Lords Sitting of 2 July 1962

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Chancellor

FOREIGN VISITORS AND THE HIGHWAY CODE
2.35 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My 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 whether, in view of the increasing numbers of European visitors coming to this country, in the interests of road safety they will consider the publication of a summary of the Highway Code in appropriate foreign languages for distribution at ports and airfields of entry.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the present practice is that a free copy of the Code is given to all foreign visitors who arrive in a car or who hire a car on arrival. The Code is written in simple English and is well illustrated. I believe it is of considerable assistance to the majority of our motoring visitors. In addition, the British Travel and Holidays Association's publication Come to Britain, which is published in French and German and which is about to be distributed in France, Belgium and Germany, includes a summary of more important rules, such as the rule of the road, the priority rules and the pedestrian crossing rules, which may be new to visiting motorists. In these circumstances, it has not been thought so far that anything further was necessary, but my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will keep my noble friend's useful suggestion in mind.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, and in particular for his statement that the important rules are going to be distributed by the Association, I
1092
wonder whether my right honourable friend in another place considers that the majority of foreign visitors will have enough knowledge of the English language to be able to understand the Highway Code if they have not received copies of it before coming to this country.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, so far as I am aware, there has not been any problem, or any evidence that there has been an extra large number of accidents, or a greater tendency among foreign visitors to have accidents, on that account. My noble friend would like, no doubt, to remember that the motoring organisations also distribute to foreign visitors as they come in wind-screen stickers which relate to road signs and the rules of the road, the wording of which is printed in French and German. Nowadays the motoring associations abroad also distribute or provide information to their members, if they ask for it, on the traffic regulations of this country. Altogether, my Lords, I had thought the situation was satisfactory. If my noble friend, or anybody else, has ample evidence to the contrary, I shall, of course, be pleased to have it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I have one particular point. Is there not some danger that the foreigner might suppose that the road sign which says "Dual Carriageway" means the same thing as the sign which says, "Two-way Traffic", whereas in fact, of course, they mean the opposite? Would it not be better to stick to one form of expression, so that you get the natural contrast of the words "Dual Carriageway" as against "Single Carriageway", or, if you prefer it, "One-way Traffic" as against "Two-way Traffic", but not mix up two forms of expression, so that you have to know the idiom in order to appreciate the contrast?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to tell me that he was going to ask that question, and I am bound to say that I have, therefore, been able to reflect upon it. I am not sure, without going into a lengthy discussion, that it might not create as much confusion as it avoids. As you come from a dual carriageway on to a single carriageway, there is a

1093
very good sign consisting of two arrows (I cannot display it to your Lordships, but it is an appropriate sign) pointing in opposite directions, which I think is very clear indeed. As your Lordships know, the Warboys Committee are sitting and considering the whole question of road signs, and I will certainly see that the noble Lord's view is conveyed to them for consideration. In any case, I should not like to agree one way or the other until they have considered the matter and produced their report.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend if he would reconsider use of the word "carriageway", which is slightly old-fashioned in these days, and also of the words "off-side" and "near-side"?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly ask him. The point about the word "carriageway", quaintly old-fashioned as it sounds, is its legal usage; because certainly in law there is a considerable difference between a road and a carriageway. The road is the whole distance between the two fences, so to speak, and includes the verge and any ditches which appertain to the road. The carriageway is actually the railing surface of the road.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that people throughout the world are familiar with the word "off-side", which means a totally different thing when you are driving along?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I had not been aware, although I am delighted to have confirmation, that football had penetrated quite so far, popular as it is in many countries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement on the Common Market at a suitable moment after 3.30.

JAMAICA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A).
Bill read 1a.

AGRICULTURE (FIELD MACHINERY) REGULATIONS, 1962
2.43 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD(EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the purpose of these Regulations, like that of most of their predecessors under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956, is to safeguard the worker. They will apply to Great Britain. We have already brought in Regulations to cover farm risks arising from unsafe buildings and ladders, power take-offs, circular saws, threshers and stationary balers and stationary machinery generally. Now we come to mobile field machines, such as tractors, combines, harvesters, trailers and so on and powered handtools. These machines have brought immense benefits to farming but they have also brought new hazards. These Regulations are designed to protect farmworkers and forestry workers so far as possible against the risk of injury from the use of such field machines.
To go very briefly through the Regulations, guards must be provided for components such as shafting, pulleys, flywheels or belts which might cause injury. In addition, specific requirements are laid down for the guarding of other dangerous parts of power-driven field machines of a particular kind. Your Lordships may remember that when we discussed the Regulations on circular saws, two or three years ago, noble Lords expressed the view that other types of powered saws were also dangerous and should be regulated. The Field Machinery Regulations which we are introducing now cover chain saws, used very largely by forestry workers, and include a requirement that they should be guarded. Other requirements concern stopping devices, differential locks, valves and cocks, drawbar jacks, standing platforms, seats and footrests, mounting steps and handholds and towing devices. Sharply pointed hooks and spikes must not be fitted to field machines. This follows a similar provision in the Threshers and Balers Regulations. Noble Lords will remember that when these Regulations were being debated, I pointed out that the requirement was to outlaw the razor-sharp

1095
hooks and spikes which used to be fitted to that kind of agricultural machine.
Obligations are imposed on both employers and workers. There are obligations upon the workers, of course, under other safety Regulations. The Regulations provide, for instance, that workers must not remove guards, except as may be necessary for cleaning and maintenance, and must report any damage. There is also, for example, a prohibition against riding on drawbars or getting on or off moving machines while towing. Many people have been killed or seriously injured in this way. For the first time in safety Regulations, responsibilities have been laid on manufacturers and dealers, in addition to the responsibilities placed on farmers and workers. The Regulations prohibit the sale of new field machines for use in agriculture unless they comply with the safety requirements. I am sure this is necessary, because safety is as much a matter of good design as of fitting guards to try to rectify poor design, and we do need to ensure that new machines are as safe as possible from the start. I am pleased to say that manufacturers are already doing a great deal to this end.
The Regulations cover a wide variety of machines and, therefore, contain a good deal of detail. We have endeavoured to approach the problem in a realistic and practical way, and to avoid making any requirements which are not necessary for the safety of workers. All interested organisations have been fully consulted in the framing of the Regulations, and we are indebted to them for the valuable contribution they have made. It has not been possible to agree on all points, although a very wide measure of agreement has been obtained.
As to the timing, certain requirements which do not require additional equipment, such as those relating to towing devices, maintenance, and prohibition of riding on drawbars, will come into operation three months after the Regulations are made. But time must be allowed for the main requirements of the Regulations to take effect. Manufacturers will need time for work on the designing, testing and production of complying machines, so that for new machines the main requirements will
1096
operate from July 1, 1964. Field machines now in use will need to be adapted and fitted with guards and other safety devices. Large numbers of machines will be involved, and this will make heavy remands on local workshops, where much of the work can be done, and on the suppliers of regulation guards. Clearly, the work cannot all be done at once and the Regulations allow it to be spread over a period of about five and a half years.
Machines are put in five classes each with its own operative date. Thus machines such as drills, loaders, elevators and rotary cultivators must comply by the middle of 1964, binders, pick-up balers and some others by January 1, 1965, tractors a year later and so on until all are covered by January 1, 1968. These are the statutory requirements, but I am sure that farmers will wish to ensure that their machines comply with the safety standards laid down as soon as possible and will not leave it to the last minute to have the necessary guards fitted. The Agricultural Departments will use all available means to inform people of their responsibilities under these new Regulations. Publicity will include leaflets explaining the detailed requirements, and more general announcements, as reminders, will be broadcast and published in the Press. The Departments' safety inspectors will always be ready to advise farmers, manufacturers and dealers. My Lords, I beg to move that the Agriculture (Field Machinery) Regulations, 1962, be approved.
Moved, That the Agriculture (Field Machinery) Regulations, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I am quite sure your Lord-ships will now clearly understand what these safety Regulations mean—that is, assuming that you are much quicker in grasping possibilities than I am. However, I am sure the noble Earl has done his best, and perhaps as good as anybody else could do, to explain in a few words some of the most complex Regulations that can ever have been brought into your Lordships' House. I understand that the maximum measure of agreement has been reached by all those who are responsible for carrying out the Regulations. As the noble Earl said,

1097
nobody was entirely satisfied with what had been achieved after these four or five years' discussions, but everybody seems to recognise that the Regulations go about as far as they possibly can.
Apart from the fact that the Advisory Service, or members of the engineering world, will always be happy to help the farmer or farm worker to get some sort of elementary grasp of what these Regulations really mean, I would defy anybody to say that an ordinary elementary education would enable an individual to learn and understand in twelve months what these Regulations mean. I should like to ask the noble Earl what further steps will be taken to acquaint the farmer and the farm worker with the do's and don'ts about these Regulations. I can envisage both farmer, well educated, and farm worker, well educated or less well educated, trying to get a grasp of his responsibilities but failing lamentably because their command of the English language and legal language, is such that they are unable to understand what the Regulations are all about. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us what special arrangements for transmitting information to farmer and farm worker will be employed, so that there will be few or no accidents through want of knowledge.
The noble Earl mentioned the timetable. While the maximum measure of agreement was achieved by those interested, there was, I believe, some little dispute about the timetable. Perhaps your Lordships appreciated that when you heard the noble Earl say that one of the final provisions of these Regulations will become operative only in 1968. No doubt with engineering other problems are involved, and I can understand that perhaps a long time will be necessary for the full weight of the Regulations to come into force. But I hope that, so far as the Ministry exercise any influence on the commencement of this, that or the other part of these Regulations, they will not stretch them out too far. The year 1968 is six years hence, more or less; it is a long time, but it may not be too long. I hope that the Department, at all events, will see to it that no time is wasted in giving the farmer and the farm worker the advantages of these Regulations, such as they may be.
LORD WISE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to endorse what my noble friend has said about the complexity of these Regulations. This Order is very comprehensive, and I wish to back my noble friend in the suggestion that full particulars, in a fairly easily understood form, should be given both to the farmers and the farm workers. I was glad to hear the noble Earl say that this would be done, because it is most important that these Regulations should be understood.
There is one point I wish to make, in which I would endorse what the noble Earl has said; it is on the question of standing on the drawbars of the tractors. I think it is important that farmers and farm workers should be notified that in future this will be an offence. It is a dangerous practice: it is one that is carried out on nearly every farm, and no doubt many accidents have happened by reason of the fact that somebody has been standing behind the driver of the tractor and the lorry.
I am informed that last year there were 150 deaths in the agricultural industry through accidents. That is a serious position, because it probably affects no fewer than 500 people in their bereavement and distress. Whatever we can do to limit these accidents should be done. Perhaps the noble Earl, in his reply, will give us not only the number of deaths in the industry last year, but the number of other casualties. I am rather surprise, reading the Landworker month by month, at the number of accident claims which the National Union of Agricultural Workers have to settle: they seem to run into hundreds per month. If that is so, then the number of accidents in farming must be very high. It is understood that inspectors who will be appointed will be able to assist in regard to fixed machinery. But how can these inspectors deal with the question of wrongly standing on the drawbars of the tractors? It seems to me essential, as I said earlier, that the fullest information should be given to the members of the industry that in future this will not be allowed.
In general, we on this side of the House welcome this Order. I would point out to your Lordships that on two occasions quite recently it has been our privilege on this side to support the

1099
bringing into operation of agricultural schemes and Orders which have been fully explained to us. This shows that when matters are fully explained, and openly dealt with, noble Lords on this side of the House are very reasonable, amiable and anxious that the Orders should be passed.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am only too delighted to endorse that Members on the other side of the House are very reasonable and amiable; and I am glad that your Lordships as a whole support these Regulations. Some of the Regulations are complex, because there have to be legal definitions. But I think that we can overdo the fears of complexity. Let us take the Regulation dealing with drawbars. I honestly think that someone of almost any standard of education could understand the excellent language there, which I am sure would have been approved by Sir Ernest Gowers. In Part III of Schedule 1, Article 16 (1) says:
"A worker shall not ride on the drawbar or other linkage of a field machine, or of any machine towed or propelled by a field machine, while the field machine is engaged in towing or propelling."
I do not think that is very difficult.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: A very partial selection.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Many of the Regulations are really quite simple. But I agree that it is important that we should use every endeavour to make these Regulations understood by the people who must abide by them. We propose to do this. The B.B.C. are co-operating in their farm broadcasts. We are going to use leaflets and lectures, and the National Agricultural Advisory Service will bring this subject to discussion groups. Both the workers' union and the farmers' unions are going to co-operate. We shall issue posters, wall cards and so on. I think we have covered the whole field. I hope we shall be able to get both the simple and the difficult requirements across. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, that no time will be wasted. I should like again to stress this point. The Regulations may not require a farmer or a worker to do something until later when it is possible to require everybody
1100
to comply because there will have been time to modify machines. But I hope that farmers and workers who can make modifications to their machines, and who can exercise the care that will be statutorily enforced later, will do so as soon as they can, and not wait for the letter of the law to compel them to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked what the number of accidents were. The fatal accidents in agriculture, as he said, were 165 in 1961. That is a rise; there were 125 in 1960. There is usually no great variation in the annual figures, and last year's increase was disappointing. I do not really know to what it could be attributed. If there are any other details and statistics that I have not actually in my head now, perhaps I could speak to the noble Lord afterwards.
LORD WISE: My Lords, could the noble Earl deal with accidents other than fatal accidents? Has he the figures there?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The numbers of absences from work due to non-fatal accidents and industrial diseases of agricultural workers—that is the statistical way we can get at it—in Great Britain notified to the Agricultural Departments were 13,925 in 1959, 14,587 in 1960 and 13,260 in 1961. I hope that with those answers your Lordships will approve these Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAW REFORM (HUSBAND AND WIFE) BILL
3.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Bill arises out of the Ninth Report of the Law Reform Committee, made to my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, in December, 1960. The Bill was guided through another place by my honourable and learned friend the Member for Epsom. The background to the Bill is this. In the Common Law of England there was no suit in tort between husband and wife—that is to say, no action could be brought in respect of things like negligence, defamation, assault, wrongful withholding of property, and

1101
the other more esoteric variety of torts. The reason for that was, in Blackstone's words:
"…by marriage the husband and wife are one person in law; that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband."
I hasten to say that this was a concept which existed solely in the eyes of the Common Law; but none the less it is still valid.
This position was slightly relaxed by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, in two respects: first, under Section 12, which allowed a wife, but not a husband, to sue for the protection of her own property, either by civil or criminal proceedings; and, in addition, under Section 17, which allowed either party to receive summary jurisdiction in the High Court or the county court on matters going to title in the possession of disputed property. But those were the only relaxations up to date of the law of the Common Law rule that I have quoted. This has resulted in an unjust and anomalous situation—at any rate in the view of many people.
I will explain a few of the anomalies. First, there is an extraordinary principle, which I think has arisen from judicial decisions, that, as regards torts committed between the spouses before they were married, while the wife can sue after marriage, the husband cannot. Secondly, there have been gravely unjust results from the limited protection which the wife was given by the 1882 Act. If, for instance, the wrong did not affect her property she was unable to obtain any redress. There was one case, for instance, where a wife who was living apart from her husband was arrested and lost her employment as a result of false accusation of theft made by the husband; yet she could do nothing about it.
It has also proved to be most unjust in the cases of third parties. For instance, supposing there was a motor accident in which two oars were involved and both the drivers were equally to blame, if the wife of driver "A" were injured she could sue driver "B", but his insurance company could gain no contribution from Mr. "A", in spite of the fact that he might have been very negligent; and therefore driver "B's"
1102
company would have to bear the whole of the damages payable. Equally, if I and my wife were in a car, and I injured her in an accident in which no one else was involved, she could get no redress from my insurance company under a third party policy. There are equally cases in factory accidents where husbands have injured their wives by their own negligence and the employer has been unable to get any contribution towards the damages which he has had to pay the wife.
If the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, thought that "carriageway" was quaint and old-fashioned, this Common Law doctrine might be said to be even worse in modern times. The Law Reform Committee therefore decided that something should be done. They did not wish to go back to the old rule of barring all actions between spouses, because that they considered to be unacceptable. Nor, equally, did they feel that it would be right that husbands and wives should be allowed to sue each other in cases of tort without any restraint whatever. This would only encourage petty domestic quarrels to be aired vindictively in public, and could do no good to anybody in many cases. So the recommendation made by the Committee was that there should be a right to sue in all torts, but subject to certain safeguards. This Bill implements their recommendation, with one or two changes in the actual Report that they made.
The main safeguard which the Law Reform Committee thought should be included appears in paragraph 11 of their Report. First of all, they recommend that there should be unfettered right of action except that:
"The court should, however, be able, either of its own motion or on the application of the defendant, to stay the action"—
that is, to suspend it, without prejudice to the right to go back and start again if desired—
"if, having regard to all the circumstances including the conduct of the parties and the nature of the matter complained of, the judge is satisfied that the complaint is not one of substance or that it would not be in the best interests of the parties that the action should be allowed to proceed."
I will come back to that formula in a moment.

1103
The Committee also recommended that disputes affecting title and possession of property should be dealt with exclusively under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882—that is to say, in a summary fashion, which is there laid down without the option, as at present exists, of being able to deal with it as an ordinary tort in the ordinary way under Section 12 of that Act. As your Lordships see, the Bill gives effect to the main recommendation. Clause 1 (1) states:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, each of the parties to a marriage shall have the like right of action in tort against the other as if they were not married".
I may say at this stage that although the Law Reform Committee was reporting only on the law of England and Wales, the situation in Scotland, both as to the law and as to the disadvantages which result from it, was so nearly the same that it was broadly acceptable that this Bill should also extend to Scotland. That is done by Clause 2, with very small and insubstantial variations of pure detail.
Having brought in this general rule, the Bill then makes two modifications of the Report of the Law Reform Committee. The first of these is not, I think, a very difficult one and is one which has not so far aroused much criticism. The Bill allows that if there is a dispute about title or possession of property there shall be an option either to bring an action under Section 17 of the old Act, so that it can be dealt with summarily, or, alternatively, to bring an ordinary action in tort. There is also a provision in the Bill for making rules to implement these powers; for the court to decide at a later stage whether or not the action should continue as a proper action or should revert to the old procedure and be dealt with summarily. This method of dealing with it introduces a great deal of flexibility, which I think is necessary in this field.
It is difficult to make hard and fast lines as to the distinction between damages for trespass and damages for detinue, which is, broadly speaking, what the distinction must be. For instance, if I were to take my wife's car, or my wife's china, and merely withhold it, that would be detinue. If I were to smash the car or break the china it would be trespass. In both cases, how-
1104
ever, my wife would have to prove her title, and this would be a preliminary in either case. At the beginning stages of the action it is not always possible to tell what form the action is going to take. Matters of this nature often become very difficult, intricate, and possibly unpleasant, and it is a good thing, I am sure, that the summary procedure may be reverted to in the middle, as it were, of the action, if the judge thinks this is necessary.
The other distinction, the difference from the Law Reform Committee's Report, lies in the formula which has been proposed by the Bill for a judge to stay the action. I read out the one which was suggested by the Law Reform Committee, but the one which is now in the Bill appears in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 1, which says that the judge can stay the action if it appears to him
"that no substantial benefit would accrue to either party from the continuation of the proceedings;".
This has not been at all an easy matter. There are many considerations involved, and your Lordships will see that the Bill as it stands has cut down a number of things which the court will take into consideration. For instance, the conduct of the parties, as recommended by the Committee, is not now one of the matters taken into account, and I think that, on balance, this is right, because it cannot really have anything much to do with the legal rights of the matter. The question of substance is still, however, left in, and this is intended to mean something on these lines: that the benefit should be of practical and financial benefit to the parties, or to one of the parties, and not that it should involve prospective moral or ethical matters quite devoid from the practical and financial level. That is the basis of the formula as it now stands.
Your Lordships will also observe that the question of the best interests of the parties has also been left out. This has been done, in the first place, because in an action the best interests of both parties can hardly ever be implemented; and, secondly, because it would open the door to the courts having to deal with the difficulties of the marriage it-self and the whole question of conciliation of the interests of the parties in their matrimonial state. My Lords, this is

1105
probably not the right tribunal or the right instance for this to be done, and it has been thought better to leave that aspect of it out of it altogether. However, this matter is by no means free from difficulty, and if I have sketched some of the reasons which have led to the inclusion of this particular formula in the Bill, this is by no means the end of the matter; and if your Lordships wish to pursue it further there will be opportunity for so doing.
In the end it is not thought that this Bill will mean any very great increase in the number of actions in courts between husbands and wives. Very largely, no doubt, it will be used in connection with insurance policies. I may say, at this stage, that the insurance companies were invited by the Law Reform Committee to submit evidence, but did not think fit to do so. Nor have they commented on it since, so that I do not believe they consider themselves to be prejudiced by this Bill. I do not think your Lordships need fear endless actions for defamation between spouses in the court for one very good reason; that legal aid is not given for these matters, so that the risk would probably not be worthwhile. In fact, it is not thought that the situation will change very much from that which now pertains, except that injustices should be removed by the Bill and a more harmonious state of affairs brought about in fitting in with the modern concepts that we have of marriage and husband and wife in modern life. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will think this Bill to be a good Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thoroughly agreeing with the principles of his Bill, may I ask the noble Viscount whether his researches have revealed how many wives have sustained injury in any recent year in accident cases where the husband has been involved?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no figures at the moment, but I will certainly see whether I can find out and tell the noble Lady as soon as I can.
3.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish me to congratulate the noble Viscount both on introducing this Bill and on the manner in which he has introduced it. He has made the Bill abundantly clear, unlike the last matter to which we gave our attention, and we are very grateful to him for it. As a matter of fact, although this Bill has passed through all its stages in another place this is the first time it has been explained to Parliament at all. It is one of those aberrations of Parliament that this very far-reaching measure obtained its Second Reading in another place without any discussion at all: it was passed "on the nod". It went through the Committee stage in half-an-hour and the Report stage and Third Reading in one and a quarter hours. So this is really the first occasion on which Parliament has taken the opportunity of discussing this Bill both in principle and in detail.
In fact, of those people who took part in the discussion on the Third Reading, everybody, apart from the mover and the Solicitor General, who gave it his blessing, was somewhat critical of the provisions of the Bill although only one speaker was actually in opposition to the Bill in principle. I think nearly every speaker expressed the hope—and this is very complimentary to this House, for a change—that we should do the work which they had omitted to do in the other House, which is give the Bill a thorough examination. I hope that we shall, and I have no doubt that the Government, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in particular, will give us all the time necessary—although I do not envisage a great deal of time will be wanted to discuss this Bill—so that we shall get it through before the Recess. I have said that we welcome this Bill, and I am sure everybody will welcome the principle behind it. We have been moving, perhaps all too slowly but steadily, towards equality of the sexes. Perhaps the most outstanding example of the lack of equality is in this House itself, but even equality here may come one day.
However, in some directions we have moved too far in the opposite direction, and this Bill redresses the balance in certain directions where the law has gone

1107
too far against the male sex. We have to realise that this is not a Bill to give more freedom to women; it is a Bill which enables husbands to sue their wives for tort and wives to sue their husbands, and we must not get into the way of looking on this as a one-way traffic. To me this Bill will be a Godsend—I hope not really—as I am one of those people who allow their wives to drive; I do not drive myself. So if this Bill comes to operate at all I shall be the beneficiary. It works both ways, and in certain directions will be of advantage to the husband rather than to the wife. I am sure my noble friend will not object to that, being in favour of sex equality.
I was glad the noble Viscount referred to the section of the Report which tended to regard with disfavour complete freedom for husbands and wives to bring actions against one another. I am old-fashioned enough, as I am sure many other noble Lords in this House are, to regard it as a bad thing that a husband or wife should be able to bring an action for defamation at all, in any circumstances. I should like to test the feeling of the House as to whether, if that is the view of the majority in the House, we should not in terms exclude actions for defamation. I cannot conceive any circumstances—but no doubt the noble Viscount will be able to explain what circumstances might arise—where it would be of advantage to either party to bring an action for defamation of character. There are other kinds of torts that I should also like deliberately and definitely to exclude, bearing in mind, as I have said, that this is not a sex matter but would apply equally to husband and wife.
There are other matters in the Bill which I think are not an improvement on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. I think that we might have accepted their advice, and unless there are very good reasons for rejecting them I think we should have been far better advised to accept what they recommended. I observed in the speech of the Solicitor General in another place that, where he was supporting the views of the Law Reform Committee, he was holding the members out as men who were speaking with very great authority, Lords of Appeal, High Court Judges,
1108
men of vast experience in the courts and so on, and saying that we ought to accept their advice. But I thought that on some of the most material questions the advice was not being accepted. As a matter of fact in another place the Solicitor General was suggesting that men of the calibre of the Law Reform Committee were perfectly competent to decide these difficult questions which are set out in the Bill, particularly the difficult question in practice of deciding whether any substantial benefit would accrue to either party from the continuance of the proceedings, when in fact the decision will not, generally speaking, rest with the Judges at all but with the registrars of the county court and the Masters of the High Court. And although I have great confidence in the capacity of either of those tribunals, it is not correct to say that these decisions will be made by men of the highest judicial calibre. However, I do not want to anticipate some of the Amendments that I think might usefully be considered in this House.
I think that it is the duty of every noble Lord to look very closely at this Bill, because I hope I am not exaggerating when I say this is a revolutionary measure in the relationship between husband and wife, and that we all of us have a responsibility for seeing that this Bill will not have the effect of making matters worse in the relationship between husband and wife. The noble Viscount said that the effect of this Bill would be small as regards matters other than insurance claims, and that is apparently the view of the Government. I am not so sure, and on a matter of this kind I suppose a humble solicitor is as well qualified to form an opinion as even the highest Law Officer of the Crown. We have to deal with these matters of relationship between husband and wife in a far more personal and intimate way than any Law Officer; and I would not subscribe to the view that this will have a minimal effect. I think once it becomes known and people are advised that they have a right of action against one another there will be a substantial number of cases where husband and wife will take their torts to court and will want to get a decision, not necessarily for the sake of financial benefit at all but in order to ventilate their feelings and passions and emotions.

1109
However, having said that—and I say these things merely in order to emphasise the need for very close scrutiny of this Bill—I give it a cordial welcome. I think it is timely and I hope that in due course it will receive assent.
3.28 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I just add a word to what my noble friend has just said, and also congratulate the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill? I think anyone who has practised at all in accident cases in the courts must have seen a substantial number of cases where wives, particularly, though sometimes, as the noble Lord said, husbands, have failed to obtain redress for very serious injuries sustained in motor car accidents as a result of the application of the Common Law rule. I certainly, although I never had a large practice in this type of case, saw quite a number of cases of this kind. I very vividly remember the case of an unfortunate woman who was smashed up so seriously that she was crippled for the rest of her life in these sort of circumstances, being driven by the husband; and the daughter sustained minute injuries which were compensated by a £10 note because the rule did not apply to her. The unfortunate mother, who was sitting alongside, who became a cripple for life, was unable to obtain any relief at all as a result of the operation of this rule.
I must say that that case has stayed in my mind ever since it came before me for an opinion when I was quite a young barrister in the 1920s. It is quite impossible to tell how many cases of this kind there are. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, put a question to the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill, but I should say it is just not possible to form any real estimate of the number of these cases without sending a questionnaire round to the solicitors who practise in these accident cases. Therefore, for my part, I very strongly and sincerely welcome the introduction of this Bill.
It may well be that there are a number of points one should look at, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said. I cannot say I was altogether satisfied with his caveat in respect of defamation cases, because I have known one or two cases where spouses have become
1110
completely at loggerheads, separated, and then one of them—I will not say the wife or the husband—has maintained a campaign of vituperation of a very serious kind, which certainly ought to be checkable by means of the law of defamation. If there is to be some safeguard in respect of this matter in the Bill, I think it will have to be thought out very carefully, otherwise it might well lead to the continuance of a situation which I am quite sure a number of lawyers could, even more than myself, impress on your Lordships as being a very serious one. With these few observations I wish to support this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of the whole House when I express to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross my gratitude to him for introducing this Bill, and I would add my congratulations on the lucidity and persuasiveness with which he moved its Second Reading. I should also like to take this opportunity of saying in public what I have already said in private—namely, how much I am indebted to my noble and learned friend Lord Jenkins and his colleagues on the Law Reform Committee for the admirable Report on which this Bill is based; and I do not think it is improper to say I am also very grateful to my honourable and learned friend Mr. Rawlinson for introducing it in another place.
My Lords, as I have indicated, the Government welcome this Bill as a valuable measure of law reform. The anomalies caused in this field by the present law have been so clearly exposed by the Law Reform Committee's Report and by the noble Viscount in his speech to-day, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his speech a moment ago, that there is no need for me to rehearse them again. I need only say I am persuaded that this branch of the law ought, for the reasons given by the Committee, to be reformed and that this Bill is the right measure to achieve this object. Your Lordships will not expect me to go over again the ground my noble friend has covered so thoroughly, but I think I ought to express my views on the one point on which most doubt has been expressed. I refer to Clause 1 (2) (a), where, as my noble friend explained, the Bill departs from

1111
the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee. I would just ask your Lord-ships to consider this for a brief moment because I think it is important that we should get our thoughts clear on that point.
The Committee recommended that the court should have a discretion to stay an action in tort between husband and wife on the grounds that the complaint is not
"one of substance or that it is not in the best interests of the parties that the action should proceed";
whereas, under the Bill, the test is whether or not any "substantial benefit" is likely to accrue to either party from the continuation of the proceedings. I want to assure your Lordships that I give the most careful consideration to the precise wording of any Bill based on a report of the Law Reform Committee, whether it be a Government Bill or a Bill, as is this one. introduced by a private Member. Therefore, I have examined in great detail the arguments for and against departing from the formula suggested by the Committee in favour of that contained in the Bill. I am convinced that the wording of the Bill is to be preferred, although, of course, I am always ready to consider any fresh approach to the matter. I am not going to be long on Second Reading and go into details of drafting which we can better examine in Committee, but I should like to make clear that this wording was arrived at only after an exhaustive consideration of the Committee's own formula and of other alternatives which were suggested.
If I might put the matter very briefly, the Committee's formula, in my view, would require the Masters and registrars of the High Court and county courts to assess the future prospects of the parties' marriage and to weigh the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the chances, of a reconciliation or a parting. The "best interests" of the parties—I am quoting the phrase used by the Law Reform Committee—is a very comprehensive phrase and I do not see how one could exclude from its ambit the circumstances I have mentioned. I ask your Lordships to consider that point because to include them would, in my opinion, impose on the ordinary courts of law a task for which they are not
1112
suited and which they could not properly be invited to undertake, especially at an early stage of the case. Your Lordships will appreciate that a stay is valuable only if given at an early stage in the case, and to investigate the question of the likelihood of the continuance of the marriage and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for the marriage to continue or break up, would, I think, be a matter of extreme difficulty.
May I just say one word on the formula in the Bill, and the point which I think is worrying the noble Lord, Lord Silkin? The phrase we are now considering in the Bill is much narrower and more precise. Plainly, it includes financial benefit. That will probably be the main class of case in which the test is applied, but I should construe it as entitling the courts to take into account the usefulness of granting an injunction, for example, to restrain one spouse from publishing a libel or repeating a trespass. I think that, on reflection, the House will see that that might be important. We have this extremely irritating position, which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley mentioned, where, after trouble, one of the parties to the marriage goes on repeating one libel after another. It makes no difference to the matter whether it foe the husband or the wife, but, if it is a serious matter, it can be extremely unpleasant. I need not give examples because examples will occur to everyone's mind. I think it might well be a good thing to be able to bring the action, in order to get an injunction to stop it. The same thing applies to cases of trespass in similar situations. Therefore, I believe that our formula would cover the main matters that are likely to arise, without going into the extremely difficult question of the continuance of the marriage.
My Lords, I shall be very happy to deal with the matter at greater length—I do not think this is the time to do it—if Amendments are put down at the Committee stage. I was only anxious to explain to your Lordships that the change has not been made without very serious consideration. I support my noble friend, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your reception of this Bill. If

1113
I may say so, I think that it has also been particularly valuable that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has explained what, an his view, would be the probable ambit of the formula in the Bill, which would enable the courts to stay proceedings in this field. This is, of course, a very difficult matter, and, if I might briefly mention a few of the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, I think there are good reasons for having changed the formula from that suggested. And his noble and learned friend Lord Chorley, as well as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, has given reasons why it could be dangerous specifically to exclude defamation from the scope. I think it would be a mistake so to do. and I think that the general power to stay, where the case falls within the formula, should be enough to cover the type of unfortunate case which the noble Lord has in mind. Of course, he is quite right in saying that the discretion would have to be exercised by the Masters and Registrars at the stage of a summons for directions, or the equivalent in a county court; but, with respect to them. this would perhaps be a reason for keeping the matter on a fairly narrow basis, particularly at that early stage of the proceedings.
I think that the restrictive formula as it stands has advantages over that which was set out in the Law Reform Committee's Report. For instance, to take only one example, if the best interests of the parties in their matrimonial concept were concerned, might it not happen that the Master would feel himself bound to stay an action where the marriage was on the verge of breaking up, but would allow it to go on if he was convinced that the marriage was happy enough to withstand the assault on it involved in the action; or, alternatively, would let it go on where the marriage had irrevocably broken up? This seems to me to be such a difficult jurisdiction that it would be wrong for it to come into the Bill at all. However, these matters could be examined usefully on Committee stage, so I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading in order that that may be done.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW REFORM (DAMAGES AND SOLATIUM) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.44 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET
3.46 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to repeat a statement which is now being made by the Lord Privy Seal in another place on the progress of the Brussels negotiations. These negotiations have now reached a stage of hard bargaining, and there is very little in the way of specific detailed progress to report; but the Government feel that it is better to keep Parliament informed, so far as we can, about what is happening, even although the report may be almost entirely inconclusive for the moment.
A meeting of Ministers took place in Brussels from June 27 to June 30. On June 27, the Ministers of the European Economic Community met among themselves, and on the other three days meetings between them and the United Kingdom were interspersed with further meetings of the Ministers of the Community. Ministers devoted most time to the treatment of imports of temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I have told your Lordships on previous occasions, this is perhaps the most difficult and complex of all the issues with which we are faced. In our consideration of long-term solutions Ministers envisaged that the enlarged Community should negotiate agreements for suitable commodities on a broad international basis. At the same time, Ministers recognised the need for making alternative arrangements for commodities where international agreements appeared impracticable or had not been concluded by the end of the transitional period.
We also considered what might be the objectives of price and production policies for temperate foodstuffs in an

1115
enlarged Community, and what arrangements might be made for the transitional period.
All these discussions have brought out more clearly the nature of our essential requirements in the field of temperate foodstuffs and their crucial importance in these negotiations. We have established some common ground between the Community and ourselves in this matter, and we have indicated to our Deputies the lines on which further work should now proceed.
The other main question discussed at this meeting was that of association under Part IV of the Treaty of Rome in relation both to dependent territories and to independent countries of the Commonwealth. The members of the European Economic Community have now made substantial progress in developing their own ideas and they will be discussing with the present Associates the substance of a new Convention of Association this week. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I have explained to your Lordships on previous occasions, we have made known to the Community our own views on the content of an Association arrangement, and the Lord Privy Seal was able to carry this further on this occasion. Ministers also discussed the procedure that might be adopted to enable independent Commonwealth countries to become associated if they so wish, but the position of specific countries was not discussed.
Finally, the Ministers noted the provisional agreement recommended by the Deputies on the tariff treatment to be accorded to a number of products for which we had requested a zero tariff.
It was agreed that an additional meeting of Ministers should take place on July 18, 19 and possibly 20, primarily to consider the problems of British domestic agriculture. This will be followed by a further meeting beginning on July 24.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl was wise to add something of his own as a preliminary to this statement; otherwise I might have used almost the same words as he himself used in opening: that is, that this statement tells us very little indeed.
1116
Of course, we thank the Government for their courtesy in submitting what I suppose they would call a progress report, but at present it seems as if not very much progress has been secured, unless one reads into the wording something which is not actually there. At the present moment the Government seem to be like the Apostle Paul, who believed in being saved by hope. There does not appear to be very much more than that in it from their point of view.
Nevertheless, there is, currently speaking, a point that I think ought to be commented upon by the Government in answer to any questions submitted by your Lordships at this stage. I am not quite sure what is meant in the first part of the statement by seeking an agreement "on a broad international basis." What have the Government in mind on that point? How broad an international basis? Of the breadth of G.A.T.T.? What are the Government trying to do, when they are raising the question of temperate footstuffs in relation to the Commonwealth, as I understood they were doing? Another thing that strikes me very forcibly about this matter is that there are still references to what I would call temporary agreements—that is, to taking things by stages and to reconsideration at the end of a transitional period. What sort of hope have the Government got to give us at the moment that a permanent agreement is to be arrived at which will fully safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth? There is certainly nothing that I see in this statement which gives us any fundamental hope upon this point. I should like to have some further comments, if I might, upon that situation.
It is all the more important to ask this question in relation to the report I have just been reading again of the speech of Mr. Hare, the Minister of Labour, at Long Melford, Suffolk, on Saturday. In case any of your Lord-ships have not seen it, I may say that this report is very short and I should like just to make it known. It reads:
"Mr. Hare, Minister of Labour, said at Long Melford, Suffolk, on Saturday, that the Commonwealth countries were 'behaving in some respects like children over Britain's Common Market proposals'.
"They were quite happy while they were getting their own way, but became aggrieved

1117
when 'mother' decided to do what she thought was right. 'The Commonwealth countries are demanding as good terms as they can possibly get', Mr. Hare said".
The broadcast report of the speech also added the words at the end that "'Mother' would decide". I wondered what on earth could have persuaded the Minister of Labour to be guilty of such utterances as those at this very important and critical period of negotiations on behalf of the Commonwealth. It seemed to me almost as if he could not possibly have read even the Statute of Westminster, When he put the matter in such a fashion as that. Perhaps we had better have some comment upon that as well.
Then I would ask a question upon the other part of the statement with regard to the association of other territories within the. Commonwealth. In his statement, the noble Earl made reference both to Colonies which are still not self-governing and to the rest of them. I was interested in the part of the statement which says that it was discussed in general and that no specific country was mentioned. You know, really, you have left us, as it were, upon the side of a pool, still fishing and fishing and getting no fish. We do not know quite where we are going: and yet we are being hurried on, I gather from a statement made by Mr. Heath on Saturday, to come to a final settlement more or less by the end of this month. We are apparently not going to get any actual discussion started with regard to the vastly important issue. This statement says that the most complex issue is that of the Commonwealth, but nothing is more important than the guarantees which ought to be given to British agriculture. Discussions on these matters are apparently not going to commence officially until July 18, and there is to be a further meeting of the negotiators on July 24. Perhaps a little more light upon some of these items would do the House a great deal of good.
3.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Viscount began by saying that the Apostle Paul hoped to be saved through hope. I think he also said that he did not think it was right for him to prophesy until he had received word from the Lord. I have not yet received any word from the Lord; therefore I do
1118
not propose to prophesy. But the noble Viscount asked me to say what I could about three questions. First of all he asked what was meant by making agreements for suitable commodities on a broad international basis. I understand the principle is that we all agree we ought to have a broad international agreement for putting a floor into the price of certain primary commodities, just as we have a national policy here to put a floor into the price for agricultural products; and it was generally agreed that, if this could be done, it would be in the interests of world economy as a whole.
The second question which the noble Viscount asked, I think, really partly arises out of that: what guarantees for the Commonwealth can we hope for if we cannot get an international agreement about commodity prices which will have the effect of giving the Commonwealth at least a comparable outlet for their exports on satisfactory terms? As the noble Viscount knows, I think, we can, under the Treaty of Rome, make temporary arrangements up to 1970. If by that time—and it is quite a long time, another eight years—we have not succeeded in making a satisfactory international arrangement which will provide what the food-producing countries of the world, including the Commonwealth, need, then the question is: can we have what is called a bridge; something further, which will go beyond 1970? That is the critical point of negotiation at this moment which we should like to secure as a safeguard against the possibility of international arrangements by 1970 not being adequate to do what we want, which is to safeguard the temperate foodstuffs on which countries like New Zealand, very largely, and also to some extent Australia and Canada, depend.
The third question which the noble Viscount asked was about association with the Common Market on the part of countries which were not members. Our object is to secure that members of our own Commonwealth who are accepted as associates shall not have lesser advantages than those other countries which have already been accepted, or which may be accepted, as associates. The noble Viscount referred to the fact that, in my right honourable friend's statement, the position of specific countries

1119
was not discussed; but I think it is obviously better to discuss general principles first, and then the question of specific countries can be dealt with when these specific countries apply, if they wish to apply, for associate membership.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask for any comment on the Government Bench about the statements of the Minister of Labour?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think there is a Question, either down or just about to be put down, to be answered to-morrow by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, and in those circumstances I would ask the noble Viscount not to pursue this matter this afternoon, because otherwise it would offend against anticipation.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl whether tropical products, which are the interest of most of our Asian and African friends in the Commonwealth, are likely to be accepted without difficulty in Common Market arrangements?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I cannot at the moment answer that question in detail over the whole range of products They were not part of the questions which were discussed in the last three days, to which this statement relates. But I think the noble Lord is aware that a very large proportion of all tropical products carries nil tariff in any case in the Common Market.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, without wishing to offend against anticipation, and since the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned it, may I ask whether the Government note that the very forthright statement which was made by the Minister of Labour accurately reflects the feelings of a very large number of the British public?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who is not here to-day, has put down a Question on the statement of my right
1120
honourable friend the Minister of Labour, which will be answered to-morrow by the Foreign Secretary, and I am sorry I omitted to say that in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I think it would not be right to anticipate what will be said then.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not wholly satisfied with the answer of the noble Earl to my question about this suggestion of a broad international basis. He replies to me that this course is connected with three things. First of all, the securing of a floor price in arranging the prices—a floor price on a broad international basis. How widely should it be applied? That is a fairly tough proposition to put up. I do not know whether there have been any consultations with other foreign countries, and, if so, which they are. With regard to guarantees, I take it that guarantees could come only from the Common Market. And what are the comparable outlets? This is a question which seems to me to be exceedingly difficult to think of settling, even with years of experience. But what we are anxious about with regard to the Commonwealth is this. We want to know from the Government whether they will interpret the pledges which they have given to the Commonwealth as being that they will not enter the Common Market unless the guarantees to the Commonwealth are adequate in the view of the Commonwealth. I should like to know whether that is still accepted. This is apparently to go on transitionally, over more than one period before settlement, up until 1970, and I must say that I feel very unhappy about it. I think the sort of tangents at which relationships may move, or the new agreements that may be tangents, may have a very serious effect upon our own economy, as well as at the same time upon that of the Commonwealth.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers that, may I ask: since when have the British Government abrogated their responsibility? Surely the responsibility of the British Government is to the British people; and the decision whether we enter the Common Market is one for the British Government, not for the Commonwealth or any outside country.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, perhaps I could answer both these questions at once by reminding your Lordships that the Prime Minister stated that we should not commit ourselves until general agreement on all subjects had been accepted by Parliament, and after consultation with the Commonwealth.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Consultation, not dictation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Consultation with the Commonwealth.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes. I say, not dictation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The detailed questions which the noble Viscount raised are very important, and we fully share his anxiety about them. I do not think they are the kind of question which could be answered in reply to a supplementary question, arising from a general statement of this kind. We must remember that questions of this sort very often have not been decided by the Six, who have been in the E.E.C. for the last four years. Still less could they be answered by a nation which is trying to join them and will perhaps, after joining, enjoy the ability to influence the answer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask this question of the noble Earl, in view of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth? It is a fact, is it not, that the status in the Commonwealth of nations is a status of equality? It is a free federation of peoples. Is it not also a fact that the economic positions of the countries are going to be seriously affected within that Commonwealth by decisions taken with regard to entry into the Common Market? Is it not also a fact that the Government were extraordinarily late in having consultations with the Commonwealth before they decided to apply for entry last June? The comments upon that at the Financial Ministers of the Commonwealth Conference at Accra last September, I think, speak for themselves. Is it not also a fact that the extent of our existing economic agreements with members of the Commonwealth is such that surely, before we make any agreement at all,
1122
we ought to give notice of the termination of existing agreements.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is because the economy of some members of the Commonwealth may be greatly affected by what we do about the Common Market that we are taking so much trouble to negotiate an agreement which we hope will safeguard the economic interest of the Commonwealth. Your Lordships are aware of the more general question—although it does not arise directly out of the statement—that one of our reasons for seeking to join the Common Market is that we believe that in the long run it will be of immense economic benefit to the Commonwealth.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before we leave the matter altogether, may I ask whether it would be convenient for the Government, when the other Question about the speech of the Minister of Labour is being answered to-morrow, to give the House at the same time the full text of the portion of his speech dealing with the Commonwealth? Because this report I have is not complete; it does not include some of the items which were heard or which were broadcast, and we would be better able to judge the matter if the Government could get from the Minister the full text of the statement he made with regard to the Commonwealth.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we would all agree that it is always a good thing to read a speech in its full context, and not merely to read an extract. But again, I would suggest that since this question has been put down by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and is to be answered to-morrow, it would be better not to anticipate the reply which will be given by the Foreign Secretary, who will no doubt take note of the supplementary question which the noble Viscount has just asked.
LORD REA: My Lords, might I ask the Government whether they would consider that the Question which has been put down for answer to-morrow should be an Unstarred Question, rather than a Starred Question?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that must be for my noble friend who puts it down.
LORD REA: My Lords, I appreciate that, but, of course, it limits the scope of the debate. I think it would be more convenient, perhaps, if it were unstarred.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I suppose it would be most desirable from some points of view, but it would probably postpone the raising of the matter till about ten o'clock to-morrow night.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it must be for my friend who put down the Question. As he is not here, I cannot consult with him, and I think he must take his own course about the matter.

TRANSPORT BILL
4.10 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, before Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Duty of Minister
". It shall be the duty of the Minister to arrange for the provision of public transport services adequate for the requirements of industry, agriculture and the public; and for this purpose he may give directions to any of the four Boards or to the Holding Company."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to the Report stage of this Bill, which perhaps will be our last opportunity of making any major improvements to the Bill. On reflection, perhaps it will be felt that the time spent on the Committee stage has produced some results, although they may be of marginal importance. I suspect that the improvements which have been made were due more to the basic common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, than to our powers of persuasion. I wish it had been our powers of persuasion, because then, on Report stage, we might have some more success. But, taking into account the increased efficiency of the Government Whips, I feel chat we shall have again to depend upon the common sense of the noble Lord if we are to make any further improvement.
On this Amendment, one would be tempted to make a Second Reading speech, but I am going to resist that, although further information has come
1124
our way since the Committee stage with the printing of the British Transport Commission's Report for 1961. This Report emphasises the basic conflict that must be in the minds of the Government, and which I think is shared on all sides of the House, about how to base the transport system. Ought it to be based on economic or on social and industrial requirements? Undoubtedly the Report is dominated by the loss for the year of about £150 million, of which £86 million was a working loss. The Minister in another place said that this was "an intolerable burden", and when we consider the desperate need for new capital, undoubtedly it is a loss that cannot be sustained. It is difficult to know to what extent the proposals made by Dr. Beeching, Chairman of the B.T.C., will reduce this loss. We on this side think that the Government will in the end have to come to the decision that there must be greater integration of our transport, whether publicly or privately owned, and that competition should be based not merely on rates but on the most economical service.
Perhaps this is rather far away from my Amendment. The basic conflict, as I see it, is between the economic requirements and the results. Dr. Beeching makes it clear in his Report that if the railways are to break even, at best, there will have to be massive reductions in uneconomic services. Already branch lines are being closed. But Dr. Beeching goes a good deal further. In paragraph 20, he recommends that a large percentage of stopping trains will have to cease. Therefore, the suggestion that I made on Second Reading that we may well see within the next five years the closure of 40 to 50 per cent. of railway services may not be far wrong.
This will have a serious effect on many parts of the country which depend on public transport. It will not be confined to Wales and Scotland. It may well be that the merchandise carried may be small, but it is the existence of the railways that allows existing industries and the social life of the people to survive. I, for one, feel that Dr. Beeching has made a very reasonable case for closing these railway lines, but we cannot deny public transport to the people in these areas.
It is the fact that the Minister has power to decide whether the Board shall

1125
close a railway line or not. The Minister himself made it extremely clear, in a speech in another place, that he, as Minister, would decide and not the Board. I am sure that many will be pleased to know that to be the case: that at least the decision will not be made on pounds, shillings and pence, but that the social consequences will be considered and the decision will be political. But while the Minister has power to direct the railways to provide a public service, if he feels that it is necessary, the Bill does not say that the Minister shall provide a public service. The noble Lord will remember that in Committee we pressed him to say that, in the event of the closure of a railway and if private enterprise were not in a position or prepared to provide the alternative service, the Minister would use his power to direct the Holding Company either to use an existing subsidiary or to create a new company for that purpose. But the noble Lord said that the purpose of the Holding Company was to provide the best results for the public purse. From that we can presume that it is not the intention of the Minister to utilise the Holding Company for the provision of alternative services.
I gathered from the noble Lord that if a closure is made, the Minister has made his decision, and the Holding Company and private enterprise will not provide a service, the Railways Board, within the powers given to them in this Bill, will be permitted to provide this service. But the whole accent is still that the Minister "may" provide; he "may" have to use his discretion. We feel that where there is the considerable change that will be made in the next few years, in which our transport service will be reorganised and redeployed, the Minister should be given the power and the duty to see that where railway closures take place an alternative service, adequate for the public needs, shall be provided. It may well be that it will be done by a subsidiary of the Holding Company or a bus service provided by the railways. But, wherever it may be, it is up to the Minister to see that before there is this radical change an alternative service is provided. I think those were the views of the majority of your Lordships' House in Committee, and they were most eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in the Second
1126
Reading debate. I think that, in justice and fairness to the people of our community, this alternative service should be provided.
Many of these areas are areas which could well be, and, in fact, should be, developed both industrially and in agriculture. But if the transport service is to be very limited, then it will be difficult to persuade new industry to go to those areas. In fact, when one looks at transport and its position in relation to the development of industry in this country, one could well feel that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Transport should be living more or less side by side. I feel that this is a matter which the President of the Board of Trade should look at carefully. I know it is the desire of the Government to see development in Scotland and in North-East England, where there are some nasty, hard pockets of unemployment. It will be difficult to persuade industry to move to these areas unless they can be assured that an adequate transport service, whether by rail or road, will be provided.
There is one other point. In the 1953 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, knows, haulage vehicles in the British Road Services are restricted in number to a mere 16,000. There is no repeal of that section of the 1953 Act in this Bill. I was looking at the figures of the British Transport Commission, which show a tremendous difference between the number of vehicles under C. licence and those under A. and B. licences. When you look at the present railway capacity, and visualise that this may be reduced quite considerably in the next four or five years, it may well be asked whether the 150,000 vehicles under A. and B. licences will be sufficient to take up the load that, with these big railway closures, will be released and will have to be provided for. Therefore there will have to be a planned retraction of the railways, but at the same time a planned development of the road haulage and passenger transport service. This will require a great deal of (I hesitate to use this word; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is not partial to it) co-ordination. There is no method of co-ordination for this retraction and expansion within the Bill, unless, of course, it is with the Minister. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that

1127
it is the Minister who will be responsible under the Bill to see that there is an adequate service, whether by rail or road, for industry, agriculture and the general public. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Before Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
4.26 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this is really a fundamental Amendment, and though it is put down in the hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it I very much doubt that they will. We understand, first of all, that the purpose of the Bill is to try to make all sections of the transport industry viable. Frankly, the first question is: is transport an industry, or is it a service? While some sections should be viable, as one associated with transport I am prepared to say that it is a sheer impossibility for others to become viable if trade, industry, commerce and the public are to receive any standard of service.
The Amendment talks about adequate service. My noble friend Lord Shepherd referred to what is taking place now and is likely to take place in the future to a greater extent within the railway system. I agree with him that our 100-years-old railway system is quite capable of being streamlined; and much of it perhaps ought to have been tackled some time ago. But the strange thing is—perhaps it is not strange, and it is the normal economics of transport—that where a railway branch line goes out of existence because it is uneconomic of operation, it is equally uneconomic for bus operation in the area. Therefore, on the basis of viability, areas which lose a railway service, unless they are in some way a through route, are equally likely to lose bus services. That applies not only on branch lines. On trunk lines it is now being considered more ruthlessly than before that stations and goods yards in sparsely populated areas should be closed because the passenger traffic and the goods traffic in the area do not justify their remaining open, and it is equally true in those cases that a bus service will not be viable.
I think we ought to have from the Government quite clearly, where in fact a rail service is being withdrawn, what standard of alternative will be provided.
1128
If, as is suggested, that service cannot be provided on a commercial basis, who is to stand the cost of an alternative service? In some circumstances, in view of the fact that land, stations, buildings and the rest of it are already in the area, it may be that the present railway system would be less of a drain than the installation of new bus services. In considering this Bill, and in following the Government's fetish that everything must pay its way, we ought to appreciate that it is likely to happen—and, indeed, it is already happening in many parts of the country—that the standard of service rendered to communities in rural areas will be of a lower level than it was forty and fifty years ago.
If progress means that people in rural areas are to have that low standard of service, then it is not a question of the normal economics of transport, but of (the economics of the nation. If we are to have the agricultural industry thriving, with sufficient workers available to them, then we must provide some standard of service for those who undertake to work in isolated areas. In present-day conditions—and I hope they will maintain for ever—of full employment, and in fact over-employment in many areas, the drift from countryside to the town will increase materially unless we see to it that there is a reasonable standard of transport for the people within the rural areas. We are concerned in this Amendment with an adequate standard of service for trade, industry, commerce, the public and agriculture. Unless that is provided, then I think the Minister of Transport is failing in his duty as a Minister, not only to the transport industry, but to the country as a whole. I support the Amendment.
4.32 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd in introducing this Amendment, said that he did not want to make a Second Reading speech. But he has introduced and moved an Amendment to-day which would alter the whole character of the Bill which we have before us. He also said, with some justification, I think, that the position to be discussed on this Bill has altered by reason of the fact that since our last consideration of it in Committee we have had the publication

1129
of the British Transport Commission's Report. This Report has shown us what is in Dr. Beeching's mind. It is true that he has told us that he is undertaking at this moment a study of the whole problem of railway transport in this country. As I understand it, there is also going on at the same time a study by the Ministry of Transport as to the possible future needs of the country. So we have two sets of studies going on simultaneously, one conducted by Dr. Beeching, who is making his study in the light of the brief which bas been given to him. That brief has told him that he has the task of making railways pay.
In his interim report, which is in the 1961 B.T.C. Report, he has shown us exactly how drastic the cuts will be if he is to fulfil the task which has been placed upon him. He is going to have to make the railways pay, and to do that he has made it clear that he must ruthlessly and pitilessly cut down the railway services to be provided in this country by the railway undertaking. It is not for him, with his brief, to consider the transport needs of the country as a whole. His job is merely that of seeing what can be done, what he can do, to make the railways pay. And the railways only must be his consideration in this matter. That is a very narrow aspect of the transport problem, but this is the obligation that has been placed upon him. What he has to do is to ascertain how much railways service the country is prepared to pay for now and in the immediate future. It is not for him to consider whether, as a result of his actions, industries will die or communities be isolated. That is not his job at all. As I understand it, he must ignore completely considerations of that sort. Even if an industry will die, if an industry will be strangled, or if a community be isolated, he must do it if it works towards the end of making the railways viable.
As I understand the function of Government, it is to look at problems as a whole and to balance considerations. In relation to transport, that must be the job of the Minister of Transport; it falls upon him to balance these considerations and not to think only of the sectional part of the industry for which he is responsible. If the Minister in his saner moments accepts—and he has—
1130
the idea of a study of the future requirements in this country so far as its transport system is concerned, and he has ordered his servants to study and assess the likely transport requirements of this country and of its economic system, I am bound to say that it seems to me to be just plain daft at the same time to proceed with a Bill of this sort and to permit Dr. Beeching to carry on with the sort of streamlining projected in the B.T.C. Report. One must state these things bluntly, and I hope the word "daft" fits the occasion.
One of the most telling comments that I have seen on Dr. Beeching's present madness was the Cummings cartoon in the Daily Express of Saturday last. On one side it pictured British Railways, killed off by Dr. Beeching, resting peacefully in the grave under a stone bearing the inscription, "Now it makes no loss". On the other side of the picture the M.1 is shown as being brought to a standstill by the traffic that once went by rail and, standing in between, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying to Dr. Beeching, "Thanks for saving our railway losses, Dr. Beeching. Now we should like you to find £2,000 million to build our roads". That is a comment on the situation which is being produced as a result of the instructions to Dr. Beeching at this time.
I am not against the closest examination of our railway system, a system which came into being to some extent as a result of the great railway mania of the last century. Much of it has outlived its usefulness, if indeed much of it ever had any usefulness at all. I have said in this House, and I have said in another place, that I am not against a considerable measure of streamlining. But what I do urge is that this should be part of a consideration of the whole problem, and it should not be a panic measure designed to overcome the immediate financial difficulty. That is what this B.T.C. Report appears to me to advocate.
Of course, this House cannot defeat this Bill. It came to us from another place, and the will of the Commons must prevail. But, surely, it behoves us to look at this Bill with a view to warning off any dangers it might hold—and it does hold some dangers. Here the danger clearly is that, while the Minister recognises his responsibility for the

1131
future transport needs of the nation, there is no part of this Bill which places firmly on his shoulders the task of ensuring the provision of an adequate transport system for the country as a whole. This appears to me to be our last chance—I think my noble friend Lord Shepherd said this, and I would agree with him if he did—of trying to ensure that some sanity is brought into this transport situation, and that the Minister shall be given a clear responsibility for providing transport which will suit the immediate and future needs of this country.
4.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd, Lord Lindgren and Lord Champion, have had to say on this matter. This proposed Amendment clearly indicates the difference of approach to the transport problems between the Government and the Opposition. I was at some pains in Committee to read to your Lordships what the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries had to say about this matter. In their view it was quite impossible for the Commission to carry out the duty of balancing their revenue account, taking one year with another, with the provision of public transport services without regard to the cost or to the willingness of the public to pay for them. The Opposition concept of the railways and other transport undertakings as a public service is inconsistent with the Government's aim that transport should be run with due regard to commercial considerations and to the need to reduce the heavy burden which is placed upon the taxpayer by their operation. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in this connection gave us the figures of losses last year.
It seems to me that the omission of the words "adequate for the requirements of industry, agriculture and the public" is logical in view of the present financial position of the railways, their declining share since 1953 of the total traffic, and the decision of the Government to remove, under the Bill, common carrier obligations and control over railway charges outside the London area. We debated in Committee an Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount the
1132
leader of the Opposition seeking to place this same responsibility on the Railways Board. The House went to a Division on the Amendment, which was defeated. The present Amendment seeks to place the responsibility on the Minister in relation to the provision of public transport services. The proposed new clause would in effect give the Minister executive duties to supervise the provision of transport services; and directions given under the proposed clause could raise a conflict with the financial duties of the Boards. I suggest that in the present situation of the declining use of public transport it is illogical and meaningless to place an obligation on the Minister or the Boards towards particular classes of users.
There was no speaker opposite who referred to the growing use of private transport. Surely that is one of the great factors in this situation. It is clear that the opposition Amendment is based on the idea, which no doubt prevailed in 1947, of a public transport monopoly. That is not practical thinking to-day in view of the actual position where more and more people are availing themselves of the use of their own private transport both for personal travelling and for the conveyance of materials, goods and merchandise. That is true, and it is a great factor in many of these districts where railways services might be withdrawn. But, as I explained in the discussions on Committee on this and other aspects of the matter, there is power in this Bill for each case to be properly considered and to be dealt with if necessary. I suggest that the objects of this Bill are clear and straightforward and should not be conditioned by a clause such as that proposed in this Amendment.
It is a difficult subject. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in his remarks assumed that a bus service could not be economic if a railway service could not. I think that is a false assumption. I do not think we can generalise. Each case would have its proper consideration. But the duty which the Amendment seeks to put upon the Minister is not one which should find its place in this Bill, and I will ask noble Lords to consider withdrawing the Amendment or, if not, that we should not give it our agreement.
4.47 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said, we on this side of the House can agree. The first is that the Amendment clearly indicates the difference of approach between the Government and the Opposition in this matter, although he has made the difference very much more apparent than I had hoped and felt it was. We would also agree with what he quoted from the Select Committee Report—namely, that it is impossible to provide services without regard to their cost and to the willingness of the public to pay for them. Nothing he said at any time has suggested that we want such services except in such areas where the services are uneconomic but there is a great social need. The noble Lord also declared that in the circumstances of declining use of public transport it is illogical to insist on the Government's providing adequate public transport. It is not illogical at all. Unless we or somebody insists, then whole and very large areas of the country are going to be without a public means of transport at all. When I use the words "public transport" I mean the kind of transport where somebody can pay a fare. It does not matter whether it is privately-owned or under public ownership, it is public transport, a public service.
Dr. Beeching's first Annual Report, which was published two weeks ago, says this:
"… stopping trains have long ceased to be the most suitable form of transport for the traffic for which they cater. In the interests of the railways as a whole, most of these services should be discontinued as quickly as possible".
In the interests of the railways as a whole that may well be so: but it is certainly not in the interests of the public. And that may be another fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition in that the public need has. to us, been a paramount consideration. What I want to ask the noble Lord is this: in pursuance of this policy (and I have just mentioned what the policy is), what is going to happen in different parts of the country? All sorts of statements have been made. I myself have quoted Mr. Greene's case that a third of the rail services would go. My noble friend Lord Shepherd said this afternoon that 40 or 50 per cent. would
1134
go. I should like to confine myself to factual statements, made by people in authority on the railways, to give some idea of what is going to happen.
In Scotland, for example, the General Manager of the Scottish Region has said that 2,000 out of Scotland's 2,750 daily passenger trains are running at a loss. That means, if only the profitable ones are to continue, that Scotland is going to lose something like 70 per cent. of its railways. If we are to retain only the profitable ones, it means that whole vast areas will be without a public service. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, took my noble friend Lord Lindgren to task for suggesting that if a railway service did not pay, neither would a bus service. I think that one cannot be categorical about that; but the noble Lord will know from the B.T.C. Report that in Scotland, where rail services have been closed down already and there have been increased bus services in an attempt to take their place, that has meant an increase in lost mileage, and I think that, generally speaking, that will be so. That is the picture in Scotland.
Wales, we know, is to lose the central Wales line between Shrewsbury and Swansea; also the Llandilo-Carmarthen line. The only lines likely to remain in South Wales are the main ones: to Fishguard, Swansea and Newport, and from Newport, via Hereford, to Crewe. Brecon and Monmouth will be cut off. In the West Region alone there have been proposals for 100 line and station closures. In the Southern Region it is anticipated that 200 stations are likely to be closed. In the North Eastern, in the planning stage there a further 20 cuts. That is the picture of what we know.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, has at times said to me, "Wait and see", or, "You know more than I do"—and I am always prepared to agree with that proposition. But these things are facts; they have been stated by people in authority. Therefore, we are entitled to say that in Wales, in Scotland, the greater part of existing rail services are going to be closed down, according to present plans and according to the formula, Dr. Beeching's formula and the Government's formula, about profitability. In various other parts of the country there is a similar picture, although perhaps not such a drastic one.

1135
A great many of these services are not slightly used, and they are certainly not socially unnecessary. Many of them are vital to the community they serve, and we feel that we are entitled to have the Bill place on the Minister the duty of providing other public services in place of those which will be removed when this Bill becomes an Act. It is true that the Minister of Transport, Mr. Marples, said in another place last week that there would be no rail closures under the Bill without his consent. That assurance seems of very little worth, because in the same speech he declared that, in view of current losses, it was necessary to be ruthlessly efficient to survive. I am quite willing to have the railways run efficiently; indeed, we have been pressing for that a very long time. But if profit is to be the sole criterion, and if the Government have completely abandoned the concept of British Railways as a national public service, there can be only one answer under this formula when proposals for closures are put forward. Those closures will be made and there will be nothing in their place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that we on this side have not referred to the growing use of private transport; and, indeed, that is an omission on our part. I should like to put it to the Government that they, for their part, have not considered the consequences of the growing use of private transport. When we consider that last year nearly £1,000 million was spent on the purchase and running of private cars (the figure appears in the Economic Survey; and this year the total will be more than that); that 95,000 more cars are coming on the roads every month; that it costs nearly £2 million for one single mile of modernised road, then it is perfectly obvious that it is going to cost vastly more to provide the roads to carry the traffic which the Government are forcing on to them under this Bill than it would cost to run the railways and let people travel free of charge. That is one of the consequences of the increased use of private transport. The national cost of the increased use of private transport is going to be vastly more than the cost of running the railways, even if we did not charge people for travelling on them.
1136
When the Government accuse us of not considering the growing use of private transport, they ignore the fact that there are millions of people in this country—and I think that there will still be millions, ten years hence—who have not access to private transport. We have some 6 million or 7 million cars now, and about 18 million families, so we have some way to go. In particular, the people who will not have access to private transport will be in many of the areas to which I have referred.
It has been said—and the right honourable gentleman said it in another place last week—that the passengers always have their safeguard in the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. But that is no longer any real safeguard. In their 1961 Report, the Consultative Committee queried what real savings were going to be made by these branch-line closures. I have before me a Memorandum from the Ramblers' Association who refer to
"… a disgracefully hurried public inquiry held by the North-East and North-West Transport Users' Consultative Committee in Newcastle. The witness for the Association and kindred societies was refused permission to give oral evidence he had prepared, and no opportunity was given to objectors, who also included four county councils and twenty-two other local authorities, to subject to cross-examination the evidence of the Transport Commission. Written evidence given by objectors was subsequently proved never to have been properly investigated,".
So, my Lords, we have this position. It is common ground that many branch-line services, branch stations and passenger services now running are unprofitable and cannot be made profitable. Therefore, according to the formula, they will be closed down. It is, I hope, common ground that there are no adequate bus services in many areas where railway closures will take place. I should think it is also common ground that in many of those areas bus services also would not be economic. So we are up against this straightforward proposition: that, whatever excuses are made, there will under this policy be closures in important areas of the country where it is necessary, for the economic prosperity and survival of the country, for people to continue to live. And if they are going to live there in the numbers required, there must be some form of public transport.

1137
We therefore say that it is the duty of the Government, or the duty of the Minister, as we say in our Amendment, to undertake the responsibility of providing an adequate service, whether it is owned by the public or by private enterprise, when this Bill takes effect and existing services are removed. I should have thought that was an absolutely unanswerable proposition for any Government who expect to retain the confidence of the public and who pretend to govern. I do not see that there is any other way that that point can be answered: it must be the Government's responsibility.
Clause 1:
The four Boards
1.—
(2) The chairman of each Board shall be appointed by the Minister, and the other members of each Board (including any vice chairman) shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the chairman of that Board.
5.10 p.m
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (2):
"and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Welsh Affairs, with a view to
Therefore, I see no reason at all why this Amendment, or a modification of it if there are in it some words that are unsatisfactory, should not be accepted. If not, then I think that we on this side of your Lordships' House are entitled to claim that the Government are abrogating their responsibility to ensure an adequate and efficient transport service in this country.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kenswood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Silkin, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Sinha, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Meston, L.

Walston, L.

Chorley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams, L.

Crook, L.

Rusholme, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Milverton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Grenfell, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bossom, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newall, L.

Boston, L.

Hampton, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Brecon, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Home, E.

Sandford, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Horsbrugh, B.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Soulbury, V.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Spencer, E.

Craigton, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Spens, L.

Davidson, V.

Lambert, V.

Strang, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Devonshire, D.

Mancroft, L.

Teynham, L.

Dundee, E.

Margesson, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dundonald, E.

Marks of Broughton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Dynevor, L.

Melchett, L.

Waleran, L.

Foley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

providing adequate and suitable representation on appropriate Boards"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 which stands in my name and the names of my noble friends, and which would have the effect of requiring the Minister to consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Welsh Affairs, with a view to providing adequate and suitable representation on appropriate Boards. On the occasion when I moved a somewhat similar Amendment in Committee, it happened to clash with the day of the Opening Dinner of the General Assembly in Edinburgh, and I then commented on the fact that that was

1139
probably the reason why there was a somewhat thin attendance of Scottish Peers. I do not know the reason to-day, but the numbers from Scotland do not seem to be any larger. Perhaps they have already taken off the trains. But at least I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in his place.
I would at once assure the Government that I have no complaint to make about the very large cohorts which they succeeded in bringing in on the last Amendment, from all parts of the United Kingdom. I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the present Amendment meets one or two criticisms which were made last time, because we ask only that this consultation should take place when the members of the appropriate Boards are decided upon, and therefore we are not asking the Minister of Transport to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs about the members of the London Transport Board. Consultation would be only about Boards upon which we feel that there should be representatives with full and adequate knowledge of the needs, the requirements and, particularly, the difficulties of both Wales and Scotland.
When we debated this matter last time, I drew attention to the fact that, under the 1953 Transport Act the case was made and granted that Scotland should be represented. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that he thought that there was a special reason for doing that at that time, arising out of the denationalisation of all the road services in Scotland. It was considered by the Government, for that reason, that it would be a good thing to make sure that there were on the Commission two people with a special knowledge of Scotland. However valid that reason was at that time in persuading the Government to put two representatives from Scotland on the Commission, I should have thought that the reasons were infinitely stronger now. It is not just a question of denationalising a few thousand lorries, probably only a few of which have worked in Scotland; it is, in fact, the probability that a very large part of the railway system in Scotland, and, indeed, a substantial part of the railway system in Wales, will be closed down. I
1140
can scarcely imagine another situation in which the reasons for ensuring that there were representatives from Scotland and from Wales on the Board could possibly be more compelling.
This is one of those Amendments where, when one moves them, it is impossible to visualise any kind of case which the Government can put up for refusing to accept them. We do not insist that there must be one or two representatives from Scotland, or one or two from Wales. All we ask for is that the appropriate Ministers should be consulted before the appointments are made. It may be that we in this House should realise that, in all probability, consultations of that kind would take place, whether or not the words were in the Bill—I say it "may be"—but I should be much more satisfied if the words were there. But we do not have to satisfy merely ourselves; we have to satisfy the vast public outside and, in particular, the people of Scotland and of Wales in this matter. Whatever noble Lords opposite may think, there is considerable unease about the future of public transport in those areas. To some extent, at least, that anxiety would be alleviated if it were known that, when the question of closures came up, when the question of alternative services was considered, or when any other matters of particular interest to Scotland and Wales arose, there would be someone there with knowledge to act as an advocate for their particular needs.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said on the last occasion [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240 (No. 81), col. 844]:
"Although I cannot give any kind of promise, if the Amendment is withdrawn now I would undertake to have this matter considered again before Report stage, in the hope of hearing a little more advice from those of my noble friends from Scotland"—
and I am sure he meant also from Wales—
"who are unable to be here to-day."
My Lords, I know there is support in all parts of your Lordships' House for this Amendment, and I hope that on this occasion we shall receive a completely satisfactory reply from the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("Board") insert the said words.—(Lora Stonham.)
5.17 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in rising to support this Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has proposed and to which I have added my name on the Marshalled List, I feel that I owe your Lordships some explanation, because I was prevented from attending the debates at the Committee stage of this Bill. But I was present during the Second Reading, when I heard (and I have since read and re-read it) the very forthright speech made by my noble friend Lord Polwarth, who, as your Lord-ships know, is the Chairman of the Scottish Council. In that speech he declared some of Scotland's anxieties about the content of this Bill. It was unfortunate that this very Amendment, which we are now considering, came before the Committee on May 21, when there were only one or two Scottish Peers in the Chamber, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has pointed out. It was not only a Monday, but it was the Monday of the meeting of the General Assembly in Edinburgh. The explanation for the paucity of Scottish Members on this side of the House on this occasion is that this is not only a Monday, but the Monday of the Royal Visit to Scotland. This fact has prevented my noble friend Lord Polwarth from supporting the Amendment which is now before you, which, of course, he would have done on May 21, as he pointed out in the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, quoted to your Lordships on that occasion.
If I were so minded, which I am not, I might say that the Government had been guilty of—what were the words used on another occasion?—"devious tactics" in putting this Business on the Order Paper on two such days, when representatives from Scotland might be expected not to be available. But, joking apart, it is only the fact that I have other business in connection with your Lordships' House that is keeping me here which enables me to be here to take part in this debate, and to speak for my noble friend Lord Polwarth, who has asked me to do so. As I say, I wish that it had been possible for more Scotsmen to be here, but I know that if the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Find-horn, comes into the Chamber he will have something to say on the matter. The noble Earl who is to reply said
1142
during the Committee stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out, that he looked forward to hearing more from Scotland; so I take it that this is a further invitation and excuse for my occupying your Lordships' time on this subject.
I will not go over the cogent points which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put forward, and with which I agree. In fact, in the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, I would merely repeat the point be made about the occasion in 1953 when the names of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Minister for Welsh Affairs were included in an Act; and I am inclined to think, with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that on this occasion, almost more so than in 1953, those names should be in the Bill. But I feel that I can add, from this side of the House, some points Which perhaps are not capable of being put forward from the other side of the House. May I urge the noble Earl to realise that the people of Scotland, of all Parties, including the Unionist Party, are alarmed and dismayed by the curtailment of the railway services, the closures of certain lines and the threat of closure of other lines? This is the case. It is no use saying that the people of Scotland ought to know better. The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, they do not know better.
For instance, I live in a place where the local station is closed. The branch-line passenger service was discontinued some years ago, and most of the line has now been completely closed and taken up. That is sad, though to my mind, and I think to the minds of everybody in the neighbourhood, it was inevitable in the circumstances: it was a proper decision. I refer to the Symington-Peebles branch. I mention this in order to assure your Lordships that I am not, and many people in Scotland are not, absolutely opposed to the closure of any line: of course they are not. But, further, my home is three miles from a main-line station, and the service from this main-line station (the trains, I think, could be included in what Dr. Beeching refers to in his report as "stopping trains"; certainly the ones that serve us are the stopping trains), has been so inconvenient and so slow for many years past that the survey which

1143
is taking place, and which will presumably include the service to which I have referred, is bound to find that it is unprofitable. The point I make is that the conditions to-day are perhaps "rundown" conditions, and this particular type of service will be closed down, I think, if the course to be adopted is that set out in Dr. Beeching's report.
I have been speaking of the Southern Uplands. I spent part of last weekend in Kent, and, as usual when I go there, I felt that I was in a different continent from my home country; the conditions as compared with South Scotland are so utterly dissimilar. But, comparing Kent with the country through which the Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh line, or the Fort William-Mallaig line, runs is like comparing two different worlds. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred in general terms to this sort of problem. I would be more particular, because in this connection I feel that it is so important that Scotland should have an absolute assurance that she will be well represented on the Boards under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
May I suggest that one risks affronting Scottish opinion by appearing to equivocate on this subject of representation on the new Boards? Some people talk glibly of alternative modes of travel—people who have never seen the Scottish Highlands in the grip of a severe winter, or who have never tried to drive from Fort William to Mallaig in the teeth of an equinoxial gale. I say that it is almost an affront to Scottish opinion to appear to equivocate, and I realise that the noble Earl may take me up on this point, because I do not think he did equivocate when he replied to this point in Committee—or so I read it. But I do say that to some he appeared to equivocate. If there is going to be Scottish representation on the Boards, as I have no doubt there is, why not say so, and say so roundly, as the Government did in 1953?
I need not remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Polwarth quoted on Second Reading from the report of an interview given to the Press by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. The statements which he is reported to have made were
1144
(and I use the words which my noble friend used) "thoroughly irresponsible". My noble friend Lord Polwarth went on to say that he had seldom heard such "barefaced abrogations of responsibility". Now whether the statements of my right honourable friend were in fact made or not, or whether they were reported out of context or not, they have added to the anxieties of all Scotsmen—and this is the point I wish to emphasise—including supporters and potential supporters of the Government. If these statements were not made, they should be denied: if they were made, then they should be withdrawn. I cannot help referring, if I may, in the light of the debate on the previous Amendment, to one of these statements, which was,
"You can have either a good rail service and no road or a good road service and no railway. I do not mind."
That is what the Minister of Transport was reported as saying. My point there is that, as perhaps your Lordships will have noticed, I abstained from voting on the last Division because it seems to me that, in areas such as those which I have described, it is impossible for the Minister to contemplate closing down a branch line and leaving it to the local authority to provide anything approaching an equivalent form of transport.
In conclusion, though I am entirely against a fully co-ordinated transport system in, shall we say, the Socialist conception, I am of opinion, as a businessman, that in considering the closure of any line such as those I have described—Inverness to the Kyle of Lochalsh, or Fort William to Mallaig, and even, we might say, the line to Oban—if it is to be based purely on the question of profitability or otherwise, the cost of servicing the enormous outlay which would be required to provide adequate alternative road services, added to the huge annual expense of maintaining such a road in face of the climatic conditions there, and, what is more, of keeping that road open during winter, must be taken into account in arriving at a balance. Both the question of the servicing of the capital cost and the annual maintenance and charge for keeping the road open are, in my view, factors which must affect any balance which is to be struck to decide which

1145
lines are to be closed. It is not enough to consider only the intrinsic merits, or demerits, of such lines.
There are other considerations to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred, and which I will not repeat. I would add only that I have mentioned the three lines that I have done because they are within my own personal knowledge. I think it is safe to say that there are other lines similarly situated which are threatened in the same way. In conclusion, may I, as chairman of the Unionist Association in a marginal constituency, urge the noble Earl to give this matter very careful consideration, and I would only tell him that I look forward to his reply with the greatest anxiety.
5.31 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I would not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, into the subject of what lines will be closed or what lines will not, because I feel that even if representation were not given as is suggested in this Amendment, the point of view of Scotland would be bound to be taken into account. But what I think is the serious point is that the public as a whole will not believe that. If they find that this Amendment is turned down, they will have the feeling that consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland is not going to take place. I believe that in all probability it is going to take place and that it would have taken place, and I think that the point of view of Scotland would probably be considered, but I should like to say to the noble Earl that it would make a difference to the entire confidence of the public—and they are very anxious just now about the transport situation in Scotland—if Amendments such as this, or this Amendment, could be accepted, so that it is stated quite clearly in the Bill that consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland will take place.
5.33 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in the absence of so many Scotsmen on other more urgent business, it behoves us of the half-blood and quarter-blood to come to the rescue of those that my noble friend the Field Marshal calls the
1146
"tribesmen". If the Government accept this Amendment, as I hope they will do, and if, as I believe, they will have the sense to accept our Amendment about bus shares later on, it will mean that Scotland and Wales will have representation on the Railway Boards which will wholly own a large share of the bus companies in the country and half own the rest. That is likely to give Wales and Scotland the best possible representation they could hope for in a combined transport system. On the other hand, if the Government, in their lack of wisdom, choose to reject both Amendments, then Wales and Scotland, as my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh said, will feel that they are being deliberately kept out of consultation by the Minister in order to make it the more easy to destroy their existing transport connections.
The draftsman, to whom these matters are generally referred, will say this Amendment is unnecessary. But in the past we have often put into Bills things which the draftsman has said are unnecessary; and if it is harmless, why not put it in? The only other argument that is ever adduced against putting in these little things to please the House of Lords is that it involves Parliamentary time in another place. But, my Lords, we are sick of being told that legislation cannot be properly completed in this House because the legislative programme has been filled so full that another place has not time to deal with it. I think that the Government would be very wise to try to put these words in, because I feel that if they do not they will help to alienate still more of the population.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I intervene for a few moments to say that I very much hope the Government will find it possible to accept this Amendment, or, if they do not feel able to accept it, that they will at least give a very clear assurance that what the Amendment purports to achieve will in fact be done? I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the appalling dismay that there is in the areas which are going to be severely affected by the closing of so many railway lines. The counties of Carmarthen. Cardigan, Pembroke and Brecon will, if the Transport Commission's proposals go through, have no railways at all, except for the main line service from

1147
Paddington to Fishguard, which just runs along the South Coast. The one link between the North and the South will be completely severed. Although I do not consider that this Bill affords the appropriate moment to discuss which of the lines should or should molt be closed, I think we should be allowed to take this opportunity of pointing out to the Minister of Transport that we propose to draw his attention very forcibly to some of the proposals which are being made, and to remind him of the undertaking which was given last week in the debate in another place that no line would be closed without the Minister's consent.
The £ s. d. of the closing of the lines is all very well, but, as I ventured to say in the Welsh debate which we had a week or two ago in your Lordships' House, surely the essence of nationalisation is that the good services will provide for the bad. Although perhaps in this case there is not very much good which can provide for the bad, if the losses of the British Transport Commission are what they say they are—they are very large—there comes a moment when you cannot drive the people of the country too hard, and in these sparsely populated counties in central Wales (I know nothing about the closures which are proposed in North Wales, and I do not know whether any other noble Lord from that part of the country has anything to say) in order to alleviate the real, genuine anxiety which is being felt about the abolition of the railway transport system in South Wales, some consideration might well be given to this Amendment, or at least a very definite assurance should be given that what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asks for will be done.
5.38 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to support Lord Stonham very strongly in this Amendment. I think it is essential that these words be put into the Bill. It may be said by the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, "Well, of course, we were going to carry out this policy anyway". I do not accept that as a reason for not putting the words into the Bill. When the Labour Government was in office and the Conservatives were in Opposition, time and time again
1148
this argument was refuted by the Conservative Party in Opposition. They then said, "If there is no objection, put it into the Bill". That was said time and time again, and the Labour Government did put into Bills no end of Amendments, and acceded to the requests of the Conservative Opposition. Therefore, I ask the Government to do the same this afternoon. It will, as previous speakers have said, give some—I will not say satisfaction, but some assurance to the public in both Scotland and Wales that they will have some consideration given to their needs, though how much, I do not know. Because as the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, has said, so far as South Wales is concerned there will be only one railway line; that is, the main line going down to Fishguard. So far as North Wales is concerned, as I understand it, there will be only one railway line, the line going to Holyhead, and in between the country will be more or less back, to what is was before the railway age.
LORD STONHAM: The age of Owen Glendower.
LORD OGMORE: I do not know about Owen Glendower; I expect he could get around a little more easily in those days than he could to-day. But the fact is that we in Wales are presented with a very serious situation indeed. Quite frankly, like Lord Dynevor, I do not know what the public will do about it. Let us take one simple example, the Royal Welsh Show. For years past the founders and supporters of the Royal Welsh Show have been urged to establish, instead of the peripatetic affair it has been, a standing site where year after year it will be served by the railways, where there will be no difficulty in taking cattle, horses, implements, and all the rest of it, to the Show. So they have established a permanent site at Builth Wells. And what happens now? The railway is to be removed. The site will be isolated from all railway travel. It is a very serious problem. Therefore I ask the Government to accede to this moderate Amendment, though not for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I do not want them to give way in order to bolster up the fading fortunes of the Unionist Party in Scotland. I hope that they will continue to fade and that nothing in this Bill will in any way

1149
impede that fading away. I do not think it will. For all the reasons given by noble Lords other than that, I heartily support the Amendment.
LORD BOSTON: My Lords, I come from North Wales, and I entirely endorse what has been said. Cardiff is the capital of Wales and to get from North to South Wales is already difficult. If things go on as they are, people may have to get to Cardiff by going round by London. Therefore, I support the Amendment, in the hope that it will be accepted.
5.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, moved this Amendment in Committee, the principal reason why I undertook to reconsider it was that so many Scottish Peers were unable to be present. I would ask your Lordships to believe that it is not due to any Machiavellian design on the part of the usual channels that on Report this Amendment falls upon another day when so many of my noble friends from Scotland are unable to be present. Last time, as often happens, this Scottish item came up at the beginning of the week of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh, when it was necessary for many Scottish Peers to be there and not here. This week-end, the day before yesterday, Her Majesty The Queen went on a six-day visit to Scotland, where she will be in residence in the Palace of Holyroodhouse, from where she will visit a great many parts of Scotland, both cities and counties, and there are many Scottish Peers who have numerous duties in connection with Her Majesty's visit to all these parts of the country. That this Report stage should have been taken to-day and to-morrow, during the visit, is simply a piece of Parliamentary bad luck, with which noble Lords who have been in both Houses will, I am sure, be familiar. We could not have taken the Report stage on any other days than to-day and to-morrow in order to allow enough time to get it all through before the end of the Session.
I share the regret which my noble friend behind me, Lord Ferrier, voiced, that so many of our noble friends from Scotland, whom we should all have liked to hear on the subject, are not able to be present. I would say that, in view
1150
of the fact that so many of them could not be in your Lordships' House to-day, I have tried to take special care and trouble not only to examine all the arguments on both sides for and against these Amendments, but also to put them as fully as I could before my right honourable friend the Minister and all my colleagues who are concerned. And I have tried my best to consider not only the points which have been made but also those which I know would have been raised by my noble friends, such as my noble friend Lord Polwarth, who was referred to a moment ago.
Although my right honourable friend and the Government are unable to accept, the Amendment, I should like to convince your Lordships that the interests of Scotland and of Wales will not suffer on account of that fact. When my noble friend Lord Hawke says that we must not skimp our business for reasons of time, I heartily agree with him. I do not think that there has been any disposition on anybody's part not to take sufficient time over this Bill or over this Amendment, and I will do my best to give your Lordships a full argument on the subject.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I was referring to the plea we sometimes hear: that the Government cannot accept an Amendment in this House because there is no time to deal with it in another place.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I realise that, but I want to make clear that I am not putting forward that plea now in regard to this Amendment, and I shall do my best to give your Lordships, not at inordinate length, but without cutting myself short for reasons of time, a full argument on this matter. I should like first to say a word about the 1953 Act, which provided for two—not Scottish members, but members appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the Transport Commission. I should like to deal with this particularly in connection with Clauses 2 and 55 of this Bill, concerning the Users' Consultative Committees and the Regional Boards which are set up under this Bill. Then, if your Lordships will allow me, I will say a

1151
general word about the Amendment in principle.
When he spoke in Committee, my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn mentioned that, as Secretary of State for Scotland, he had been partly concerned in getting inserted in the 1953 Act the provision concerning consultation with the Secretary of State regarding two members of the Transport Commission. As I wished to examine this question fully, my noble friend was kind enough to give me the official sources of information from which I might be able to discover the details of the special reasons why the Government agreed to put in that provision at that time. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred to these in general terms.
Although it is contrary to our general legislative procedure that an Act of Parliament should say specifically that the Minister shall do what would in any case be his constitutional duty, according to my information the provision was put into the 1953 Act because the reorganisation contemplated under that Act involved the denationalisation of a great deal of road haulage. Scotland was one of the administrative areas and it was considered, both by the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Transport, that many special considerations would arise in connection with these denationalisation schemes which would make it justifiable to provide that there should be two members of the Commission who should be appointed on the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
May I remind your Lordships of the differences between that Act and this Bill? The reorganisation schemes would have been carried out by the Minister only on the advice of the Transport Commission; and there was no provision, such as there is in this Bill, for the area Consultative Committees, which your Lordships will have no doubt read about in the rather long and complicated Clause 55 of this Bill. When the Minister is deciding whether or not to agree to any proposed closure of a branch line (which is what I think has been causing misgivings to so many of your Lordships, not only in Scotland and Wales, but in parts of England, too), when he has decided whether to agree to the proposed closure, or Whether to
1152
give the railways a direction, which he can do, to retain the service at public expense, even although it involves a loss, he must take account of all the relevant circumstances. And those circumstances will be put before him on representations from the public, through the area Consultative Committees; and when there is any question of the adequacy of roads for the traffic which is thus diverted from rail to road, he will consult, as necessary, with the Secretary of State.
Under Clause 55, to which I have referred, a special procedure is laid down for examination of a proposed railway passenger closure. The Consultative Committee will be required to report to the Minister specifically on any hardship which will be caused by the proposed closures, and the Minister, having taken into account all the relevant factors, will be able, if he thinks necessary, to secure that alternative services are provided; or he may direct the railways to keep the railway service in being, even although it is uneconomic. May I also remind would Lordships of the Regional Boards which are set up under Clause 2 of the Bill?
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend a question on the Consultative Committees. It is being said in Wales that the end of September is the time to close the railway. Is there a time limit for the Consultative Committee to consult?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: There is always time for the Consultative Committee to give the Minister the information which he has to consider before making his decision. There is no general date at which all railways must either be closed or go on. I do not want to go into Clause 55 in great detail, but that clause goes on. There is no limit to the operation of Clause 55.
I had proposed to refer to what my noble friend Lord Dynevor said, and, as he has interrupted, it may be convenient to do so now. He spoke of the anxiety of people who live in Wales and Scotland. But I am sure that he and all your Lordships will agree that on this matter of the closure of branch lines there are counties, such as Cornwall and many other English counties, which are not on the main industrial lines, or within the main conurbations, and which are just as likely to be inconvenienced

1153
as parts of Scotland or Wales. So there is not a special problem as there was considered to be in regard to the denationalisation of road haulage in 1953.
I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships again to the Regional Railway Boards set up under Clause 2 of the Bill. There is not one for Wales—I think that would come into the Western Railway Board—but there is a Scottish Regional Railway Board to be set up under this Bill. These Boards, unlike the present Area Boards, which are simply set up as a matter of managerial discretion by the Transport Commission, are statutory Boards; and although under Clause 2 their duties are not defined by Statute (their duties are to be decided later by the Railways Board and the Minister), it is inconceivable that a Regional Board, appointed to carry out the local management of the railways in its area, would not have full knowledge and be able to make full representations with regard to such matters as the closure of any branch line. Your Lordships will see from page 104, in the First Schedule, paragraph 10 (3)(a) that these Regional Railway Board will consist of people
"who have had wide experience of, and are conversant with, the special requirements and circumstances of the region with which the Regional Railway Board is concerned, including in particular the special transport requirements in that region."
With regard to the general argument, it has been put forward partly as a psychological question by my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh. But I would ask your Lordships to consider the argument on the other side, which I think preponderates: that not only is it unnecessary, but the principle of putting unnecessary provisions into a Statute of this kind might have undesirable results. I quoted in Committee to your Lordships Clause 1 (3), and as I am trying to give a rather fuller speech this time, I hope your Lordships will not mind my reading it again. It says:
"The British Railways Board shall consist of"—
and then the members are defined. Then it continues:
"… the Chairmen and other members of the Board shall be appointed from among persons who appear to the Minister to have had wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, transport, industrial, commercial
1154
or financial matters, administration, applied science, or the organisation of workers, and the Minister in appointing them shall have regard to the desirability of having members who are familiar with the special requirements and circumstances of particular regions and areas served by the Board,"
That is the purpose of those of your Lordships who are supporting this Amendment.
It is hardly necessary for me to add that it is the constitutional duty of a Minister to consult his colleagues in other Departments on any matters which might particularly concern, directly or indirectly, those Departments. It is the duty of the Minister to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Welsh Affairs with a view to providing adequate and suitable representation of appropriate members. It is not his duty to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland on the appointments to the London Board. It would be his normal constitutional duty and practice to consult him about appointments to the Railways Board.
LORD STONHAM: It would not be the Minister's duty to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Welsh Affairs about the London Transport Board were the Amendment accepted.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I quite understand that that is mot the purpose of the Amendment; and, in any case, if the Government found it possible to accept any Amendment of this kind, we should make any alterations in drafting which might be necessary to fulfil this purpose. I am not complaining at all about the drafting of the Amendment, but I am pointing out that it is the duty of the Minister to do exactly What the Amendment suggests; that is to say, to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Welsh Affairs in regard to appointments to his Boards in order to make sure that the purpose of Clause 1 (3) shall be carried out—namely, that the Boards shall have
"members who are familiar with the special requirements and circumstances of particular regions and areas served by the Board."
The objection in principle to stating unnecessarily what is in any case the duty of the Minister is this. Once you start putting things in an Act of Parliament it may not do any particular harm for some time, but in course of time

1155
people, and perhaps Ministers, will begin to think: "There is nothing in this Bill which says that I must consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Housing and Local Government,"—Whoever it may be—" and therefore I am not under any obligation to consult them." I am not saying that that would be likely to happen immediately, but it is a possible inference from the fact that you put an unnecessary obligation into a Statute; it may come to be inferred that it is not an obligation unless it is put in the Statute.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke a few minutes ago, but I do not think he is here at the moment. I did not want to ask him anything, but merely to refer to something he said. He said that when the Labour Government were in office, Conservatives often moved Amendments which they admitted to be unnecessary, but which they thought could not do any harm, and that sometimes, according to his recollection, the Labour Government had accepted those Amendments because they could not do any harm. All I would reply to that is that they did not do so in regard to the Transport Bill, 1947, because in that Bill there is no provision at all for any Minister to be consulted, either in regard to two members or in regard to any members of the Transport Commission or any other body. It was the Conservative Government in 1953 which accepted an Amendment, although strictly it was unnecessary, because it was considered by the Government that there were special circumstances which excused it, which in our view do not exist in regard to this Bill.
In submitting that the Amendment is unnecessary, I would again emphatically assure your Lordships that the Minister of Transport intends to carry out his normal constitutional duties under this Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Wales will be consulted in regard to all appointments as to assuring suitable representation on appropriate Boards. I would particularly give that assurance—not for any Party reason, but because he particularly asked about it—to my noble friend Lord Ferrier. He said he
1156
wanted to be assured that this would be done. I can assure my noble friend, and your Lordships, that it will be done, and that the only reason why we do not feel able to accept this Amendment is that it is unnecessary, I think entirely unnecessary, in relation to this Bill. We think that it is not desirable in principle, for the reasons which I have given, specifically to introduce into a Bill obligations which are part of the normal duties of the Minister, in case there should be any implication that it is not his normal duty when they are not specifically mentioned. I would therefore ask your Lordships to agree with me that this Amendment ought not to be included in the Bill.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? I understood him to say, in an attempt to placate Scottish opinion, that they will have a Railway Board to look after their affairs in Scotland. Does that mean that he now proposes to add to Clause 2 a Welsh Railway Board, in order that his Welsh friends' interests may be looked after?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I did not propose to add anything to Clause 2. I merely pointed out to your Lordships that under Clause 2 there will be a Scottish Regional Board, and I mentioned that Wales would come under the Western Regional Board.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have all listened with the greatest care to what the noble Earl has said. Speaking for my side, I think we shall be disappointed with the Minister's reply. The Boards with which we ask the Minister to have a consultation are not only the Railway Boards, but also the Docks Board; and if this Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, by the House, we can then consider whether, when the appointment of the Holding Company is made, the Minister should also have consultations with the Secretary of State——
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I say that it was because all the argument so far on this Amendment had been in relation to railways that I did not mention the Docks Board. I think the canals would be very unlikely to be appropriate. The docks might in certain oases. But I did not mention them

1157
because they had not been mentioned throughout the argument. I think the apprehensions which were expressed ware mostly about railway closures.
LORD SHEPHERD: But the docks are in the same category as are the railways. The wording which sets up the Railway Board—the later words the noble Earl quoted—(applies also to the Docks Board.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly, and the normal constitutional duty of the Minister to consult the Secretary of State about the Docks Board would also apply.
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.16 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will be brief here because this is a subject that we discussed fairly fully on the Committee stage. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Chairman and the majority of the members of the Railway Boards should render full-time service. When one looks at what I would call the almost superhuman task of the Railways Board in dealing with all the problems in providing an efficient transport
LORD SHEPHERD: As I understand it, under the Bill the Minister is not called upon to consult with either of the Ministers, and that, I thought, was the overwhelming feeling, at least from the speeches which have been made this afternoon. If the noble Earl cannot give us any assurance in this matter, I hope that my noble friends will press this Amendment to a Division.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Sinha, L.

Amulree, L.

Kens wood, L.

Stonham, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Strang, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Ogmore, L.

Terrington, L.

Chorley, L.

Rea, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dynevor, L.

Margesson, V.

Albemarle, E.

Foley, L.

Marks of Broughton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Melchett, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Goschen, V.

Mills, L.

Boston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Milverton, L.

Brecon, L.

HaiLsham, V. (L. President)

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Hampton, L.

Newall, L.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Home, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Somers, L.

Craigton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Soulbury, V.

Davidson, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Spencer, E.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

Mac Andrew, L.

Teynham, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mancroft, L.

Waldegrave, E.

system and, at the same time, reducing these appalling losses, it must be obvious that the Board should be strong and that the majority of its members should be giving full-time executive service. According to the Report of the British Transport Commission for 1961, six out of fourteen are part-time directors. I should have thought, considering the future of the Railways Board, that there would be a different ratio of part-time to full-time members. In particular, I think that the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman should be full-time directors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Chairman and a majority of the members of the Railways Board shall be required to render whole-time service to the Board or Regional Boards.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD MILLS: An Amendment with similar effect was moved in Committee, and after a full explanation of the Government's attitude to the proposal by my noble friend Lord Dundee it was negatived on Question. In view of the full explanations which were then given I also propose to be brief on this matter. It would, I suggest, be undesirable to lay down a statutory provision on full-time membership. There was such a provision as regards full-time and part-time members of the Commission under the 1947 Act. There is no such provision in the nationalisation Statute for the National Coal Board or the Gas Board and the only relevant provision as regards the electricity industry is that the Chairman of the Generating Board and the Chairman of the Electricity Council must be full-time members. I well remember debating a very similar Amendment to the Electricity Act, 1957.
The reason we think it wrong to make a statutory provision of this kind is not that we object to a proper representation of full-time members, but it seems to us to be undesirable to say it in the Statute, because circumstances do arise, as I have found myself, when for some reason or another one has to make an appointment which is desirable at the time or to deal with a particular situation. While we do not dissent from the idea that there should be a majority of full-time members, at the same time we think it wrong to put it in the Statute. I believe an assurance was given in another place to that effect and the Amendment which was proposed in another place was then withdrawn. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this Amendment too.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment follows the undertaking which I gave in Committee to consider an Amendment of the Bill to provide that dock
1160
management shall count as one of the qualifications for membership of the Docks Board under subsection (5) of Clause 1. I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who raised this point, because it was clearly an omission in the Bill, and this Amendment rectifies it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after ("in") insert ("the operation, management or administration of docks or").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: It has been suggested that we should adjourn at this point. If your Lordships agree, I will therefore move that the Report stage be now adjourned.
Moved, That the Report stage be now adjourned.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on April 17 last discharged, and the Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
REGENT REFINING COMPANY BILL
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past six o'clock.