealt at the British Transport Commission in a variety of ways from time to time—that we are not going to have, for example, the Stedeford Committee's Report upon that? This hole-and-corner business will not redound to the credit even of a Tory Government.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am a little at a loss to understand what mortal blow has been delivered. I thought myself. in my innocence and in my anxiety to be careful, no doubt, as I am enjoined to do, that what the Government were trying to do was help the B.T.C. to put the railways on a modern and thoroughly efficient basis, and they enlisted the aid of the Stedeford Committee to help them do it. I do not think there is anything to criticise, nor are there mortal blows or anything of that sort.