Lords Sitting of 10 July 1962

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

LONDON TAXICAB REGULATIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 the technical advisory committee, appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to review the conditions of fitness for London taxicabs, has completed its work, and whether they will now publish the new regulations.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, this technical advisory committee has completed its work and I am glad to inform the noble Lord that copies of its report are in fact in your Lordships' Library. The Deputy Commissioner has accepted the recommendations of the committee and the revised conditions of fitness, which tare to come into force on January 1, 1963. They will be published in August.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for that very satisfactory reply, and congratulating him on his success in running this report to ground in the Library, may I ask by which Department the report will eventually be published, and where it will be obtainable by members of the cab trade, who are most anxious to know know what is in it, in order to make preparations in readiness for January 1 next year?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think this report will be published by my right honourable friend at the Home
134
Office. Should I be wrong, I will let the noble Lord know. In any case, it will be available to all who are interested in taxicabs.

LOANS FOR EGYPT AND BRITISH NATIONALS' CLAIMS
2.37 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: 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 they will give an assurance that they will not grant to the Egyptian Government any loans or credit directly, or give support to the granting of such by any international financial institution to which Britain is a subscribing participant, until the Egyptian Government has properly and adequately met the claims of dispossessed British nationals.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has asked me to apologise for his not being able to answer this Question himself. He has gone to meet the President of the Liberian Republic, who is arriving this afternoon on a State visit to London. My noble friend is still having discussions with the United Arab Republic Government about the need to settle the claims of these British subjects whose property has been desequestrated but who have not yet been able to get out of the United Arab Republic the money to which they are entitled under the financial agreement of 1959. As soon as my noble friend has anything to report to your Lordships he will do so.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that it does not in any way answer the Question I put on the Order Paper? If the Minister would kindly look at my Question, he will see that it asks whether Her Majesty's Government can give an assurance that no further monies from the British taxpayers will be paid to the Egyptian Government until the question of British nationals is settled. He has in

135
no way answered that particular question. May I ask him whether he could now give an answer to the Question which is on the Order Paper?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think it would be very sensible to give an assurance, such as is suggested in the terms of the Question, that Her Majesty's Government will not grant any loans or credit unless these claims are met in full. I do not think that that would have the desired effect.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, do I understand that the Minister is now kindly answering my Question by saying that Her Majesty's Government cannot give that assurance?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think so, yes. We certainly cannot give the assurance in the terms which are suggested in the Question.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to tell us why the Egyptian Government will not pay the money that ought to have been paid?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have often discussed this question before. The reason given, which I think is true, is that they have not enough sterling to fulfil the obligations under the 1959 Agreement. I did mention, when I answered a Question on this subject on May 8, in reply to a supplementary, that we have in the past expressed, and we continued to express, the, view that the failure hitherto to implement the undertakings of the 1959 Agreement has prejudiced our relations with the U.A.R., and that the implementation of the agreement would greatly improve them. We are continually pressing that view upon the Government of the United Arab Republic.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, arising out of the refusal of the noble Earl to give the assurance for which my noble friend asked, is the noble Earl aware of a riddle which is now circulating in regard to British claims against Egypt, to wit: "When is a promise not a promise?" and of the answer—"When it is given to British claimants by the British Government"? To go one stage further, he talked about Egyptian lack of sterling. Does the noble Earl
136
remember that when the Agreement of February, 1959, was signed the result was a totally inadequate sum of £27½ million paid by Egypt in total fulfilment of all Egyptian obligations, and that Great Britain simultaneously released £41 million sterling? That is a fact. Is he further aware that in May, 1957 (I come back to the definition of a promise), an unequivocal promise was given to the House of Commons:
"The blocked accounts are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position, the House can be sure of that."
That assurance was given by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Minister for Foreign Affairs. Am I not right in saying that the answer to the question, "When is a promise not a promise?" is: "When it is given by the British Government to British claimants in Egypt"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary, the promise under the 1959 agreement was given by the Egyptian Government, and it is the Egyptian Government whom we are seeking to hold to that promise, while we all, I think, recognise the exchange difficulties which may hinder them in implementing it. In reply to the rest of my noble friend's supplementary, the quotations which he has made from the year 1957 are all of statements made considerably prior to the agreement of 1959, which was accepted by both Houses of Parliament as a settlement of our claims against Egypt. It is the 1959 agreement which we are seeking to get properly implemented.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I just follow that up? If the noble Earl would read the Hansard reporting the debate in which the agreement of 1959 was agreed to—I believe it was agreed to in both Houses—he will find it was done only on the strength of certain definite or almost explicit undertakings given by the Prime Minister and by the then Leader of this House. As the noble Earl has brought in the 1959 agreement, I would say it was only in consideration of certain definite commitments entered into at that time that that agreement was passed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that is another question, my Lords, but whatever was said by the Prime Minister at that time in another place has not been departed from.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that many countries when short of currency indulge in barter trade; and have the Government considered making an arrangement with the Egyptian Government—if they are willing—to provide cotton over a period of years, in order that the Government could then sell that cotton and find the necessary money?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have considered a great many expedients of that kind and of other kinds, and we certainly hope that we shall reach a satisfactory settlement. I can assure the noble Lord that we are not leaving out of account any possible method of dealing with this problem.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether Her Majesty's Government have in mind any retaliatory measures or sanctions that can be applied, until this promise is fulfilled.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think it is particularly helpful, during negotiations which you hope may lead to some results, to start talking about punitive retaliation. What we hope to do is to persuade the Egyptian Government to honour their obligations so far as it is possible to do so, having regard to their exchange difficulties.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, is there any indication as to what is the condition of the claimants who have been kept waiting all this time? What is their condition?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that is a completely separate question from the one on the Paper. As the noble Viscount is aware there are a vast number of claimants, whose conditions vary a very great deal. Under the agreement which we already have, those whose claims are the smallest and who are in the greatest need have been satisfied, as I think your Lordships have been told, to the extent of 90 per cent. With regard to the further parts of the 1959 agreement, which we are particularly considering now—that is, the
138
failure of the Egyptian Government to pay the amount of sterling to British holders of blocked sterling accounts in Egypt which they undertook to do under the 1959 agreement—I am hopeful that we may be able to make some statement before Parliament rises for the Recess, although I am not sure of that at this moment.

ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES PROCEDURE
2.47 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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 when it is proposed to lay the new code of rules of procedure for the conduct of administrative inquiries before the House and what form this will take.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it is proposed to lay before the House next Friday rules of procedure relating to appeals to the Minister of Housing and Local Government under Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1960, as well as rules of procedure for inquiries into proposals by local authorities for the compulsory acquisition of land. These rules will be contained in statutory instruments which will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. Am I to assume from it that he has, unfortunately, found himself unable to accept the suggestion I made during the debate we had upon these rules of procedure in December last: that they should be laid before your Lordships' House in the form of a White Paper, instead of in a statutory instrument subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, to enable your Lordships to debate them if your Lordships so desired?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords. I am bound by Section 7A of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, which the

139
noble Lord will remember we inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959. That section states:
"The power to make rules under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any instrument containing any such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
I am quite sure, however, that the ingenuity of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will find a substitute for the procedure which he would have liked. Of course, he can put a Prayer to the regulations and I will consider with great sympathy any points that are raised on the Prayer. I think the House would feel it would be a perfectly legitimate way of using a Prayer, to have some discussion of the rules, and for those of your Lordships who have suggestions to make them at that time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am even more thankful to the noble and learned Viscount for the courtesy of his reply. From that, I assume that he will not take it amiss if I lay a Prayer for their annulment in order to allow the House to debate them, and to hear the explanation from the noble and learned Viscount, which I am sure will be entirely satisfactory to your Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may reply to that in a sentence, may I say that I should never take anything amiss which would give me the chance of hearing a speech from my noble and learned friend.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.52 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 52 [Coastal shipping]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM) moved, in subsection (1) (b), after first "to" to insert "or from". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37 together, as they are related. Your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Teynham moved Amendments to protect the coastal shipping industry in certain circumstances where they were dependent upon railway transport for part of the journey of the goods. He withdrew those Amendments on my giving an undertaking that I would consider whether the points justified their being covered, and that I would put down Amendments if that proved to be so.
The points concerned were, first, that the Minister should be empowered to give directions to the Railways Board with regard to Charges for the carriage of goods by rail, not only from their point of origin to the port of shipment but from the port of destination to their final destination, if they had to depend on rail transport for either of those journeys. Secondly, I was asked to consider that the Minister should be placed under a duty to refer complaints about railway charges under the clause to a suitably qualified person for investigation and advice before considering Whether a direction to the Railways Board should be given—that is, to place a duty on him in respect of something he had already said that he would do. The third point was that the clause should apply to charges which were proposed to be made by the railways as well as to charges actually made. It is really a point of clarification, to make quite sure that those two points are covered.
These points were found to be reasonable, and these Amendments 34 to 37 have been put down to cover them—and, indeed, they do. They do two other things as well, which were found on consideration to be necessary for

141
drafting purposes. First, they introduce provision for a procedure which is designed for speed—which I think several noble Lords have already said is desirable—so that any complaint can be considered as quickly as possible. Further, it seemed that it was desirable to lay down some provision if the railways refused to quote any charge at all other than for very sound operational purposes. So those two points have been included in the Amendments. I hope I may say that the Amendments achieve a degree of protection which is justifiable and reasonable in the circumstances, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 2, after first ("to") insert ("or from").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Her Majesty's Government for this series of Amendments, which I think fully meets those points which referred to coastal shipping which I raised during the Committee stage of the Bill. I should like to say just one word with regard to Amendment No. 37, which refers to complaints. I think the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has already mentioned the fact that speed is very important. I would suggest it would be a good thing that when in fact a complaint is made to the Minister it should be made at the same time to the investigator. I would say that speed is the essence of this matter, and this procedure would, I suggest, help to clarify the position more quickly. It would enable the investigator immediately to make some preliminary inquiries, and possibly hold the position pending the more formal investigation of the policy. Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could give us his assurance that he would have no objection to this procedure.
There is one other point I should like to mention on this clause. I hope it may be possible for Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that they will welcome the voluntary arrangements whereby the railways and coastal shipping can consult together to avoid needless and wasteful competition. Again, I wish to thank Her Majesty's Government for meeting my views in such a very handsome way.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, before the noble Lord in charge of the Bill
142
replies, may I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham? It seems to me that if an application is made or a complaint is laid by a responsible body, such as the Chamber of Shipping, it should be dealt with without any delay at all, and referred to the investigator forthwith. Now I can see the objections that Departments and Ministers naturally take to statutory directions to be quick about things regarding which they say they have no intention of being dilatory, and far be it from me to suspect my successor at the Ministry of Transport of any tendency of that kind. But the machine has become very complicated, and Departments have a habit (and I think that perhaps it has grown greater as time has gone on) of consulting everybody they can think of before they take any action at all. In this case, the suggestion is that the complaints might be simultaneously referred to the investigator, and that some assurance should be given by the Minister that, provided the complaint comes from a responsible body, a representative body, and not some individual shipowner, then it will be investigated, not only without prejudice to the eventual decision, of course, but without any delay at all. I think an assurance of that kind would give some satisfaction to an industry which is very hard pressed.
I said several years ago to your Lordships that in this new era of intense competition in transport—a policy with which, in many respects, I was not in complete agreement—we must expect that the devil would take the hindmost, and that the hindmost in the intensified road-rail competition would be likely to be coastwise shipping. That, my Lords, I am afraid, has proved only too true, and therefore I think their demand for even firmer assurances that their complaints will be dealt with rapidly is justified. I recognise, as the noble Lord has, that the Government have gone a very long way in meeting the substance of the representations made on behalf of coastline shipping, and I feel that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill need have no hesitation in giving an assurance that complaints from this highly responsible representative body will in fact, as a matter of administration, be dealt with forthwith.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I very much appreciate the support of my noble friend Lord Teynham and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for this Amendment, and for once, perhaps, it looks as if we even have something fairly near right. As regards the assurances for which I have been asked, I should have thought that it stood to reason that, where the commercial interests of both parties coincide, it would no doubt be to their mutual advantage to ensure that the arrangements under Clause 52 are made to work satisfactorily, and I should have thought that it would have been a normal and beneficial arrangement if they did so.
As regard the speed of the matter, I cannot quite give my noble friend the positive assurance for Which he asks, in the terms for which he asks, for the following two reasons. First of all, of course, there is the practical one: that the investigator concerned may not necessarily be the same man in each case. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that the people making the complaint would toe able to know to whom they should send a duplicate copy, so to speak. Secondly, the procedure allows for a certain degree of discretion on the part of the Minister in referring the complaints to the investigator, and I think that that discretion should be preserved to avoid a spate of complaints, some of which might well be duplicated, descending on the investigator, or investigators, if there were more than one individual involved, and, therefore, even tending to slow down consideration of a particular matter rather than speed it up. But one thing I can assure my noble friend is that the necessity for speed in this matter is very well appreciated, and it was, indeed, for that reason that the procedure in the Amendments has been put in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 3, after ("be") insert ("or have been").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 18, after ("him") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 21, at end insert:
("and
(b) that the goods in question cannot reasonably be carried by coastal shipping unless they are carried by rail to or from the harbour specified in the complaint.
( ) If it appears to the Minister that a body making a complaint under subsection (1) of this section has a reasonable case to make in support of the complaint, he shall refer the complaint for investigation to a person appearing to him to have suitable qualifications for that purpose, and the Minister shall consider the report of that person before giving a direction upon the complaint under this section:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a complaint if it appears to the Minister that he has no power to give a direction upon the complaint by reason of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section.
( ) If it appears to the Minister on a complaint by any such body as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section—

(a) that the Railways Board have refused to quote a charge for the carriage by rail to or from any harbour of goods which are to be or have been carried by coastal shipping, and

(b) that the goods in question cannot reasonably be carried by coastal shipping unless they are carried by rail to or from the harbour specified in the complaint,

the Minister may give directions to the Board requiring them to quote a charge for the carriage in question.
( ) The procedure on any complaint under this section (including any reference of the complaint for investigation) shall be such as the Minister may determine.
( ) In this section, references to a charge made by the Railways Board for the carriage of any goods include references to a charge at which the Board hold themselves out as willing to carry any goods.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [The Nationalised Transport Advisory Council]:
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 go together. The effect of these Amendments is to enable the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to advise

145
the Minister on any questions relating to co-ordination or any other aspect of the nationalised transport undertakings. As the Bill is at present drafted, they can advise the Minister on only such matters as he may direct. These Amendments have been put down following the statement I made in Committee on June 5, in which I gave the actual wording of these proposed Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was good enough to say that he thought that if we put down Amendments to that effect they would meet the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("such").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 9, leave out from ("undertakings") to end of line.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to allow the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to advise the Minister on questions relating to the Transport Holding Company. The definition at present in the Bill excludes the Holding Company although it includes its subsidiaries, and thus is defective. This Amendment has been put down to remedy that defect, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 9, leave out ("and") and insert ("the activities of the Holding Company and the undertakings").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55:
The Transport Consultative Committees
55.—
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Central Committee and of each Area Committee to consider and, where it appears to them to be desirable, make recommendations with respect to any matter affecting the services and facilities provided by any of the Boards—

(a) which has been the subject of representations (other than representations appearing to the committee to be frivolous) made to the committee by or on behalf of users of those services or facilities, or

146

(b) which has been referred to the committee by the Minister or by a Board, or

(c) which appears to the committee to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given;

and copies of the minutes, conclusions and recommendations of each committee shall be sent to the Board concerned and—

(i) in the case of any Area Committee, to the Central Committee: and

(ii) in the case of the Central Committee and the Area Committees for Scotland and for Wales and Monmouthshire, to the Minister.

(5) Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall entitle any committee to consider the charges made for any service or facility, or to consider any question relating to the discontinuance or reduction of railway services except as provided in the following provisions of this section; and the Central Committee shall not be obliged to consider any representation which appears to them to be more suitable for consideration by an Area Committee or which has been previously considered by an Area Committee.
3.8 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (4), after "Boards" to insert "or Transport Companies". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would lead to the convenience of the House if your Lordships would agree to take Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44 together, because they cover the same point right the way through. Had we reached this Amendment, as I had hoped, during the course of our discussions yesterday I should have hoped that there would be a ready acceptance of the Amendments or, at least, the principle behind the Amendments. Because the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in one of our discussions yesterday, in reply to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, led me to believe from his speech that it was possible for the Transport Users' Consultative Committees to discuss, and to make recommendations to the Minister on, the question of bus services. The discussion I am referring to is included in column 78 of yesterday's Hansard. But on reading the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, during that discussion yesterday, in order that I might quote it against him to-day, I found it might be that my impression from listening to his speech was not correct, because it now appears to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said was that the Transport Users' Consultative Committees could deal with bus services where

147
those bus services were in fact provided at the direction of the Minister, and with a subsidy from the Railway Boards.
We on this side of the House take the view that, in this changing pattern of transport that we must face, the Transport Users' Consultative Committees should really be transport users' consultative committees and have reference to all forms of surface transport. We should like them to be able to deal both with the companies within the Holding Company and also with the private enterprise bus companies which are providing services. I admit that, to remain within the scope of the Bill, this Amendment can refer only to those services which are provided by the companies included under the Holding Company. It is important that the general public, through their local authorities and representative organisations—trade unions, chambers of commerce, ratepayers' associations and political Parties—and ordinary individuals as well, should be able to make their views about the provision of service known to the Minister through the T.U.C.C.s, groups of persons who are giving specialised study to transport problems and making recommendations to the Minister. Then the Minister can use his power to see that a reasonable standard of service is provided for the general public. It seemed to us that the clause as it stands referred only to complaints of the public about the railways, but it now appears that the T.U.C.C.s can also make representation where there are bus services resulting from a change in railway transport. We should like this power extended to cover the services of all companies included within the Holding Company. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 6, after ("Boards") insert ("or Transport Companies").—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we considered this matter in some detail—may I say, in interesting detail—in Committee, therefore, what the noble Lords opposite want can come as no surprise. I am sure that the noble Lord will not feel me guilty of making any kind of "crack" about this, when I say that it emphasises the fundamentally different approach of noble Lords opposite to the Bill. The noble Lord suggests that we
148
should bring within the jurisdiction of the T.U.C.C.s the nationalised bus undertakings, road haulage undertakings and some shipping companies, in some of which all the shares are owned by the Commission and others of which they have merely a minority share-holding. His Amendment would bring within the ambit of the T.U.C.C. a number of undertakings that have never been within their ambit before.
I should not like there to be any misunderstanding about what was said by my noble friend Lord Mills. What he was referring to, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, hinted, was the power which the Minister has to give directions for services to be provided by the subsidiaries of the Holding Company. Except in certain circumstances connected with railway closures, when directions can be given to the Railways Boards to continue these services by working agreement, including subsidy or otherwise, they are free of control of the T.U.C.C.s. At one time, the nationalised undertakings were under that control because of the monopoly aspect. It was felt that when the Commission took them over they might be subjected to pressure in favour of the railways, and this control was to safeguard them from that. But neither of these situations applies any longer. The whole purpose of the Bill, to allow these transport undertakings to operate freely as best they can, requires them to be freed from control which previously existed and I do not think that it is a good thing that control should be reimposed and widened in scope by putting them under the T.U.C.C.s. In addition, the T.U.C.C.s are not the best qualified bodies to exert the kind of control the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the T.U.CCs. have powers, but as I understand the Bill they are purely advisory bodies. It is the Minister, on the advice he receives from a Council, who makes a decision, not the Council itself.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lord, that is correct. The Councils would not decide; they would present the case. As these transport undertakings are to operate commercially, in competition with other companies to which no such restriction would apply, if representations could

149
be made to the T.U.C.Cs. for onward transmission to the Minister, that would put them under a form of control which we regard as restrictive and unjustified. In short, there is something of a collision between what the noble Lords opposite advocate and the purposes of the Bill, as we see them, and because of that collision I feel that we should not accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if we have these fairly massive railway closures, obviously many rural districts will have to depend upon buses for passenger transport. Let us assume that the Consultative Committee has advised the Minister that a certain bus service should be provided; that it is provided by a Holding Company subsidiary, and that at first it is economically viable without any assistance from the railways by way of subsidy. But, supposing things change in the course of two or three years, will not the Holding Company, taking into account the responsibility placed upon them to be profitable, decide either drastically to reduce the bus service or, maybe, out it right out? Does that not mean that the people in that area, who have lost their railway, and now their buses, will have no other means, as I see it, of making their case to the Minister?
This is the real point that my noble friend Lord Lindgren has. We are trying to give this protection to these rural districts: that where they lose their bus services, where there are these subsidaries of the Holding Company, the public should have an opportunity to make their case. It should not be left to the Council to make up their minds, and refer the matter to the Minister, who will then make up his mind what is to be done, in much the same way as the Minister makes up his mind whether he will close a railway line.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak further, I know that such worries are in the minds of noble Lords, because we also discussed them before. On the last occasion (and I do not think I need to repeat it now) I explained at some length the Minister's powers in this situation about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is worried. I hope I made it clear that his powers of
150
direction in such matters were quite adequate to ensure that such services would be continued. But the power comes on, so to speak, through the Railways Board. The Minister has power to give directions to the Railways Board that in the event of a closure there should be provided certain bus services, if necessary; and, if they are to be run at a loss, that the Railways Board shall subsidise them, or even, in the final case, provide the services themselves. There is that safeguard.
So far as services are provided by any operator—whether by one of the Holding Company's subsidiaries, by an entirely private operator or by anyone else—the direction to the Railways Board to subsidise that service holds equally good. I think the situation the noble Lord is worried about is fully covered. I should like to add one point on that. We shall be coming in a minute to Amendment No. 49, which extends the protection I mentioned (I will not go into it fully) not only to future closures, but also to existing ones, and to those that are, so to speak, in the pipeline at the moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Do I understand then that if a bus company operating in an area in which there has been a rail closure operates for two or three years perfectly all right, balancing its accounts, suddenly finds there is a change, and that the service could be kept running only at a loss, in spite of this interval the bus company can then go to the Railways Board and ask for a subsidy?
LORD CHESHAM: That is not quite the way of it. On a complaint, which there would no doubt be—
LORD SHEPHERD: To whom would the complaint be made?
LORD CHESHAM: In the case where, as I imagine would be fairly usual, there had been a railway closure and alternative bus services were provided instead, those services, I think, would normally be provided technically by the Board, although they might be provided by a working agreement with some other company. In the case where the service is provided by the Board, as part of the Minister's conditions in agreeing to the closure (which is the point of having these powers), it then becomes a service by the Board, so that representation

151
could be made to the Railways Board concerned on the matter. It is possible that if the service is withdrawn two or three years later because it no longer pays, a further direction (because directions can be varied and given from time to time, as the Bill states) may be made for the Railways Board to subsidise the service, if necessary, to ensure that it does continue.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I venture to ask this question of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am in an area where, I am told, the railways are going to discontinue their service to the public. How long is the interval to be between the time the railways have ceased to exist in my area in Wiltshire, and the coming of the buses, whether they are controlled by the railways or not? I can assure your Lordships that the public in my part of the world are vastly disturbed about this idea. Can the noble Lord say how long the interval will be between the railways saying, "We are not going to continue the service", and the bus services coming?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may speak again, in reply to that question, of course it is not possible to say how long the interval will be. But I can reassure my noble friend by saying that closures will be subject to the Minister's consent, and in giving that consent he can impose conditions or directions that the bus services shall be provided instead. I cannot visualise that he is likely to agree that the line shall be closed down until the buses are provided. Therefore, I should have thought that in the normal case there would not be any interval.
VISCOUNT LONG: It has already been done.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, arising from that point, it underlines our uneasiness in this matter when we are told—and we all know it is true—that closures have taken place and that no alternative services have been provided. The procedure at present, as I understand it, is exactly the same as it will be under this Bill: namely, that there are complaints; they are considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee; and if there is evidence of hardship, then the Minister has to decide. We all know
152
that the procedure which has been described over and over again in our debates at various stages of this Bill is largely the procedure which operates now. But it is not operating effectively.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to speak again, because this is a most important point, and it is one on which I do not entirely disagree with the noble Lord. I should also like my noble friend Lord Long to know about this. I mentioned Amendment No. 49, which we shall reach shortly and which gives the Minister the same powers to deal with existing closures and closures that have occurred—closures that are in process now, as well as future ones, all on the same lines.
LORD STONHAM: I am glad to know that. But the point the noble Lord appears to have missed is that we have this procedure operating now, and all over the country we know it is operating unsatisfactorily, in that certain areas have been deprived of any service. They have lost their rail service and have no bus service in its place. I do not want to speak again, and the noble Lord may say that he can deal with this point on Amendment No. 49. But when he carefully explained the procedure that would be followed he said that, assuming that the Railway Board has itself been directed to provide a bus service, or to enter into agreement with some other company to provide one, and in two or three years' time it is not paying, they will then have to subsidise it. But that brings us back to the whole point we have made on this Bill. The cardinal sin, if I may put it that way, would be for the railways, or anything to do with the railways, to run a service which was not paying. If, therefore, the Minister directs them to go on doing just that and they are to subsidise the service, the question we should like answered is: Who is going to subsidise the railway company?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection 5, after "the charges" to insert "(other than special charges, as defined in the next following subsection)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to speak

153
also to Amendment No. 46. We are still dealing with the Transport Consultative Committee, which many of us regard as a guardian and an advocate for the general public in transport. This Amendment would provide an opportunity for the Committee to examine the problem and to make recommendations to the Minister. Clause 55 specifically excludes from the terms of reference any question of consideration by the Committee of charges that may be made by the Boards for any service or facility. It is a fact that under Clause 34 the railways will be free to charge what they require and what they can obtain for their particular line. They will no longer be bound by the restrictions that have been imposed upon them for many years, and which we on this side of the House freely admit have caused many of the losses.
In the past the railways have not been able to adjust their passenger or freight rates quickly enough to meet rising costs. We certainly wish the railways to have this flexibility. But we are rather concerned in case one area may be at a disadvantage compared to another area, because the railways are obviously going to be free to charge what they wish on a particular line. It is a fact to-day that our freight and passenger rates are based on a common factor throughout the country. Therefore, to move cabbages in Essex costs the same as moving cabbages in Scotland. Under this Bill there could be a different rate for moving cabbages in Essex from the rate in Scotland.
The setting free of the railways raises two problems. We have already dealt with the first; where coastal shipping is concerned we are perturbed that the railways might use their organisation to put coastal shipping at a disadvantage. We have supported the Government this afternoon on the Amendments which give a good deal of protection to coastal shipping, to ensure that the railways will not use their position to put coastal shipping at a serious disadvantage. On the other side, of course, we have the fact that the railways will be empowered in this Bill to charge what they wish. If an industry in Scotland, North-East England or Wales wished to move merchandise to a port and was required to pay freights which were a good deal higher than a similar industry producing
154
similar merchandise in the South of England would have to pay to move its material to the ports, this would be a serious disadvantage to that industry. It will apply equally in the moving of agricultural produce in various parts of the country.
I do not say that the railways should not have the right, the freedom, to charge what they feel is necessary to make a particular line viable. But, realising some of the effects of such a policy, I feel that there should be an opportunity for local organisations, trading organisations, county councils or the like, to be able to put a case, for that case to be considered, and for the report to he sent to the Minister, and for the Minister to decide whether it is fair and just that these charges should be higher in a particular area.
That is the purpose of the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper. It is very simple. It says that the Transport Consultative Committees will be empowered to consider the question of special charges as defined in the following subsection, Amendment No. 46. That Amendment describes what is a "special charge". It means:
"… charges or rates which differ from those in force in the rest of the country, or which are computed on a system which differs from that normally used; and in case of doubt the committee shall decide whether a charge is a special charge."
I think this may well prove to be of great importance to some of our minor industries in some of our struggling agricultural areas.
I would echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, When he was supporting the Government Amendment, that there should be an investigation if there is a dispute on the rates of the railways when in competition with coastal shipping. Speed will fee essential, because obviously a market or an industrial line could well be lost fey rates acting with serious effect upon their selling price. Therefore, I believe this is the best way in obtaining a speedy consideration of the problem. It will be considered fey men on these committees who will fee experienced and, I think, broad-minded. Their report can, or should, be in the hands of the Minister in sufficient time to prevent any irreparable harm being done to the areas concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 23, after ("charges") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we have once more a fundamental disagreement about the objects of the Bill. I do not find it very easy to accept the analogy which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, found with the provision which was made in earlier Amendments for the protection of coastal shipping interests in certain monopoly circumstances. Certainly I do not think I can accept for a moment that that particular case which was argued as a special consideration can be argued on those lines to embrace virtually the whole of the activity in the country.
As the noble Lord pointed out, in the Bill the Transport Consultative Committees are expressly barred from considering charges. That was obviously necessary—particularly following the removal of the control by the Transport Tribunal of railway freight and passenger fares outside London—in the interests of adequate commercial freedom for the railways. It made no sense to remove control of one and leave it in the sphere of interest of the other. Because, of course, previously T.U.C.C.s had been able to consider charges. Therefore, there would be, if it had been left, a growing tendency for the T.U.C.C.s to become involved in rates and charges and, in a sense, to replace the restriction which it is desired to remove by taking away the consideration of the Transport Tribunal. I may say, in passing, that the T.U.C.C.s in the past have considered charges only on one or two exceptional occasions. Therefore I think it is fairly clear that the Amendments, if they were accepted, would give the Committees a considerable responsibility and standing in considering the rates and charges which the Boards made, and the exact extent of that responsibility and standing is not a bit certain.
The noble Lord thought—unless I misunderstood him, in which case I apologise—that the railways had need to negotiate all kinds of rates and charges in the ordinary commercial course with traders and other people who use their services. Even under the present system where their rates and charges are governed by maxima laid down by the
156
Tribunal, there is still a very wide range of individual rates and charges which are addressed to particular circumstances and which relate to particular traders or classes of traders. It would be extremely difficult, therefore, in relation to the Railways Board at any rate, to establish what was a special charge within the meaning of the definition in the noble Lord's Amendment.
It seems to me that there is still a considerable risk that wherever in the ordinary commercial course the railways were charging some customers different rates from those which they were charging others, probably for some perfectly legitimate reason, it might be held that special rates within the meaning of the Amendment were in force, so that there would be a right of complaint with the T.U.C.C.s concerned; and a customer who could show that he was being charged higher rates for his goods than somebody else in what he thought were generally comparable circumstances would be able to go and claim that his charge was a special charge and that they should consider it. Even if it were doubtful the Committee would, as I understand the noble Lord wishes, be able to decide whether or not to accept those representations. What the Amendment would in practice achieve would be to re-impose the same kind of old statutory obligations relating to equality of charging and avoidance of undue preference, and so on, which have long since been swept away. That I do not think is desirable. And I think what is less desirable is that the charging control over the railway should be removed by the Bill and re-imposed by these Amendments, which would be in a form less efficient than that which is being removed. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must say I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. I thought he rather glossed over the fears that are held in many parts of the country on the question of the future of rail rates. In view of the amount of business which is on the Order Paper I do not propose to press this Amendment this afternoon. I will carefully consider the remarks of the noble Lord, which, as I said, on listening I found most disappointing, and I

157
shall decide what to do, in consultation with my friends, on the Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships whether I may speak to this and to No. 48 as well, Which goes with it. Subsection (14) of Clause 55 at present provides that the Central Committee may from time to time make recommendations to the Area Committees with respect to any matter affecting the procedure of those Committees. The Central Committee, of course, includes the Chairmen of the Area Committees in its membership, and the intention was to enable those on the Central Committee to discuss matters in which uniformity among the Area Committees was desirable and to make recommendations accordingly. In fact, it now appears that the word "procedure" may be too narrow for them to do that properly.
It is most important that there should be uniformity of action, subject only to local considerations, and in particular it is desirable that there should be uniformity among the Area Committees in the general lines of the reports which they will make to the Minister. They will have to report direct to the Minister on the hardship likely to be involved in closures and for making proposals to alleviate it. It is clearly desirable that the reports the Minister receives on which he is to found his considerations should be based on broadly similar lines and should adopt broadly similar criteria and standards for the assessment of hardships. I think that this slight widening of the scope of the Central Committee to bring about this uniformity is entirely desirable, and that is what these two Amendments do. I would add only that the present Chairman of the Central Committee and the Chairmen of the Area Committees are in entire agreement with the Amendments and their purpose and intention.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 23, after ("make") insert ("general").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move that Amendment No. 48 be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 25, after ("procedure") insert ("or functions").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment goes with Amendment No. 98 and therefore, again with your Lordships' permission, I will speak to the two together. Amendment No. 98 is a very lengthy one. The idea of them is to give effect to a point which noble Lords opposite raised at an earlier stage, and, indeed, it was mentioned again only a few minutes ago. It was whether it was desirable that the Minister's powers of imposing conditions and directions where there were bus services in lieu of railway closures should apply clearly to passenger closures which have already taken place and are in the process of being considered at the present time. These Amendments do just that and, I think, meet the point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 44, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 48 and insert ("for the purposes of this secton").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when I spoke a few moments ago I had not then studied Amendment No. 98 and was only considering No. 49, and could therefore not quite see how the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport was going to be able to do what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said he could do. I can see that now, and we are in favour of these two Amendments, but it leaves us in a difficulty. The Minister will have power to give directions with regard to the effects of a closure which has already taken place, and will have all the necessary power to give orders to deal with conditions arising out of future closures. Nevertheless we know from many parts of the country of the considerable hardship and difficulty which has been caused, particularly in rural areas, by the suspension of rail services in those areas where either there is no bus service, no bus service has been provided, or the bus service which exists is regarded as extremely inadequate. We must therefore hope, not only that this same procedure, now that it is going into a new Act of Parliament, will be better known and applied more rigorously, but that it will have the desired

159
effect. I think myself it will be for members of the public, quite apart from these Committees, to know what their rights are and pursue them vigorously in the hope that they will get a better transport service than might otherwise be the case.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58:
Special restrictions on grant to London Board of road service licences
58.—(1) The traffic commissioners shall not under Part III of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, grant to the London Board a road service licence (whether or not in substitution for another licence) to provide a road service over a route which is not within the London Passenger Transport Area unless they are satisfied that any person who is providing transport facilities along or near any part of the route, and whose interest will in their opinion be substantially affected if the licence is granted,—

(a) has, whether as one of the terms of a working agreement made with the London Board or otherwise, consented to the making of an application for the licence, or

(b) has unreasonably refused or withheld his consent.

3.52 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "are satisfied" and insert "determine". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 50 to 57 inclusive. These Amendments have been slightly varied since the Committee stage of the Bill. It is rather a complicated matter of the preliminary inquiry and the actual application for a licence. The object of these Amendments is to distinguish between the preliminary inquiry and the hearing of the application. I think I am right in saying that the preliminary inquiry is to find out whether an operator will be substantially affected if a licence is granted and if he has unreasonably refused or withheld his consent. I suggest that until the questions raised in the preliminary inquiry are disposed of, the consideration of the actual application for the licence should not be dealt with. I would say that it is clearly the purpose of this clause, Clause 58, to give this kind of favourable protection to an operator, and these Amendments are merely set down to meet this case.
I would point out that a very near precedent to this is an application under
160
the Road Traffic Act, 1930, by a local authority far consent for powers to run services outside its area. In those cases I think it is tame to say the application for consent is treated strictly as a separate hearing to the application for the licences themselves. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mills, at the Committee stage, perhaps inadvertently, took it for granted that all the questions would run into one another and be disposed of at the same time, but, of course, that is not exactly correct.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 10, leave out ("are satisfied") and insert ("determine").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, Clause 58 sets out the conditions under which the Traffic Commissioners can grant licences to the London Board for road services outside the London Passenger Transport Area. The purpose of these Amendments, Nos. 50 to 57, which my noble friend Lord Teynham said were all related, is to place a more positive prohibition on the grant of licences to the London Board where the interests of other bus operators might be substantially affected, and to make the application of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the clause absolute—that is, it would no longer depend on whether another bus operator near the route would be substantially affected by the grant of a licence to the London Board.
The position under the Bill as at present drafted is that the commissioners are not to grant a licence unless they "are satisfied" that any person who is providing transport facilities along or near the route and whose interest, in their opinion, will be substantially affected has consented (by making a working agreement or otherwise) to the Board's application or has unreasonably refused or withheld his consent. The Amendment provides that the commissioners are not to grant a licence unless they "determine" that a person providing transport facilities along or near the route has consented (by making a working agreement or otherwise) to the Board's application, will not be substantially affected, or has unreasonably refused or withheld consent. The differences are, first, that the commissioners must "determine" certain things, instead of "satisfying themselves", and

161
secondly, that a determination by the commissioners that an operator will not be substantially affected becomes a condition precedent to the grant of a licence.
By using the word "determine", which has a flavour of something formally carried out, in relation to finding out whether an operator is affected, the Amendment is no doubt seeking to protect operators other than the Board. It is by no means clear why this form of protection is needed. In dealing with similar Amendments in Committee I pointed out that the safeguard was not necessary. An operator along or near the route already has a statutory right of objection to an application for a road service licence. Anyone claiming to be "substantially affected" comes within this provision and thus has a right to appear in court. It is highly unlikely, as I pointed out in Committee, that the commissioners would refuse to entertain any such objections in court in cases where there was doubt whether an operator was substantially affected or not. The commissioners in practice use their discretion very much in favour of hearing objectors. Moreover, under Section 135 of the Road Traffic Act anyone will be in a position to object against the Board's application for a road service licence. Unless the objector withdraws his objection, the commissioners must take into consideration what he has to say, and once he has appeared as a party involved in the application he has a right of appeal to the Minister.
The Amendments have another effect. By using the word "determine" and by proposing that a determination that other bus operators will not be substantially affected must be a condition precedent to the grant of a licence, the Amendments suggest a procedural distinction between the grant of consent to the London Board and the grant of a road service licence. If there were this procedural distinction it would mean that the grant of consent to the London Board, either by another operator or by the traffic commissioners (after deliberation on the refusal of a consent) would be dealt with first and separately. Then, when it was determined, the London Board would apply for a road service licence in the normal way. Thus, there would be two distinct stages in the process of the London
162
Board's going outside its area. Proposals to have this kind of two-tier arrangement have been fully and carefully considered, but it has been concluded that, in practice, the traffic commissioners would have the same sort of considerations in mind whether the points before them were on a consent application or an application for a road service licence. For this reason, I consider it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to have two distinct procedures laid down in the clause, or to have a tendency towards such a distinction as represented by the Amendments.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not want to keep your Lordships long because we all want to be as brief as possible, but I am not quite satisfied over one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, seems to imply that extra protection for the local services which will be affected by London Transport is not likely to be necessary. But I would point out to your Lordships that this extension of London Transport's power of going ten miles outside its area is in fact going to open up an area of something like 2,200 square miles. Local services running outside that area are in a much less financially stable position than London Transport itself, and I feel that in that case every protection that one can grant to them is necessary. After all, there is precedent for this two-tier arrangement. I believe it has been quite a usual thing to have, first of all, the inquiry as to whether there is any objection or whether another operator is going to be affected, and then the hearing of the application itself. I think that that precedent is already in the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I see that in that case the objection, although usually heard on the same day as the application, was treated strictly as separate from and a condition precedent to the application for licence. In that case, I cannot see that the Amendment is unreasonable or undesirable; in fact, I think, in view of the protection which is necessary for these smaller operators, that it is extremely desirable.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? As the Bill is now drafted, would it be possible for the Traffic Commissioners to decide the question, and to say that they are satisfied, without hearing the interested

163
party who might be affected? If that is the case, would it not be better to amend the Bill in such a way that the interested party is bound to appear before the traffic commissioners? I understand that that would be the case if they had to make a determination rather than merely to satisfy themselves.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, may I by leave of the House answer that point? I thought I had dealt with it fully, showing what the rights of an operator were: that he had the right, if he objected, to apply to the court. As I said in Committee, the application to the traffic commissioners is surely ample protection for the operators. I do not see any case made out for other safeguards when they appear to me to have a complete safeguard already.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are they bound to hear him in open court?
LORD MILLS: The traffic commissioners would be bound to hear an interested party, if the party persists in his objection.
LORD HAWKE: In open court?
LORD MILLS: In open court.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "the next following subsection" and to insert "subsection (5) of this section". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 could, with your Lordships' permission, conveniently be taken together. The purpose of these two Amendments is to provide that current road service licences which vest in the London Board on vesting date are to contain a notional condition to the same effect as any restriction imposed under the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, if the licence related to a "restricted route". A "restricted route" is defined in subsection (4) of the clause as one over which the London Transport Executive had power to run at any time in the twelve months before the publication of the Bill subject to a condition that they should not both pick up and set down a passenger on the route. The first Amendment is a purely consequential drafting Amendment to the second.
The Amendments have been put down following an undertaking I gave in Committee
164
on June 5 on an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Teynham. The main purpose of this Amendment of Lord Teynham's was to secure that conditions about both picking up and setting down passengers on a restricted route should be enforced as regards both current and future licences as though they were conditions attached to a road service licence. It also would have prevented the Traffic Commissioners from revoking such conditions or dispensing with compliance with them, or, except in accordance with Clause 58, from varying them. In speaking on the Amendment, I made it clear that the position as regards future applications for licences was fully covered, since any such application for a restricted route would have to go through the special procedure set out in subsection (1) of Clause 58 if the licence was not subject to a condition that the London Board should not both pick up and set down passengers on the route. However, I said that as current licences are not similarly covered and as they last for up to three years, the Government should cover this point by an Amendment deeming licences in force on vesting date to be subject to such conditions. On this assurance the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, withdrew his Amendment.
These Government Amendments provide accordingly. It should be noted that, although the Amendments refer to variation of conditions, the Traffic Commissioners will not be able to dispense with such conditions under their powers in Section 134 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Thus, any attempt by the Board to vary the conditions of restriction of existing licences would bring the routes outside the conditions of exemption and would involve a variation of the conditions of a road service licence. The protection for other operators provided for in Clause 58 (2) would then apply automatically. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 42, leave out ("the next following subsection") and insert ("subsection (5) of this section")—(Lord Mills.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, as this Amendment largely meets the points I raised during the Committee stage of the Bill.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, from this side of the House, we do not object to this, nor did we do so during earlier stages of the Bill. But we must point out that it is really using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is reciprocal. There are private operators within the London Transport area operating under exactly the same conditions. I think it is true to say in regard to both the private operator in the London Transport area and London Transport operating outside their own area under special licence that they normally maintain faithfully the conditions under which they operate. From the point of view of public convenience, very often, particularly during holiday times, they do not normally keep to this procedure. It is not uncommon, as your Lordships know, for many of the services to be run to points at which attractions are taking place during Bank holidays and so on, when people are liable to be left behind. There have been occasions, and there will be occasions in the future, when private operators operating into London and, perhaps, out into Northamptonshire, may assist the public by taking passengers as far as Barnet, let us say, because London Transport during peak holiday periods cannot do it. This equally applies south of the river where London Transport may often go outside its area.
I hope there is not going to be any objection to what has really been a "blind eye" turned during public holidays to this arrangement—or perhaps I should say "agreement"—between public servants in order to deal with members of the public who are waiting at bus stations. If, afterwards, it is going to be used to vary the licence of the private operator or the London Transport operator, I think it would be a little unfair. But I think one ought to point out that where it has been broken in the past, it has been generally for the public good on both sides.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 12, leave out ("(4) In the last foregoing subsection") and insert—
("( ) Any road service licence which is transferred on the vesting date to the London Board under Part II of this Act and which authorises the London Board to provide a road
166
service on a restricted route shall have effect as if it contained a condition that the Board shall not both pick up and set down a passenger on the route, but any such condition may be varied subject to the provisions of this section.
( ) In the two last foregoing subsections"). —(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
( ) The decision of the traffic commissioners to grant a licence or to vary the conditions attached to a licence pursuant to an application to which this section relates, notwithstanding that any person providing transport facilities along or near the route of the service has not consented to the application, shall not become operative until after the expiration of one month, and if at the expiration of that period an appeal by that person to the Minister is pending, the decision of the commissioners shall not become operative until the appeal has been determined."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have set this Amendment down again in order to try to clarify the position a little further. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who said during the Committee stage that this Amendment was directly contrary to the general usage of the licensing system; but I would say that this is not really true because, as I shall endeavour to show, he is not comparing like with like.
The noble Lord's view in regard to appeals against decisions of the Traffic Commissioners in relation to road service licences is perfectly correct, but that is not the case I am now putting before your Lordships. I would say that the correct analogy and precedent here are the preliminary proceedings for consent under Section 101 of the Transport Act, 1930. The Amendment has been carefully drafted to follow closely the provisions of that Section. I think it is in Section 102 (7) of the 1930 Act, which I will read to your Lordships:
"A decision of the commissioners to grant any consent shall not become operative until after the expiration of one month, and a decision to revoke or modify a consent, or to modify any conditions attached to a consent, shall not become operative until after the expiration of three months from the date of the commissioners' decision, and if at the expiration of that period an appeal to the Minister is pending the decision of the commissioners shall not become operative until the appeal has been determined."
I think that sets out the precedent very clearly, and I cannot see why it cannot be used in this particular case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, it is true that the Amendment follows the wording of Section 102 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Section 102 sets out the arrangements under which municipal operators have to obtain consent from the Traffic Commissioners to run outside their boundaries. Having got this consent they then have to apply for road service licences in the usual way. There are thus, as the noble Lord says, two distinct procedures to be followed.
The point behind the Amendment seems to be to delay the operation of a service by the Board beyond the area boundaries. The normal usage is for a service to come into effect as soon as possible after the Traffic Commissioners give a decision. The model of the 1930 Act provisions, to which the noble Lord has referred, applies only to municipal operators, and then only to the first part of the rather complicated procedure they have to go through before they can obtain a road service licence for services outside their boundaries. London Transport's services outside their boundaries have always been subject to special statutory provisions, and not to the general procedure of Section 102 of the 1930 Act. Thus, I suggest, the model is not apt. The effect of this Amendment, perhaps the aim of it, is to open up a procedural distinction between the grant of a consent to the London Board and the grant of a road service licence.
If there were a procedural distinction it would mean that the grant of consent to the London Board, by another operator or by the Traffic Commissioners (after deliberation on a refusal of consent), would be dealt with first and separately. Once it was determined, the London Board would then apply for a road service licence. There would thus be two distinct stages in the process of the London Board's going outside its area. We consider it would be unnecessarily cumbersome in this case to have two procedures.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 60:
Amendment of enactments relating to inland waterways
60.—(1) As from the vesting date section seventeen of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873 (which requires the Commission to maintain certain inland waterways), shall have effect as if—
(b)) for the references in that section to a canal there were substituted, in relation to that Board, references to any inland waterway comprised in the undertaking of the Board which was by virtue of the Transport Act, 1947, transferred to the Commission from a railway company and which has not been closed to navigation by or under any statutory provision.
4.21 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "from a railway company". The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the discussion on Clause 60 at the Committee stage on June 7 an Amendment in rather different terms was set down by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and was withdrawn after a discussion in which only the noble Lord who moved it and my noble friend Lord Chesham took part. I am not sure if the exact effect of the clause, as it stands unamended, was then appreciated by the Committee. The present Amendment which I am moving makes, I think, the exact point absolutely clear, and I very much hope it is an Amendment which Her Majesty's Government find it possible to accept.
My Lords, if Clause 60 is examined it will be seen that, in general, it appears to be an adaptation of the duty of maintenance now binding on the Commission to the new circumstances created by this Bill, and to transfer that duty to the British Waterways Board. If that were all the clause did, I think that that would be an entirely proper clause with which the whole House could agree. But, as a result of the way in which it is now drafted, it has a very different effect. The effect of the clause as now drafted is to transfer to the new Board the obligation in respect of a few canals, but not of many others.
Perhaps I might remind the House that the Transport Act, 1947, transferred to the Commission certain railway canals and also eighteen different undertakings, which are set out in Part II of the Third

169
Schedule to that Act. The canals so transferred include some of the most important which were transferred to the Commission under the Statute—the Grand Union Canal Company and many others. In respect of all the canals transferred to the Commission, both those that came from the railways and those that are set out in Part II of the Third Schedule to the Act, there was the same obligation under the section of the Statute of 1873 that is mentioned in Clause 60 of this Bill. This was made abundantly clear in the year 1956, when the Commission took the opinion of Mr. Denys Buckley, as he then was—now Mr. Justice Buckley—and the opinion then given, with which I need not bother the House in detail, contained this sentence:
"Consequently, Section 17 of that Act applies, in my opinion, to any canal owned or managed by the Commission".
It is the law as there set out in that opinion by Mr. Denys Buckley, as he then was, that the Amendment is designed to preserve in the new circumstances created by this Bill.
My Lords, I do not think it would be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make so great a change in the law, and so purposeless a change, as is made by this clause as now drafted. But I feel perfectly confident that, if it were their intention to make this change, they would not conceal it as it is concealed, at least to the layman, by the present form of words. The result was that in Committee in another place this clause was not discussed at ail, as I think the whole House will agree it certainly would have been discussed, if it had been known that it had these sensational effects. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 36, leave out ("from a railway company")—(Lord Conesford.)
4.27 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think it might assist the House if I gave the Government's view on this matter straight away. I have considered this particular Amendment, and whilst I do not concede everything that my noble and learned friend has said, I do not think any purpose is served by resisting this Amendment. As it involves
170
rather an amusing piece of legal history, I might perhaps just indicate in a sentence why I have come to this conclusion.
The main canal companies were started by a Private Act of Parliament in the last century, and broadly speaking, with some exceptions Parliament did not think fit to impose upon the companies any obligation to maintain their canals, because it was thought that, if they wanted to make money by their canals, they would in fact maintain them. However, in the course of years the railway companies overtook the canals and bought a great number of them—900 miles of them, unless I am mistaken. Parliament took a different view about the taking over of canals by railway companies, because, whereas it was thought by Parliament that canal companies, on the whole, would tend to maintain their canals, it was thought, on the whole, that railway companies could not be trusted to do so. In retrospect this has proved to be a perfectly shrewd assessment of the position. The result was that every time a railway company took over a canal, Parliament imposed an obligation to maintain it, notwithstanding that most of the canals taken over by the railways are in pretty poor shape.
When in due course nationalisation overtook the railway companies, of course the British Transport Commission became a sort of universal railway company, and was advised by Mr. Justice Buckley, when he was Treasury "devil", that this involved the proposition, on a true reading of the Acts, of their accepting an obligation in respect not merely of what one might call the railway-operated canals, but of all the canals which were taken over, which included the 2,000 miles of canals operated under their original Acts, all of which then became subject to what I might call the railway clause with an obligation to maintain. The Government, on the whole, thought that when they devolved the obligation to look after the canals away from the universal railway company and gave it to a universal canal company they might very well put the clock back, as regards an obligation to maintain, to the situation which existed in 1946. But as I have, after thinking about this matter, rather come to the

171
conclusion that those parts of the canal network which remain open after the interim period will be used, and that, if they are used, the new canal company will want to maintain them, I do not see any real purpose in resisting my noble and learned friend's Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. My differences with him are so slight now that I can only thank him for accepting this most reasonable Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.31 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 60, to insert the following new clause:
Saving of public rights on navigable waterway
"Save as in this Act expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall operate to prejudice the public in the exercise of any right to which, upon payment or otherwise, they are entitled in or upon any inland waterway dedicated as a public navigable waterway."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of this group of Amendments; and this proposed new clause is designed to make quite sure that the rights of the public in these canals are not going to be prejudiced by the passing of this Bill. I think I can explain this very shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has repeatedly assured us that nothing is further from the intention of the Government than to bring about any such situation as that; and, if this really is so, then surely he should be prepared to accept this Amendment, because the Amendment is designed simply to make this clear beyond peradventure, which I suggest that at the moment it certainly is not.
I have no doubt he will say that it is quite unnecessary, and, if he does, then I shall ask your Lordships to take his observations with a grain of salt. They involve actually accepting the advice which he has had from his legal advisers, and he himself, more than once, has made it clear that there is a certain difference of opinion (perhaps rather a serious difference of opinion) between his advisers and the learned counsel who have been advising my noble friend Lord St. Davids and advising the Inland Waterways Association. This, by itself, I think, would make it highly desirable that the position should be absolutely clear in the Bill, and that
172
is the object of this Amendment, which I think one could colloquially describe as a "long-stop" clause in case the ball gets past the wicket-keeper—in other words, in case the noble Lord's advisers turn out to be wrong. I might add that it would not be the first time in the history of Parliament that a situation had arisen in which the official views expressed about the likely operation of a Bull had been shown to be wrong as a result of decisions by the courts.
Moreover, if I may say so, the desirability of this Amendment has been strengthened by the fact that the legal advisers to the National Trust, who are quite independent of the legal counsel which have been advising the Inland Waterways Association, and who have been brought into this business since the Committee stage of this Bill in the way in which I explained to your Lordships last night, having considered the whole position, have felt that they must agree with the opinion given to the Inland Waterways Association. So the position has, in a sense, changed to the extent that we now have (as it were) two sets of legal advisers advising one way against the advice to which the noble Lord has referred, which is the other way. In the circumstances, I hope that the Government will feel able to take the same course as they have just taken in respect of the last Amendment, and will accept this one. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 60, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have spent some considerable time in preparation for this stage of the Bill, and I spent some considerable time considering just exactly what it was that the noble Lords who put their names to this Amendment wished to achieve by it, and I found some difficulty in understanding that. I must confess, with the greatest respect, and with absolutely no personal intent towards the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that I am not very much clearer now as to what it is intended to achieve than I was beforehand, because the noble Lord was not very specific. He talked of a "long-stop" in case there should be some unobserved, unnoticed effect through this Bill, and on that, if I took him rightly, seemed to rest the main

173
weight of his case. He referred to things that I said earlier on, that in certain cases there was doubt; but it would surely be a strange principle of legislation if provisions were inserted in Bills in all cases where the legal advisers of an interested body took an opposite or a different view from those advising the Government, who are in charge of the Bill. I do not think that that is an argument I can accept for one moment.
The noble Lord referred to my assurances about this Bill, and he obviously referred to them with some doubt. In fact, I can do no more, because I am going to assure your Lordships—
LORD CHORLEY: May I tell the noble Lord that I was not referring to his assurances with regard to the Government's intentions with any doubt at all? What I am doubting is the advice he has received. If his intentions are that the public shall not in fact be prejudiced, then that is what this clause says, and surely he can accept it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I say, it is a strange principle of legislation to include clauses with really unspecified purposes in case they might cover something. I have repeatedly assured your Lordships—I know the noble Lord still doubts it, and he is quite welcome to do so, so far as I am concerned, but I still give the same assurance—that this Bill leaves untouched the whole body of Private Acts which confer rights of navigation, and it does not amend the Common Law relating to the public right of access to rivers. In fact, Clause 42 preserves specifically any special statutory rights to exemption from charges.
From what I have heard, and from what I read into the noble Lord's words, I think that the is perhaps a little more concerned with the exercise of these rights than with their existence; because the words "Save as in this Act expressly provided" would seem to remove the moratorium provisions of Clause 63, which might in fact be said to prejudice public rights. The words "upon payment or otherwise" may possibly remove from the ambit of the Amendment any question about the level of charges, because if the right is subject to payment of lawful charges the right is not prejudiced by a charge which is lawful,
174
and under the Bill this means any charge which the Board may impose as they see fit. I thought I understood the noble Lord to say that, even so, the commercial freedom to be conferred on to the Board could prejudice public rights; but, my Lords, that certainly is not so, and the Amendment does not specify or lay down any criterion as to what level might be regarded as prejudicing the public.
I think that if the lawful charges under the Bill are going to be regarded as prejudicial to the exercise of public rights, any increase in charges could be held to be prejudicial in some degree Quite honestly, this Amendment is vague in its operation and uncertain, and that is one reason why I do not think we should accept it. If it means anything, it is really a kind of half-way house (I think that is what the noble Lord must mean) between commercial freedom and the imposition of some kind of control over canal charges, and as such it does not create a very satisfactory position. If charges are to be controlled, then they should be controlled by clear provisions, because vague prohibitions would leave everybody in a state of uncertainty, and the new British Waterways Board particularly would be put in a rather strange position. It seems to me that if, as I say, it has any read meaning, it must be directed at the freedom of the Boards to charge, and therefore, as it certainly conflicts with the purpose of the Bill, I must ask your Lordships not to accept it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, perhaps I could make the position with regard to what this new clause seeks a little clearer to the House. Everybody in this House, I think, is keen that these waterways Shall get on to a decent commercial footing, get out of the red and pay their way, and be used for all those waterways purposes for which they have always been used. I think the Government will agree with that, and that they will recognise that we on this side of this particular question are trying to help rather than hinder in making these canals viable. The trouble with this Bill is that, although the Government's intentions are clear, and although we all agree with those intentions, the effects of this Bill, where they are likely to prejudice the waterways, seem to be

175
unintentional side-winds which have somehow crept in (I am sorry to mix the metaphor in such a shocking manner) just like the Amendment, now happily accepted, Which was put so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. The things which the Government desire are laid out, so far as they can be, clearly in the Bill, and those we accept. The trouble is that, in so many of these cases, there seem to be these entirely unwanted effects, and if these unwanted effects can be guarded against by this clause, which is the main intention of it, I think that safeguard ought to go into the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived
4.43 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after Clause 60 to insert the following new clause.
Saving for charitable and public bodies
. Where any undertaking to which the provisions of this Act apply is carried on by any body established with public or public charitable objects, nothing in this Act shall disentitle any such body to claim or continue to claim any benefit or exemption in respect of such undertaking which it could otherwise claim by reason of its public or public charitable status."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that in the debate on another Amendment on June 7 of this year some anxiety was expressed on the position of charitable bodies that might take over a canal, or part of a canal, in a similar way to that in which the National Trust has already operated in one case. A good deal of sympathy was expressed in many quarters of the House with the position of such a charitable body, and anxiety was shown that it should not be prejudiced in the ways that appeared to be possible. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, put down a rather complicated provision which the Government, for the reasons they then gave, found it impossible to accept, but an attempt has been made to frame a far simpler new clause, which is embodied in the Amendment which I now beg to move. Those Who framed it hope that some of the objections which Her Majesty's Government thought existed against the previous Amendment may not apply to the Amendment which has now been drafted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 60, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Conesford.)
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am sure this is a much better Amendment than the one I framed. It has been dealt with by far better brains than mine; it is clearer and shorter, and it is very much to the point. We had a most interesting exchange on the Committee stage as to the doubts and fears of the legal position of either side. It became clear that, since everybody's legal advisers were utterly convinced and certain of the position, the result was complete uncertainty. A further point has now arisen which reinforces this matter—a point which had not become clear to anybody before, but which suddenly dawned on me; and my legal advisers say it is correct.
Where the National Trust, or some other trust, takes over a waterway, it is likely in course of time, upon the decease of various waterways enthusiasts, to find itself being left sums of money in order to carry on and improve "trustified" waterways. But it is the case that if some disgruntled relative of a deceased looked into the matter and discovered that the trust status of a particular waterway operator was removed or damaged by this Bill, that person might challenge the will, on the ground that the money was not, in fact, being left to a trust purpose. So it is not merely a revenue matter, as we thought on Committee stage; it is not merely a matter of the waterways trusts versus the Inland Revenue. It is also the case that the capital of the waterways trusts may similarly be endangered, and this is a reinforcing point to the arguments advanced in the Committee stage.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have just had some words to say, which I shall not repeat, on divergent legal opinions, and therefore I shall carry on addressing myself to this Amendment. I am glad to tell my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, and the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that there is nothing for them to fear, and that the Amendment is therefore unnecessary. Your Lordships will remember that we considered this question at some length and in some detail, and very interestingly, on Committee. Your Lordships will also remember that I agreed to reconsider the

177
matter very carefully, and on that undertaking the Amendment was withdrawn.
This matter has been carefully reconsidered, in consultation with the Charity Commission and the Board of Inland Revenue, in an effort to discover what mischief might be done to charities by the Bill, and, if such mischief could be discovered, how best to deal with it. In the process of that reconsideration, we carefully examined the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, in Committee, and the representations made to the Department by the legal advisers of the Inland Waterways Association. In particular, careful consideration has been given to the position of the three bodies to which the noble Viscount referred—the Lower Avon Navigation Trust, the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust and the National Trust.
As a result of this reconsideration, I am firmly advised—and the Charity Commission and the Board of Inland Revenue concur in this advice—that there is nothing in the Bill which will affect the charitable status of these three trusts or of any other body which, apart from the provisions of the Bill, would be entitled to the status of a charitable trust. The suggestion that the status of charitable bodies will be irretrievably lost by reason of Clause 42 of the Bill, unless there is special legislation, is quite without justification. In reconsideration, we looked carefully to see whether there were any doubtful points which might prejudice the position of charities, so that the doubts might be removed by some special provision. The plain fact is that no malady can be discovered, and therefore there is no remedy which can be appropriately suggested. I think that the position is adequately covered and that the Amendment is unnecessary. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not press it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 62 [Abstraction of water by British Waterways Board]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, Clause 62 deals with cases where the British Waterways Board wish to sell water. On the Committee stage, I moved an Amendment on similar lines
178
to this one but it went further. I will not repeat the arguments that I used on that occasion. The Amendment I then had, while including the present Amendment, also provided that the Minister should receive objections and consider them before giving his decision. The Government found this objectionable, and, on thinking it over, I consider there was merit in their case. The Amendment I am moving now goes much less far. It puts a duty on the Waterways Board merely to publish in the local papers the fact that they are making an application to the Minister, so that anybody affected can take such steps as he wishes to object or to let his objection be known. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) The British Waterways Board shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the point of abstraction is situated a notice of any application made by them for the consent of the Minister, giving sufficient particulars of their proposals and of the terms of consent applied for."—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, for the reasons my noble friend has stated, I like this Amendment better than the one he moved in Committee, though I wish I could say that I was entirely happy about it. I am not entirely happy about the publication of this information leading to objections being, as it were, invited. However, I think there is force in his argument. By and large, it is justifiable that the people affected should have information, and I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment, but I must make it abundantly clear that this publication will be entirely a matter of information. It will not import any right or even suggestion that anyone should object. I accept the Amendment in that spirit. Statutory bodies concerned have the right to object, but I want to make it clear that any affected individual who is damaged has his recourse in the courts, and if he wishes to object in any way it is up to him to bring it to the notice of a statutory body, such as his local council, who have some standing in the matter. I stress this point, because this requirement relates only to the purposes of supplying information.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Temporary suspension of liability to maintain inland waterways]:
4.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after the first "waterway". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we have heard a lot of talk about my adding 2-acre Amendments to the Bill. This is in the nature of a 2-acre removal. It is a removal which I am frankly sorry to see, but I put the Amendment down on the Marshalled List for a firm and necessary purpose. Clause 63 (3) states the circumstances under which persons shall be entitled to recover damages from the Commission in respect of any inability to navigate any inland waterway. We heard all the argument on this subject at a very late hour last night, and for those noble Lords who were not in the House at the time I will try to sum it up very briefly.
Where the charge that may be made by law is unlimited, there is in fact no right of navigation, because the operators of the waterway can, if they wish, raise the charge to such a point that navigation inevitably ceases; and where they can raise a Charge in that manner they are able to defeat any attempt to claim damages by the simple expedient of raising the charges, immediately they hear of the possibility of a claim, to such a point that when the man goes to the court and Claims that the profits of his operation have been cut short they can show that, owing to the height of their charges, there is no possibility of profit. That was what they tried to do in the John Gould case that we spoke about last night; and if it had not been for the fact that it was possible to Show that they were not physically able to raise their Charges as high as they thought, Mr. John Gould would have received no damages.
With the new clause on unlimited charges which has now been passed by the House, the position now stands as the clause would read subject to my Amendment, namely:
"No person shall be entitled to recover from the Commission or from the British Waterways Board any damages or other sum or compensation in respect of any liability to navigate any inland waterway."
That is horrible, and I am sure it is not What the Government wish. However, that is the effect, and I think if we realise
180
its effect we must be honest about it and so word the Bill that it reveals the truth. We must not have any misstatements of truth in a Public Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 45, leave out from ("waterway") to end of line 34 on page 70.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the whole of the argument on which the noble Viscount has based his case took place last night, and I have no intention of going over that ground again. I had thought, up to his last sentence, that the noble Viscount had put this in as a sort of slightly wry joke in order to give himself the opportunity to refer to the matters to which he has in fact referred. But at the end he assured us that he thought, the situation being what it was, the Bill should reflect the truth of the matter. To be honest, my Lords, until the noble Viscount said that, I had thought of a further wry joke by offering to accept the Amendment. However, I could not accept the Amendment, for quite simple reasons.
The first reason is that the whole basis of his case is wrong. We spent a good deal of time last night talking about that, and I endeavoured to persuade your Lordships that the truth of the matter was not as the noble Viscount stated. I can understand that that little effort was probably not very helpful to your Lordships. But my noble and learned Leader then went to considerably greater heights—very great heights, indeed, many thought—in confirming that the matter which the noble Viscount claims to be true is, in fact, not true at all; and my noble and learned Leader's contention can be said to have been supported by a large number of the Members of the House. One could not conceive of accepting this Amendment because of the very real injustice, unfairness and hardship it would cause to canal users. Without repeating last night's arguments, I still maintain that they can in the courts get the damages where they are aggrieved or suffer damage. Therefore, I must advise your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, and I think it may have done some good to air this matter. We know that there will be subsequent waterways legislation

181
(the noble Lord told us so yesterday) and we shall see in the interval what happens. I think it is just as well that we keep the matter in mind, so that, if what I fear does occur, in subsequent legislation we shall be able to put the matter right. In the hope that the noble Lord is correct, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say one word to your Lordships which I think might not be unhelpful with regard to the procedure on the next series of Amendments? The procedure we follow, in these circumstances, is that my noble friend Lord Mills or my noble friend Lord Chesham moves the new clause, and we then proceed to the Amendments. I will call on my noble friend Lord Merrivale to move the Amendments that are in his name and those of his noble friends, and after we have disposed of the Amendments one way or another, we come back to the clause. I only want all your Lordships to understand what is the procedure we usually follow.
5.8 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 67 to insert the following new clause:
Organisation of transport police
.—(1) Within one year from the vesting date the Railways Board shall, after consulting the other Boards, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the organisation of the transport police of the Boards.
In this section, references to "transport police" are references to constables appointed under section fifty-three of the British Transport Commission Act, 1949.
(2) A scheme under this section which provides for the organisation of transport police in a joint force shall contain provisions with respect to—

(a) the control and administration of the force by or on behalf of the Boards, participating in the force,

(b) the contributions to be made by those Boards to the expenses of the force, and

(c) the method of settling disputes between those Boards in relation to the force.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, a scheme under this section may make provision—

(a) for the transfer or appropriation for the purposes of the scheme of property vested in the Railways Board by paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section thirty of this Act, and

182

(b) for enabling the services of transport police organised in a force for any Board or Boards to be made available to another Board on such terms as may be agreed with that Board,

and may contain such incidental and transitional provisions as may appear to the Railways Board or the Minister to be expedient.
(4) A scheme under this section may make modifications consequential on the provisions of the scheme in section fifty-three of the said Act of 1949, but nothing in the scheme shall require any Board to exercise its powers under that section.
(5) On a scheme being submitted to the Minister under this section, the Minister may by order approve the scheme with or without amendment; and the scheme, as so approved, shall come into effect on such date as may be specified therein and it shall be the duty of the Boards to comply with the scheme as so approved.
(6) The Minister shall consult the Boards before approving a scheme under this section; and the Minister shall not approve a scheme under this section which provides for the organisation of transport police in more than one force unless it appears to him, after consultation with the Boards, that there are special reasons which make it desirable that such provision should be made.
(7) If after a scheme has been approved under this section any Board apply to the Minister and satisfy him that the scheme should be amended in any respect the Minister may, after consulting the Boards, by order make such amendments of the scheme as he thinks fit.
(8) The power conferred by this section on the Minister to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(9) During the period between the vesting date and the coming into effect of a scheme under this section the Railways Board shall make police services available to the other Boards to such extent and on such terms as the Railways Board and the other Board concerned may agree or as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the major Amendment with regard to the British Transport Commission Police about which I had a fairly full explanation to offer yesterday, and I will now keep the matter as brief as I can. I told your Lordships that this was one of a string of Amendments (I will not repeat the numbers) and the main Amendment. If this Amendment is accepted by your Lordships, the others are all consequential in one way or another, and we can consider those as we come to them. This, as I say, is really the "meat" of the whole thing.
Before I say any more, I should like to call the attention of your Lordships

183
to the fact that I yesterday put down an Amendment to my own Amendment, and because of the method of printing the Marsalled List that Amendment has gone straight into the Amendment. I want to point out to your Lordships what it is, because it is not entirely without importance. Subsection (2) says:
"A scheme under this section which provides for the organisation of transport police in a joint force shall contain provisions"—
and so on. Originally, it read:
"… a joint force for two or more boards".
Again, paragraph (a) of the proposed subsection (2) is merely consequential; it is a drafting Amendment. Although the change may not be of great substance, I thought that the original words might have been construed as indicating that the force should not remain unified. That is the reason why I put down the Amendment to my Amendment, which I hope will be accepted.
I told your Lordships that the British Transport Commission, in their complete discretion, had decided to organise their force in this way. I told your Lordships that the force had been a great success, and it was strongly thought—and many of your Lordships supported that view—that it should remain unified. Indeed, your Lordships accepted an Amendment to make certain that it should remain unified, at any rate during the interim period. Amendment No. 65 says, first of all, that the force shall remain unified, that it shall be placed under the Railways Board—because it has to have a home somewhere. It seems the most sensible thing to do, since the Railways Board are the biggest employers of the police—or, rather, will be—and will have the largest umbrella under which they can shelter. In due course, within a year after vesting date, the Railways Board, in conjunction with the other Boards, are to prepare a scheme for the employment of the force. That is the main part of this Amendment.
We are in agreement with the concept of the force remaining unified in the interests of working conditions, efficiency, and all the rest. We have gone as far as we reasonably could to make sure that it shall remain unified, because in subsection (6) of the proposed new clause your Lordships will
184
find that, the Boards having prepared their scheme and submitted it to the Minister,
"… the Minister shall not approve a scheme under this section which provides for the organisation of transport police in more than one force unless it appears to him … that there are special reasons …"
Short of saying that there shall be one force, that is as near as one can get to it. The reason why it is scarcely desirable to go the whole way is because the new Boards do not yet exist, and I think it is quite reasonable that they should have some opportunity to express views on their police requirements, so that the scheme can be properly drawn up to meet the needs for which it is intended.
I certainly envisage—and this also is of importance to their temporary home under the Railways Board—that there will come out of this a joint standing committee, if your Lordships like to call it that, of the Boards and the police for their control and administration. I think this is the right method of control, because the whole reason for the existence of the police force is to serve the Boards in that respect, and I think that would be the way to ensure it. In short, these Amendments go as far as we can to ensure that the views of the police, the views of noble Lords, and, indeed, the reasonableness of the case for retaining a unified force, are safeguarded, subject only to a reasonable if rather restricted consultation with those who will utilise the services of the police. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 67 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
5.17 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause, to leave out subsection (1) and substitute:
"(1) Within one year from the vesting date the Minister shall, after consulting the Boards, prepare a scheme for the organisation of the transport police of the Boards."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having aired fairly considerably yesterday evening my views and those of the transport police on Amendment No. 27, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Chesham, I propose to be brief now. Yesterday, and to some extent

185
to-day, my noble friend said that he was providing a home for a unified police force as from the vesting date, and that the whole emphasis of the Government clause was tilted in the direction of continuing with a unified force on the present lines. He also mentioned again to-day the safeguard of subsection (6), as well as that of the Negative Resolution procedure applicable to any ministerial order made under the Government clause. Here, I would definitely say that Her Majesty's Government have gone a very long way indeed to meet our requests, and there is now only a very small gap which separates our two ways of thinking. I am therefore hoping that possibly my noble friend, when replying, will agree to narrow this gap just a little further.
I fear—and this fear is shared by the transport police as a whole—that a scheme which is prepared by the Railways Board might be strongly biased to the advantage of the railways police, that is, those who would be serving only the railways, although I agree that the probability is that they would want a joint force. Also, I fear that there is a possibility that the needs or requirements of the docks, London Transport, or the Waterways Police, in spite of consultation which is allowed for under the new clause, might not be fairly considered by the Railways Board. Therefore, the transport police force, as it exists now, and I would be most grateful to my noble friend if he could give an assurance that the members of those police forces which will be serving the lesser Boards will have their say in the formulation of a transport police policy, as well as in day-to-day matters. It is because of these fears which arise mainly, as the noble Lord has said, from the fact that the Railways Board will be the largest user, and the fear that the interests of the police force—although a joint force—of the police officers and constables who would be working on the docks, on the waterways and on the London Board might not be taken sufficiently into consideration when the scheme is proposed by the Railways Board at a later date that I move this Amendment to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Within one year from the vesting date the Minister shall after consulting the Boards, prepare a Scheme for the organisation of the transport police of the Boards."—(Lord Merrivale.)
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, between yesterday and to-day the question, to my mind, of the police force, as my noble friend said, has become a narrow one. I am sure all of us, and Her Majesty's Government in particular, are convinced in our own minds that in this scheme what is wanted is a single police force, one joint force. So we have that point fixed. That is a principle. To my mind the difficulty which remains is one of administration, which my noble friend pointed out. The ideal would be to have what we put down in our last Amendment, which would be a transport police authority, and I should still like to know again why that cannot be so. That would obviously be the ideal.
I quite understand why at the moment the force must be under the Railways Board. It must have a home temporarily. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, when he said that the standing joint committee will be of great assistance. But to my mind the preservation of the status quo, where you have an authority such as the British Transport Commission has at the moment, would obviously be the ideal. I think that then everyone would be happy and we should get the best service. After all, the two points, surely, that all of us are thinking about, are, first, to secure the best police service possible, and, second, that all the members of that police force should be satisfied with their terms of service, and all that goes with that, and that they are under the correct authority. To my mind those are the narrow points which are needed, and I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, if he could just go a little further and say again why this authority cannot be made. That is my point of view. I may have missed a point—my noble friend says I have—and I will rest on that one.
VISCOUNT TENBY: My Lords, may I say, very briefly, that I support what has been said, and I am very grateful

187
to any noble friend Lord Chesham for the undoubted advance that has been made since this matter was last discussed. However, I am still worried about one thing. Everyone is agreed—in fact, the noble Lord has just repeated it—that the Government are in favour of a unified force. Anybody who has had experience of this particular force will agree, I think, that it has been an extremely efficient one, although it is a fairly new one.
There is a point here that I should like to stress. It was by Act of Parliament that this body was brought into being, in, I think, 1949. Under the suggestion of subsection (6) of the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved, that can be changed by administrative action. In other words, if the Minister thinks fit he can, in fact, split up this force or add another one to it. I think that is unfortunate, because this new force has done very well, and the co-ordination of the police forces of this country has taken a considerable time. The civil police forces celebrated their centenary about six years ago, but the co-ordination was not really complete until 1919, when the Secretary of State was empowered to lay down conditions as to pay and service uniformly throughout the country. I feel that if we retained this one authority here there would be no trouble over conditions of service and pay, which might well occur without it, and therefore I most strongly reinforce what has been said by my two noble friends. Why change the present force? If it had done badly, I could have understood it; but it has done well. I do not see the purpose of this change at all. Surely there could be a police authority which would be responsible for this police force, and on that authority could be represented all the Boards which are concerned with transport under this Bill. I hope very much that, although we are grateful for the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has gone, he will still consider it possible to leave out those words in subsection (6).
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty at the moment, because several matters have been raised on what I thought was the consideration of Amendment 65A, and a question arises whether I should address myself to all
188
the points. I rather think that perhaps I should address myself to No. 65A as an Amendment and take the other Amendments when we reach them. I think that I, at any rate, if not your Lordships, will remain clearer if I do that.
The main point my noble friend Lord Merrivale wanted was that in any scheme which would be drawn up there should not be railways bias. I am not entirely clear why he was so very suspicious that there would be, but perhaps he has some reason and he would prefer the Minister to do it. Nevertheless, I think his fears are not well grounded, because consultation with the other Boards is already written into the Bill. If that is not enough, the scheme requires the Minister's consent and he has the power to modify it, which, I think, in this case, if there is anything in my noble friend's fears, would be an advantage and not a disadvantage; and finally, of course, there is the Parliamentary control to which I have already referred. I think that the safeguard for the point that my noble friend wishes covered is adequate in this matter and I hope he will not wish to press his Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: The reason for moving this Amendment to the Amendment was mainly to get an assurance from my noble friend with regard to those fears, and with that I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 65A.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out the first two lines and insert:
"A scheme under this section shall provide for the organisation of transport police in a single force for the Boards under a Police Authority responsible to the Minister and".
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that the Government put down a different Amendment overnight, I think I could possibly mention, for clarification, that with this Amendment, No. 65B, there should be added to it at the end the words, "shall contain provisions"; otherwise it does not make sense. In moving this Amendment, I would agree that there may be—and I

189
emphasise "may be"—strong arguments for not having a -police authority responsible to the Ministry of Transport, but as we are considering the future of a transport police force I would strongly ask my noble friend Lord chesham whether he would consider (paragraph 69 of the Final Report of the Royal Commission on the Police, sub-paragraph 2, which could well read as follows had this Royal Commission been asked to recommend upon the future of a transport police:
"The Minister of Transport would be responsible to Parliament for the proper maintenance and administration of the transport police in England, Wales and Scotland. He must therefore be given an ultimate control in regard to all transport police matters. As there could be no responsibility without a power to control and direct, the Minister of Transport would answer all questions relating to the transport police."
I would stress that I am not reading from the Report; I am saying that that would have been a feasible possibility had this Royal Commission had to consider the future of a transport police force.
As there would now appear to be a certain amount of harmony between the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and ourselves on the question of the unification and administration of this transport police force, I am hoping that my noble friend would agree to the principle, which, if I understood my noble friend Lord Tenby aright, would be to set up an authority, and I presume he meant, too, a chairman appointed by the Minister, and on which the various Boards would be represented. I feel, however, that my noble friend is not completely happy with the idea of setting up a police authority, because he referred to a joint standing committee as a possibility. However, he might be willing to consider the setting up of a police committee. Whether it be a committee or an authority, I think it is important that it should be a body consisting of a chairman, and members appointed by the Minister on a recommendation from the Boards. The executive head of the joint police force should be responsible only to this body, whether it be a committee or an authority.
I think this would go a long way to satisfying the transport police force as now set up. The police officers or constables would not be—after an interim
190
period, that is—employees of one particular Board but would be employees of this composite body. This would lessen the possibility of disputes and also of any variation in conditions due to service being given to one Board or to another by various police officers or constables. Finally, as I said yesterday, I feel, too, that the fine esprit de corps which exists now would be still better maintained if such a force did not come under the direct authority of one particular Board. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Subsection (2), leave out the first two lines and insert the said words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
5.35 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend said on this matter, and, as I tried to indicate before, I think I can see what is in the minds of the police. First of all, let me say that I should have thought that the constitution of a separate authority would be rather odd in this context. We should be having a separate board responsible solely for the police, as an independent entity that would be outside the control of the managements of the undertakings whom they have no other purpose than to serve. I cannot help thinking that the establishment and the maintenance of a statutory transport police force irrespective of the circumstances and the views of the managements would be bound to lead to a lack of effective control and, not impossibly, some degree of antagonism between the police management and the management of the new Boards. That is my principal reason for not wanting a separate authority. Having said that, I cannot very well give my noble friend very much assurance about how they will be set up, because I cannot anticipate what will be the shape and conditions of the scheme which is to be drawn up.
I hope that noble Lords will not have picked up too definitely my reference to a joint standing committee; it was the first suitable title that flew into my head, and I think I added, "or something like that". Because it is perfectly clear that in the consultations and incorporated in the scheme when it came along there would have to be arrangements for the joint control, employment,

191
application and administration of the force. Clearly, there would have to be police representation on that, and there would also have to be Board representation. As it would be a joint affair, with all Boards participating, that would achieve just the kind of body that my noble friend, as I understand it, has in mind. I hope he will feel more satisfied about it.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry indeed that my noble friend could not go just a little further and be a little more specific as to how such, what I would term, central administrative organisation would be set up in the future. But I do not wish to press this matter now, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 67, to insert the following new clause:
Station car parks
".—(1) It shall be the duty of each Regional Railway Board to make reasonable provision for the parking of motor vehicles used by passengers and other users of railway stations within their control.
(2) The council of a county in England or Wales may contribute towards the cost of any provision made under the foregoing subsection in respect of railway stations within the council's area."
The noble Lord said: I think this is the sixteenth day of our deliberations on this Bill and I have been moving Amendments on almost every day, but with little success. I am hoping that the Government will see their way to accepting what I must say is a reasonable Amendment. It is so obvious that it is surprising that the Government themselves have not put it in the Bill.
It is well known to all that our railway stations, particularly those on the outskirts of London, will play an increasing part in bringing people into London; and I am sure it is the wish of Parliament that more people will use the railways, instead of bringing their cars to the centre of London. But I think we must also recognise that existing branch-line services in the Home Counties to what one might call the main junctions
192
are poor; and with the axe falling on these branch lines it may well be that these inadequate services will themselves disappear, and that people in the outlying districts will be forced either to come to London in their own car or to take it to the railway junction.
I have had some experience of these stations, and I cannot remember a case where it could be said that car parking facilities were in any way adequate. I have had some consultation with the county council associations who are expressing perturbation at the serious congestion of the roads, in towns where there are railway junction stations, caused by motor cars being parked at seven o'clock in the morning and remaining until eight o'clock in the evening. Apart from causing inconvenience to the normal users in the locality (as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will agree) these vehicles present a considerable danger to pedestrians in the area. I think it would be the obvious wish of the House that car parking facilities should be adequate, and that they should be provided at these railway junction stations, certainly as an inducement to people to use the railway instead of their cars, to come to the centre of London.
The Road Traffic Act, 1960, allows county boroughs and county district councils outside London to provide parking places. There was an extension of this power by Section 13 (6) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, which allows local authorities to make arrangements with other persons to provide off-street parking. It would therefore appear that under the later provision the county councils could make arrangements, and go into partnership with the railway boards in a joint effort to provide adequate parking. If this were done, obviously both parties would benefit: the county councils would see that their streets were free from congestion by vehicles, and the railways would be providing an inducement to people to use the railways in coming to London.
There is a suspicion that the railway boards, whose main function in life, as we shall see, will be dealing with deficits and overheads, may show an understandable reluctance to embark upon any capital expenditure which, in the short

193
term, will not be remunerative to them. But I think we must take the long view. I believe that there may be some hesitancy on the part of the Railway Boards to provide these car parks, even with the support of the county councils. Therefore, after carefully considering the case that was put to me by the county council associations, I decided to put down this Amendment.
The Amendment lays on each Railway Board the duty to see that there is reasonable provision for the parking of motor vehicles used by their passengers and other users of the railway stations within their control, and authorises the council of a county in England or Wales to contribute towards the cost of any provision made under this subsection. The contribution may be in the form of a contribution in capital; it may equally be something in the way of assistance to the Railway Board to meet the costs of maintaining these car parks. I think that if this new clause were inserted there would be a great opportunity for the Railway Boards and the county councils to get together in a joint effort to provide a service which I think is needed now, with the reduction of branch lines and the like, a service that will become more and more important in the years to come. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 67 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I say how much I hope that he will accept this Amendment? As a motorist, and one who drives to your Lordships' House regularly, may I say that if it were possible to park at the station that I should normally come from I should seldom drive. I am sure that that is the case with many other motorists. As cars become more and more numerous, driving conditions will become worse, and more people will be persuaded to come by train. But at the moment, unless one comes first thing in the morning, it is absolutely impossible at the majority of stations to find a parking space. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will find favour with the Government.
5.48 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course I at once agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble
194
friend Lord Somers that this question of car parks at railway stations is most important. There is no doubt about that. I also agree that they should be encouraged wherever possible. I feel genuine sorrow that I cannot leap up and accept the noble Lord's Amendment, because in fact the situation is in hand and I do not think his fears are justified. But, in particular, it is a question of his approach and method which makes me unable to accept it.
It is not right to single out the provision of car parks as the one matter in the Bill by which an express duty is to be laid on the regional Railway Boards under the Bill. These Boards are not corporate bodies, and they do not, and will not, own any railway assets. I think I made it clear on Second Reading that their responsibility will be to exercise such functions of the Railways Board as are delegated to them by the main Board—I think the expression "tools of management" was used. That does not in any way detract from their importance, but I think it would be wrong, and against the general concept underlying the Bill of the right relationship between the Railways Board and the regional Boards, to start laying down in the Bill what the regional Boards should and should not specifically do. I think that it would be rather unbalanced, to say the least of it, to lay down a single provision for car parks when there are a hundred other things that might be put in the Bill, some of which, important as is the provision of car parks, might be even more important.
The right answer is that the legal provider of car parks should be the British Railways Board itself. It certainly can do so. It has powers under Clause 13 (1) (d) to provide
"such other amenities and facilities as it may appear to the Board requisite or expedient to provide".
It can certainly provide and operate car parks for its customers and other people in places where they are needed. The Commission can now build car parks without having them specifically mentioned in their powers; so they have all the powers they need to provide them. As a matter of fact, in passing, I think the Amendment, as drawn, would be a little narrow, because it would restrict

195
the use of the car parks to railway customers, and, while they should be primarily for the use of travellers, I think that, in the same way as the buffets are used by other people, any spare space that is available should be open to use by the general public. For that reason, sad as I find it, I think I should ask the noble Lord to consider not pressing this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think that that is a most inadequate answer, as well as a most unimaginative one. All the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has done is to quibble over words—to say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put down "Regional Railway Board" when it should be the Commission itself. It is perfectly true that British Railways have a right to do this. The point is that they "may" do it. The question is: will they? They have not done it yet, and I guarantee they will not do so unless it is in the Bill. I regard this as one of the most important issues that have come out of this Bill. I ask the noble Lord, as the Minister responsible in this House, to go on any day of the week, except possibly at the weekend, and stand on one of the main bridges bringing traffic into London, or on the Cromwell Road. He will see not one, not one hundred, but thousands of motor cars coming in, each containing one person. It has always seemed to me fantastic that this situation should exist in this day and age. We have an old mediaeval city like London, with vast numbers of offices cluttering up its narrow mediaeval streets, and we permit motor cars to come in by the scores of thousands, each carrying one person, the driver, and nobody else. This is the very negation of any sort of planning. And we wonder why there is so much congestion in London when this sort of thing happens!
If you ask any of these motorists why they come in, why they take up space in the narrow streets of London with their motor cars, they will say, "What else can I do? I cannot go to the railway station and park my car there because there is no space in which to park it. It is much more convenient to come into town by car." I know the situation, because when I was in the Commons I represented a constituency, Croydon, where this sort of thing happened, with commuters travelling into and out of
196
London. There was no place locally for them to park.
So we go on, year after year, accepting a situation in which vast numbers of unnecessary motor cars pour into the business districts of London every day of the week, except at weekends. With a little forethought, a little planning, a little imagination, most motorists would prefer, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, to leave their motor cars in parking places on the outskirts and to come the rest of the way by train. This matter goes far beyond the mere convenience of British Railways. It is a service that British Railways could perform to the passengers; it is a service they could perform in the cause of better traffic conditions in London generally. So I do ask the Minister to look at this question again, with a far more imaginative outlook than he has shown up to now, and to realise that Lord Shepherd's Amendment would go a very long way towards relieving the appalling traffic congestion, with its attendant waste of money, danger to life and injury to limb, in London at the present moment I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will accept the Amendment, even though the wording here and there may need a little alteration.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there is only one point I want to make, and it arises from the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham—which was quite right, in my opinion—that these car parks ought to be used not only by railways passengers, but by the general public as part of the facilities in the area. As one who has had some experience of the provision of railway car parks, I would say that one of the problems facing the railways is that the station car park is used not for railway passengers, but by people who come in for other purposes. During our discussions the Government spokesman has time and again said that the job of the Railways Board is to run the railways. Might I suggest that one of the difficulties now is that in many areas the old railway stations have very little land indeed, except for the forecourts. This applies even to stations some ten or fifteen miles out of London.
If in fact these car parks are to be provided—and I agree that they should be provided—someone has to acquire

197
the land, to surface it and to provide supervision. Surely, if it is done it should be a local government function, or a joint function as between the Board and the local authority. But, my Lords, during this debate there has been considerable pressure on the point of the viability of the railways. When it is suggested that it is the function of the Railway Boards to provide these car parks, and at the same time talk about the viability of the railways, I say that it cannot be done. Land is costly—
LORD OGMORE: The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, talks about the viability of the railways. Surely this is one way in which the railways will get passengers, because the people who use the railway car park will then use the trains to travel in to the City, and thus become fare-paying passengers. I should have thought this would add to the viability of the concern.
LORD LINDGREN: I am not a cost accountant, but it seems to me obvious that when one takes into account the cost of the land, the interest, the maintenance, the supervision that has to be applied 365 days in the year, a great deal of the actual fare paid by the passenger is absorbed.
But what I am trying to point out is that the point of this Amendment—which is a good one, and one which I hope the Government will appreciate—is that we cannot have these facilities unless they are a joint function of the local authority and the Railways Board. Car parking facilities are a public requirement; they are not necessarily a transport requirement. If they were provided, they could not be restricted to that single use. Equally, when they are provided, they will not be a viable proposition.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am used to being disappointed, but to-night I am shocked. The noble Lord is in this House the Minister of the Ministry of Transport. This is a Minister who has repeatedly appealed to the public not to bring their cars into the centre of London; and here, when we make a constructive suggestion, we get a legalistic reply. I know that the railways have powers to provide car parks. I want to impose a duty to provide them, in conjunction with the county
198
councils or the highway authorities. I should like to see these people who are all involved, who all have an interest sharing what may be the cost of upkeep. I fully accept from the noble Lord that perhaps the term "Regional Railway Board" was not the right one. It seemed to me when drafting that it was the right one because the people in the local area would probably know the needs better than would this great central body. I feel so strongly in this matter—I will not press it to-night, because I realise the words are not the right ones on which to press it—that I will tell the noble Lord that this matter will be brought up on Third Reading, when I shall move an Amendment, and I hope I shall have the support of the House.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would finally and very briefly say that noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in particular, must not complain if I address myself to Amendments put down to a Bill which I am conducting. I am perfectly well aware of the shortcomings of the car parking and traffic arrangements in London, but we are not at the moment conducting a Bill dealing with them. I am perfectly well aware of what the noble Lord wants. I said, to start with, that he was doing a good thing in the wrong way. But even if noble Lords complain about my addressing myself to Amendments, I shall continue to do so.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as the Government have been in office for eleven years, will the noble Lord tell us when they are going to do something about transport in London?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Transport police]:
6.3 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 68 and 69 are, in fact, purely consequential on No. 65. I beg to move No. 66.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 21, leave out from ("1949") to end of line.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, leave out lines 27 to 31 and insert—
("(3) For the first two references in subsection (1) of the section to the Commission there shall be substituted—

(a) during the interim period, references to the Railways Board, and

(b) thereafter, references to any of the Boards acting jointly or separately in pursuance of a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 7, leave out from ("substituted") to end of line 8 and insert—

("(a) during the interim period, a reference to the Railways Board, and

(b) thereafter, a reference to any of the Boards acting jointly or separately in pursuance of a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 13, at end insert—
("(7) In this section 'the interim period' means the period referred to in subsection (9) of section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Terms and conditions of employment of police]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential. I beg to move Nos. 70 and 71.
Amendments moved—
Page 80, line 14, after ("Boards") insert ("in pursuance of a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.")
Page 80, line 23, after ("Board") insert ("in pursuance of a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 70 [General provisions as to terms and conditions of employment of staff]:
6.5 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, in view of Amendment No. 80, I do not propose to move Nos. 72 to 79.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in Committee on June 7, made a proposal to include in the provisions of Clause 70 the Holding Company and its subsidiaries. We discussed it at length and there was a Division on it, when the proposal was negatived. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said it would be some consolation to the Opposition if we could see our way to include the staff of the Holding Company under the provisions of this clause, which has to do With the establishment and maintenance of suitable machinery for staff negotiation and consultation. I undertook to consider that, and the result is that we have put down this Amendment to the Bill, which I hope meets the point.
Amendment moved—
("(4) This section shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to the Holding Company as it applies to the Boards").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for putting down this Amendment. I must say that, on reflection, I fully appreciated the position in regard to the staff of the subsidiary companies, and it is quite a good thing that the position in regard to the staff of the Holding Company, Who are in an entirely different position from the staff of the subsidiary companies, should have been recognised in this way. I should like to thank the Minister for his courtesy in putting down this Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I would thank the Minister for having carried out the undertaking he gave When we discussed this matter. There is just one point on this. I have wondered when reading this Amendment who will decide what are the necessary modifications. I am not quite sure how this will apply. I wonder if by any chance the Minister could give us an illustration of the sort of thing he has in mind here when he italics of the "necessary modifications". This is just a simple question, and I am not going to take up the time of the House except, as I said at the beginning, to thank him for carrying out his undertaking.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to answer that question. I think the answer is that it

201
depends upon the nature of the staff of the Holding Company, which is not yet precisely known, There Will be certain people in the Holding Company who will not need to be governed by these provisions. That is the kind of modification which is in mind.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether that means that the Holding Company would consult any organisation Which would appear to cater for the employees of the Holding Company, and then decide the modification?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords. So far as members of the staff are covered by organisations, of course there will be consultation arrangements; but the staff may, for example, consist of solicitors or barristers, and there may not be any suitable organisation.
LORD LINDGREN: Do not worry about them: they have it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Commission's power to develop land]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' approval, I will direct your attention to Amendments 80A to 80E, because they arise out of a matter that I discussed yesterday. They are drafting Amendments to clarify the intentions of Clause 75, which is to enable the Commission, during the period up to vesting date, to develop its surplus land for sale, rent or lease, or use other than for the purpose of its primary business. Your Lordships may have noticed that these Amendments are similar to, and for exactly the same purpose as, Government Amendments made to the former Clause 11 at Committee stage immediately before it was moved out of the Bill. Amendments similar to the above were intended to be made, like those to the former Clause 11, at the Committee stage, and were standing on the Order Paper. In view, however, of the deletion of Clause 11 and the reconsideration of the land development powers of the Boards and the Commission, they were not moved. Your Lordships moved back the words of Clause 11 yesterday, and these Amendments must now be made at this stage so as to bring Clause 75 into line with
202
the reinserted clause. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 31, leave out from ("power") to second ("to") in line 34.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 37, leave out from ("section") to end of line 41 and insert—

("(a) retain any part of their land which is not required for the purposes of their business and develop it for use by other persons, and

(b) where the use of their land for the purposes of their business can be combined with its use for other purposes, develop the land by constructing or adapting buildings thereon for use wholly or partly by other persons,

with a view to selling or otherwise disposing of any right or interest in the land or, as the case may be, the buildings or any part of the buildings, after the development is carried out").—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 43, after ("land") insert ("for use").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 6, after ("land") insert ("for use").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 15, after ("compulsorily") insert ("for use").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Application of Town and Country Planning Acts]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships would consider Amendments Nos. 80F and 80G together. No. 80F is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that subsection (1) of Clause 84 does not apply to a case where the Commission or one

203
of the new Boards are developing their property for operational purposes—that is, development for use for the purposes of their business—under the powers conferred upon them by Clauses 11 and 75. Amendment 80G is a purely drafting Amendment to reinsert a formal reference to the clause dealing with development of land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 5, leave out ("of this Act") and insert ("(development of land) of this Act so far as that section relates to development of land for use otherwise than for the purposes of the business of the Board").—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 15, at beginning insert ("(development of land)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 84 to insert the following new clause:
Temporary provision as to development of land in London
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission and of the Boards to consult the London County Council as to the use of their land in the administrative county of London so far as that land is not required for the purposes of their business, and to submit for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposals with regard to the use of that land in a manner which is consistent with proper planning and which, in particular, is consistent with the need for keeping a proper balance in the use of their land as between new office accommodation and other accommodation for trade and business on the one hand, and new living accommodation (with the amenities required by a resident community) on the other hand; and in making those proposals account may be taken of living accommodation provided or to be provided on any land belonging to the Commission or the Board which lies outside, but in the immediate vicinity of, the administrative County of London.
(2) The following provisions of this section shall have effect as regards any application made before the date certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as that on which he has approved proposals under the foregoing subsection, being an application for permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for development of land in the administrative county of London which belongs to the Commission or a Board at the time when the application is
204
made; and the said date shall be certified by the said Minister by order contained in a statutory instrument.
(3) If on any such application for permission for development consisting of the construction, reconstruction or alteration of a building

(a) which is designed or intended for use as office premises, or

(b) part of which is designed or intended for use as office premises and is suited for separate occupation,

permission is refused by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, either on appeal or on the reference of the application to him for determination, or is so granted subject to conditions, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the refusal or imposition of conditions under section twenty of the said Act of 1947 (which relates to development not involving an increase of more than 10 per cent. in cubic content) or paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to that Act (which relates to statutory undertakers' operational land).
(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to an application for permission for development consisting of the reconstruction of a building destroyed or damaged by fire or accident.
(5) In this section references to the Minister refusing permission or granting permission subject to conditions include references to the Minister and the appropriate Minister refusing permission, or granting permission subject to conditions, under paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act of 1947.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that yesterday I thought it was essential that I should deal with the new clause shown in Amendment 80H when I moved Amendment 14A, replacing the old Clause 11. I think it would be convenient if we followed the same procedure. I shall move it formally, then I shall call the Amendments to the new clause, and then, after the Amendments are disposed of, we can return to the clause.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I just ask one question? During the earlier proceedings on this Report stage I raised a question on the wording (the noble Viscount will probably remember it) with regard to office space and housing. I asked whether, within these words, it would be possible to take into account proper planning, having regard to roads and the like, or whether the noble Viscount considered there should be some amendment to these words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as those associated with me in this matter are concerned, they think the

205
words are all right to govern the noble Lord's point, but may I take one more look at it and write to him before the Third Reading, in case there is any difficulty which has not been observed? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 84, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to seek the guidance of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. There are some rather broad issues and there are still a number of points which do not necessarily arise conveniently under particular Amendments to be moved; and I wonder whether it would be convenient at some stage for me to put to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack some of those points which, after careful perusal of his speeches yesterday, are still not entirely clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. It is entirely for my noble friend. After we have disposed of the Amendments, we shall return to the clause, and he can then put any points he likes, and I can deal with them.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause, in line 2 of subsection (1) after "Council" to insert:
"or, as the case may be, of the Corporations of Manchester or Birmingham".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I, in moving Amendment 801, also speak to Nos. 80J, 80L, 80N and 80Q? For some of us there has been a conflict as to the correct approach to this subject. Certainly we do not wish to do anything which would shackle the Railway Boards or impose upon them provisions which we have not imposed, or cannot at this stage impose, upon the private operators. I am well aware of the need to reduce the present deficits, and I fully appreciate that very large sums of money may be recovered through the development and sale of railway property. On the other hand, I cannot but feel that we should take into account community interests—and when I mention the interests of the community I do not mean merely those of the locality but, perhaps, those of the nation itself.
Here, my Lords, I would say that I very much like the Government's Amendment. In fact, I like it to such an extent that I should like to see its provisions cover the main towns and cities of this country which, in relation to their size, have problems just as difficult and serious as London. There is no special significance in (the use of the cities of Manchester and Birmingham, but in drafting this series of Amendments I felt it was necessary to give some idea of the type of city I have in mind. I mentioned these two to illustrate what I had in mind; but, of course, Amendment No. 80Q, to which I am speaking, covers the point that the Minister of Housing and Local Government may, if he so feels, include within the provisions of this new clause any city or area where there is a large density of population.
My Lords, apart from London there are a number of cities in which railway sidings and railway stations cover a considerable acreage, perhaps not far short, relatively, of the type of acreage of which we have heard in the case of London. It may well be that the problem of office space and housing in these cities is not so acute as it is in London. Nevertheless, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate, while our debate at the Committee stage dwelt largely on office accommodation and housing, there were a number of us who took the rather broader view, and we were considering that in the community interest these areas might well be set aside for other types of development. I mentioned yesterday the question of open spaces, which the noble Viscount says is covered in the terms of the Government clause. But there is also the question of road-building. We shall need drastic improvements and planning if we are to relieve the congestion in our main cities, and unless the land is available, this planning and these improvements will hardly be possible.
We may well need car parks, which are certainly not as remunerative as office building. As I understand it, the Railways Boards are at present in consultation with the London County Council. Can the noble Viscount give us an assurance that the Railways Boards, if they are not already doing so, will have consultations with the

207
councils in our main cities before the Boards decide on any major development of their property or land within those cities? Because, by Lords, what is right for the County of London, is, I believe, equally right in the case of Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow. It is a fact that under the Town and Country Planning Act councils can restrict and prevent certain types of development in the areas of the Railway Boards. It may well be that they will say: "We don't wish that type of development, but we should like to have the land for road building". There will then be a case, as I see it, for the payment of compensation. It is true that, under this Bill, compensation will be waived for a period; but I am not looking just at the immediate future; I am thinking of three, four or five years hence, when more property will become available.
I should like to see this State property—because it is State property—used to the maximum of community interests. Whilst there is an undoubted case to be made for London, a city about which, perhaps, we are more knowledgeable, those who have anything to do with Liverpool, Birmingham or Manchester may see very much the same problems which exist now, or may see those problems arising. My Lords, we have this valuable land, valuable not only in the sense of money and of importance, but also in the sense of its locality in our main cities. I hope that we shall seize this opportunity and not let it go; that we shall first consider how this property can be developed in the community interest. I know that this may not be very acceptable to some friends of mine, who would like to see this property being sold and developed to produce very large sums of money for a State Board. I think I understand their view, but I should find it hard to take that narrow view—because I believe it is a narrow view. I have been at this Table right the way through this long debate on this Bill, advocating that the State Boards should first of all provide a service to the community. We have this land, and I believe we should use it to maximum community advantage. If this is the case which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, it has
208
been supported in every quarter of the House. My Lords, what is good for London is good for our main provincial cities. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 2 of subsection (1) after ("Council") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Corporations of Manchester or Birmingham").—(Lord Shepherd.)
5.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say at once that I have nothing with which to quarrel in the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to this Amendment? I was very glad that he began by stating his own desire to give (to put it colloquially) a fair crack of the whip to these Boards, because I think that is one of the difficulties which we have to consider: that, for a purpose which is quite admirable, and which, as Lord Shepherd said, is in the minds of everyone in this House, the result, of course, will be to take action which is discriminatory against the Board. We are really insisting that the Boards will take action which we think will have the proper social consequences, and their development and their profit will be limited for this purpose. We must face that; and, as I said yesterday, there is not one shred of a Party point in this at all.
This question raises the position of what is the proper way to treat the Boards in regard to this problem. We felt that, in view of the opinions expressed in this House, we ought to give special treatment to the position in London. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has very frankly agreed that the problem of office development and public commuter transport in London and the London area is unique in scale and stature, and that no such problem exists in other large cities on anything like the scale of the London situation. I was asked yesterday if I could get any figures for other towns. I should like to tell your Lordships that I tried to do so, but the B.T.C. could not say how much land there was, except, of course, that it is a great deal less than the amount we are dealing with in London.
The reason why the Government decided to introduce a new clause to deal with this matter was that they

209
recognised that the London problem is unique. Therefore, I put to the noble Lord whether he thinks it is right, where we have a lesser problem, as to the extent of land, density of population and difficulty of commuter travel, to extend the special and highly discriminatory provision in the new clause as regards development by the Commission and the Boards. I submit that it would be wrong to provide a power whereby these discriminatory provisions could be applied at large to other parts of the country. Apart from other reasons, it would place the Commission and Boards in a state of great uncertainty about the position of their land in other parts of the country. I know that the motives of the noble Lord's Amendment are excellent, that the Minister should go to a fresh town where he thinks it would be right, but, of course, it would be placing the Board in an extremely difficult position, because they would not know whether they also were going to be subjected to this discriminatory measure in relation to another town.
I said that there is no politics in this. It is an odd position, which I cannot remember having occurred often in your Lordships' House over the last ten years, that I, as a Conservative Minister, should be defending strongly the position of the nationalised Boards against discrimination. I said yesterday, and my noble and learned friend Lord Cones-ford nodded agreement with me, that we believe, where the country and Parliament have decided that nationalisation is right and we have decided not to denationalise, it is the duty of a Conservative Government, as of any other Government, to see that the nationalised industries are run in the most efficient way.
These are the two points which I put to the noble Lord and ask him not to press his Amendment to-day. First, we have really taken what is an extraordinary and almost unprecedented action because of the urgency of the London problem and, secondly, if we were to adopt his plan—because I think that he realises that we could not deal with just Manchester and Birmingham—to give a power to extend this to other cities, we should be putting the future policy of the Boards in great difficulty from a development and financial angle. But there is one point on which, if I may
210
say so, the noble Lord was perfectly right to press me: that is, would there be consultation in any case with the councils of these great cities? That will happen because there is no question of Boards being free from ordinary planning arrangements. It has been my experience that where there is a planning problem, inevitably there are discussions outside. But the answer to whether they will take place in any case is that the Boards will have to get planning permission and are bound to be in contact with the local authority on that point. These are the points which I ask the noble Lord to consider.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has said that he was in a strange position as a Conservative speaking in stalwart support of a nationalised industry. I think that it would be strange if I were found to be in any way attacking a nationalised Board. Certainly I might criticise them but I would not attack them. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, and will give careful consideration to the points he has made. I am glad of his assurance that there will be consultation with the local authorities. It is important that this should take place before there is any question of the Boards' going into the market for the development of land and I hope that there will be agreement on that.
The noble and learned Viscount said yesterday that some parts of the Government's new clause make statutory provision for what is already taking place—consultation between the L.C.C. and the Board. I wonder whether between now and Third Reading the noble and learned Viscount would consider whether we could not have some phrase in the Bill which makes it clear that the Boards would be expected to have consultations with all these major authorities before they embark upon any development of their land and before they become involved in any negotiations with any of these large property developers. I think that the noble and learned Viscount will be with me in this. We want to see this land developed in the interests of the community as well as of the Boards. That is common ground. I think that this could come if we could be assured that there would be proper consultation as quickly as possible and certainly prior

211
to any stage where possible contracts for development were being negotiated by interested parties. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved in line 6 of subsection (1) to leave out "proposals" and to insert "a plan in accordance with Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of the explanation of this new clause given yesterday afternoon by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, he made several remarks about the close analogy between this clause and the existing town and country planning legislation. He said [col. 6]:
"It is not possible to do this by amendment to the former Clause 11 now to be reinserted, because the proposals which the Government are putting forward to meet the points raised in Committee are a substantive proposition modifying the application of the Town and Country Planning Acts in relation both to the British Transport Commission during the remainder of its life and the four new statutory Boards."
At column 9 my noble and learned friend elaborated the point a little further. After describing the procedure which is proposed, he said:
"In a sense, it is really a smaller London Plan, which must be made for the 1,500 acres which we are considering."
If I may interrupt my own argument for a moment, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend whether 1,500 acres is an accurate figure. We had previously thought, on the authority of the London County Council, that it was in the neighbourhood of 1,000 acres, and an increase of 50 per cent. greatly strengthens the arguments which we have put forward, and which I am glad to think the Government have largely accepted, for dealing with this great increase in the land available in London in this special way.
To resume my quotation, my noble and learned friend went on:
"Therefore, we say, first of all, that there must be consultation and there must be proposals; then the proposals have to be submitted for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, so that he can satisfy himself that they are consistent with proper planning and achieve a proper balance between housing and related amenities, on the one hand, and trade and business requirements … on the other."
At a later stage my noble friend Lord Conesford pointed out that in the clause which is now being discussed what are to be put forward are described as "proposals". If we turn to Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, we find that there is an obligation on planning authorities to produce development plans. This is the form of the London Plan to which my noble and learned friend drew attention and compared with what is being proposed in this case. It seemed to me, therefore, that it would be helpful if in the case of what my noble and learned friend has described as a "smaller London Plan" we availed ourselves of the existing town and country planning legislation, because in Part II the whole of the procedure for preparing these plans and for amending them if necessary, and all the procedure for giving opportunity for public opinion to be consulted, could, I think, very conveniently be brought in for dealing with this.
At a later stage, and in replying to some of the proposals of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, the Lord Chancellor thought there was a danger of undue rigidity. Section 6 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 provides:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing subsection, any local planning authority may at any time, and shall if so required by directions of the Minister, submit to the Minister proposals for such alterations or additions to the development plan relating to their area or any part thereof as appear to them to be expedient, or as may be required by those directions, as the case may be."
If 1,000 to 1,500 acres are suddenly being made available for non-transport purposes in the administrative county of London, surely this is a case where the proper procedure would be to have an amendment of the existing London Plan under Part II of the Act of 1947. It seemed to me that this was in line with the thoughts of the Government on the subject, and I thought it might be helpful if I moved this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 6 of subsection (1), leave out ("proposals") and insert the said words.—(Lord Molson.)
6.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson has certainly added a new terror to

213
the use of analogies and similes. I do not complain about it, because I have always recognised that it is a dangerous path, and it is one which generally I try to eschew. But he has used my expression a "little London Plan" to raise a point which I find of considerable interest, although I am sorry to say I do not agree with him. My noble friend wants to see that there would be a development plan running the full course of the Town and Country Planning Act procedure for development plans, including publication, the lodging of objections and full public inquiry, before the Minister reached a decision. That would be the effect of this Amendment.
The next Amendment, which really goes with it, seeks to add a new subsection to the clause, and provides for the special development plan to be submitted under the first Amendment to be amended by the same procedure under Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as ordinary development plans. In other words, the full procedure of the Town and Country Planning Acts would be applied to any revision. The essence of my noble friend's proposals, and the reasons behind them, are that he takes the view that there is no direct relationship between the proposals submitted under subsection (1) and subsequent applications for planning permission for individual projects affecting land covered by those proposals. He has not expressed the fear, but without that fear there would really not be any reason for his own proposal, that in having submitted proposals under subsection (1), after consultation with the London County Council, and having secured the Minister's approval and his certifying order under subsection (2), there is nothing to prevent the Commission or the new Boards from lodging applications for planning consent, for land comprised in the proposals, which are quite at variance with the proposals approved by the Minister. That is, coupled with the question of compensation, the real fear behind these Amendments.
I want to put some points as against that. My noble friend says that in order to deal with that position one should apply the whole of the planning law, as I put it in general terms. That would make a substantial change in the general planning law and procedures as regards
214
surplus land owned by the Commission and the new Boards. I am told—and I agree with my information—that this would give rise to great practical difficulty in attempting to graft a special development plan in the ordinary sense, in respect of the surplus land of the Commission and the Boards in London, formulated by an authority other than the planning authority, on to the Development Plan for London; and it would be quite inappropriate, I should have thought, in a Transport Bill, to make such a radical change in the Town and Country Planning Act procedure in relation to the Commission and the Boards in respect of their land in London. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford fully appreciated that there are difficulties in putting into a Transport Bill proposais even as far as he suggested at that time, but he felt that the social problem and the questions of the balance of office accommodation and housing in London were so serious that we ought to do something about it. That is what we are doing. It is one thing to do something about it, and another thing to change the planning procedure.
I also think it is unnecessary for the reasons that I gave yesterday. The Commission and the new Boards will be public bodies, and it is wrong to assume that, having submitted proposals in consultation with the L.C.C. in discharge of their statutory duty under subsection (1) of the new clause, they would then proceed to tear up those proposals, subsequent to the Minister's approval, and proceed in an entirely different way with the use of their land covered by such proposals. As I said, apart from the question of what motives and what type of action you are prepared to impute to a public board, it would seem such a silly thing to do here, because they are arranging, negotiating, and consulting with the London County Council in order to get a fair balance of commercial and residential use. If you do that, and then take one of the methods suggested of selling a bit of land so that somebody else can make the application before the Minister has certified, what is going to happen? For one thing, apart from the question of breaking a statutory duty and the consequences of that, the London County Council and the Minister are going to say: "You

215
have taken that bit out of your housing site. You have destroyed the balance. You have not done what you said you would do; that is, put in proposals to keep a proper balance. You have destroyed that balance and, therefore, you have got to alter it again". It does not seem to me right from the practical view—and I have dealt with it on the practical basis—'but I think one ought to take into account that one is dealing with public boards.
Now I come to the point where I should like to deal with the other aspect of Lord Molson's approach. There will be a relation between the proposals under subsection (1) of the new clause, as approved by the Minister under subsection (2), and the Development Plan for London. When the proposals in subsection (1) are settled, any consequent change or modification in the Development Plan for London would be made at the next review of that Development Plan, and development would, in the meantime, as provided by the Town and Country Planning Acts, be permitted by way of "departure" procedure. In any event, there would be, under the procedure of the Town and Country Planning Acts, an opportunity for publication of these proposals and for objections to be lodged and heard in respect of any such consequential changes in the Development Plan for London. Though one does not, as my noble friend would say, have a new plan, it will still be necessary for these matters to be considered in the amendment of the present London Plan.
I hope my noble friend Lord Molson will not hold me to the figure of 1,500 acres. It is a figure which came up in discussion. It is not a measurement which was given to me, but it is something over 1,000 acres, with some other bits of land. I wanted not to underestimate the matter, and I should not like him to think that I have given it as a measured figure. It is something, as he said—and I think that is the best way to put it—between 1,000 and 1,500 acres. I do not think it detracts from my noble friend's point of importance, but I should not like anyone to think that I have given a measured figure—I was talking in round figures. I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment because
216
we have come a long way, and to put the Boards under the procedure which he suggests, I think, would make it impossible for them to deal practically with their work.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, as I indicated, I was trying to probe and to understand how this still somewhat obscure clause is going to work. I think my Amendment has already served a useful purpose in obtaining a further explanation from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. In view of the explanation that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 10 of subsection (1) leave out ("and business") and insert ("business and industry").—(Lord Molson.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know if it will help my noble friend, but although I am not absolutely certain whether "industry" is needed after "trade", there is no difference between us. I do not mind the insertion of the word, and I do not think it can have any repercussive effect. Therefore I advise the House to accept the Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. This was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, yesterday, and I think it is a point to which a good deal of importance attaches. I am most grateful to the Government for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I presume that the description of industry, would involve factories and the like. The noble and learned Viscount suggested that it was a minor Amendment. I should have thought it was sweeping, so far as these words are concerned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, what I said was that the words at the moment are "accommodation for trade and business". I am not at all

217
sure that "trade" in this context would not include "industry". But I do not want to be dogmatic in the matter. I think the term ought to be wide. It ought to be "industry" in the sense of factories as well. The split ought to be between "housing" and "commercial" in the widest sense.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, one is very reluctant to butt in at this stage, but I think the popular view would be—although the technical view may be different—that "business", "trade" and "industry" denote three different kinds of activity. In one case "trade" is selling, including warehousing. "Business" may be office business, and "industry", on the other hand, may be the manufacturing of things, involving (factories. I am not raising any serious objection, but I think it should be quite clear that what is meant by it is limited to exclude factories where the area in question is one in which factories may be objected to. Would the use of the word "industry" cover factories?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is all rather out of order because we have already accepted this Amendment, but, if the House will allow me, I am sure that this should be made clear. I wanted it to be as all-inclusive as possible. I wanted them all in because I wanted the distinction, on the one hand, to be commercial—lf I can use that word, as it is difficult to find a word that does not get into "he same trouble—and, on the other hand, housing. I think we are all agreed on that.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, could the matter be continued in order to find some alternative form of wording that would exclude these uncertainties?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we have covered all the uncertainties. I think that was what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, had in mind: that if you simply had the first two words there was some uncertainty, but if you put in the word "industry" there was certainty. It is all included. But if the noble Lord has any ideas I shall be very grateful if he will have a word with me before Third Reading and I will look into it. I think now that it is all right. In the meantime, if we can put ourselves in
218
order I think we now come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD SHEPHERD: That Amendment, my Lords, I am not moving.
7.2 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD had given Notice of three Amendments to the proposed new clause, the first being in line 2 of subsection (2), after "regards" to insert "(a)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment 80M is preparatory to Amendment 80P, and for the convenience of the House I propose to take them together. The effect of this, in substance, is to add at the end of line 8 of subsection (2)
"and (b) any application made after the said date for such permission as aforesaid for development of the said land, if the development for which permission is sought is not in accordance with the proposals thus approved by the Minister;".
I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I assume that the main argument for my Amendment was sufficiently stated in the debate yesterday, and that that will have made my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack familiar with the motive of my Amendment. I thought that my noble and learned friend speaking to-day on my noble friend Lord Molson's Amendment slightly misunderstood the main motive that I have in mind in adding these words. The purpose is to deal with alienation effected not before the Minister has approved the proposals but after. If the Minister approves the proposals, I cannot see that thereafter there is any necessary impropriety, or even improbability, in a board selling part of the property dealt with in these proposals. After that alienation has taken place the new owners might put in an application to develop the land in a way that was quite antagonistic to the proposals approved by the Minister. That is at least a legal possibility, and, if that were done, I think that it would be the view of the House that the provisions of subsection (3) should apply.
Any layman reading this new clause of Her Majesty's Government would think that the proposals approved by the Minister were something of great importance. So far as I can see—and I hope my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will correct me if I am

219
wrong—unless my Amendment or something like it is adopted, the proposals approved by the Minister have one effect in law and one only; they fix a date. But, once that date is passed, those proposals approved by the Minister could be torn up and completely ignored. I do not believe that that is desired by this House. That is the reason for my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 2 of subsection (2) after ("regards") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Considering this Amendment 80M, which is introductory, and 80O, I have—
LORD CONESFORD: My noble and learned friend said 80O; it is 80P which goes with this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps my noble friend would tell me. I am looking at the Fourth List of Amendments and I just want to be quite sure. Amendment 80M is the introductory one including the words "insert ('a')"; then on my copy 80O is the one which includes the words "Act is passed".
LORD CONESFORD: I think I see what is in my noble friend's mind. Of course, Amendment 80O does come earlier than 80P but it is not quite so directly connected with the little Amendment which is 80 M; but perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I dealt with all three together.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would.
LORD CONESFORD: In that case let me just add this about Amendment 80O. The main importance of Amendment 80O is, of course, that it will be incorporated when we come to deal with the applications for development at a later stage; that is, the development of the land which under the clause must belong to the Commission or Board at the time when the application is made. In the case which I have just imagined of the alienation of the land, then, of course, the application, inconsistent with the proposals approved by the Minister, would be put forward by developers who did not fall within those words. The land for which they applied would not fall within those words of "belonging
220
to a Board at the time when the application is made". But they would fall within the amended words "in the possession of the Commission or Board at the time when this Act is passed".
In the discussion that took place yesterday my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack gave various reasons for thinking that alienation would be either improper or improbable, but I do not think he gave any reason why any harm would be done by my proposed Amendment, which would make the test whether the land belonged to the Board at the time this Act is passed. I cannot see what would be lost if all applications for the development of this land that we have in mind and for which proposals for a balanced development are to be put forward, whether made before or after the approval of the proposals by the Minister, were subject to the provisions of the Government's clause. What would be lost? My case, therefore, for the Amendment to put in "this Act is passed" (that is, my Amendment No. 80O) is that it removes the loophole of an alienation defeating the scheme of the clause without, so far as I can see, doing any harm at all from any point of view.
The case for the other two linked Amendments is, as I have said, that without them the whole business of putting forward proposals for the Minister's approval and the Minister approving them affects only the fixing of the date and thereafter can be ignored for all purposes.
LORD MOLSON: Before my noble and learned friend replies, may I say that the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford has reminded me of what the Lord Chancellor said yesterday [col. 31]:
"The noble Lord then asked me, would persons to whom the Commission sold land covered by the proposals get compensation if they were refused planning permission? The answer to that is 'Yes'; the clause applies only to the Commission and the new Boards."
I do not want to be at all unfair. He went on.
"But, of course, it is subject to the point which I put earlier".
It seems to me that that is very relevant in considering the Amendment moved by my noble friend. The restriction

221
upon the compensation payable does not attach to the land; it attaches to the land only so long as it is in the possession of the Commission or one of the Boards. Therefore, it appears to me that my noble friend is quite correct, on what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said yesterday, in saying that the limitation upon the compensation attaches only so long as the land is in the hands of the Board.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson is perfectly right, and I do not think I have ever said anything else. But I want to develop the point. The first Amendment to the new clause deals with the position up to the date of certification; the second deals with the position after certification. That is, I think, the easiest way of approaching it.
Let us look at it up to the date of certification by the Minister. As I said before, there is a statutory duty on the Commission and the Boards to do two things: first of all, to consult with the L.C.C.; and, secondly, to put forward proposals. The Minister can then certify the proposals. On that point, one would like to consider the matter on the basis that the Boards will carry out their statutory duty. In any case I believe they could be compelled to, although I never like, speaking from my position, giving opinions about the result of actions. That is the first point: they have to do that; they have to consult, they have to put forward proposals. The basis of this Amendment is that at the same time, and in relation to the same piece of land about which they are consulting and have put forward proposals in agreement with the L.C.C., they will go off and sell that piece of land. Usually the language which I think one has heard is that the Commission or the Boards could drive a coach and horses through the Act. As I say, I think at this stage, up to the date of certification, that is a serious and unjustified view of the way that a Board carries out its work. But the point I have made to your Lordships is that it would also be idiotic; whether it is moral or not, it would be completely idiotic, because this is the period up to certification.
If you put forward proposals dealing with, say, 1,000 acres of land, and you than sell off 250 acres of the land which is going to be used for housing purposes
222
(you do not want to sell the other land, because you are going to get a good price for it) what is the Minister going to say? He is going to look at this clause and see that the statutory duty is to keep a proper balance in the use of the land. If you say in your proposals that the proper balance is 500 acres each, and you then deduct 250 from the less profitable part, you have not a proper balance; so the Minister is going to say, "All right; 375 acres each". My arithmetic at this stage of the day, having been in your Lordships' House since half past two, is not very powerful, but it is something like that. It would be an entirely new scheme. In fact it might be worse for them. Of course, it is possible that a developer would make an application, but to make it in respect of the Commission's land will not help him.
The second point, which I think is also extremely improbable, is that the developer, without planning permission, knowing there is this tricky position behind it all. knowing that he is bound to get up against the planning authority, whom he will meet in other instances, is going to buy the land without planning permission. If the developer did that he would be taking a very great risk, and I should have thought his chances of getting into the multi-millionaire class were extremely slim. The other point I wanted to put is this. The noble Lord said to me, "Why not accept the Amendment?". First of all, I do not think one ought to accept Amendments which are based on a view of the Board's actions which one does not think are at all likely to happen. The other point is that, obviously, if one did this one would get into complications in dealing with the position of future purchasers of the land. The position is that by my noble friend's Amendment they would put up a notice that the land which they might be buying from persons who themselves bought from the B.T.C. in the future would be subject to some special restriction affecting their rights.
On the other point, I want to deal now with the position after the date of certification. There my noble friend says, quite rightly (I agree with him entirely; there is no moral question arising here), that this is a matter of policy at which

223
I think one has to look closely. I should like to put my point, because I think that I failed to make myself clear to my noble friends when I said that this would be too rigid in its effect. I said that there might be changes in circumstances which would make it desirable and acceptable, on planning grounds, to allow development of land belonging to the Commission and the new Boards otherwise than in accordance with the proposals. My noble friend has always taken that point. He said: "I have a perfectly good answer to that. My answer is that the Minister would then give planning permission, and the situation would be quite the same". My reply to his answer has always been: "Yes, he might give planning permission; he might be generally in favour of a change. But he might attach conditions which were not related to the 1962 position, and it would be unfair for the developer or the Board not to be entitled to compensation."
I had a happy and nostalgic thought when I was considering this matter. Eighteen years ago I did an inquiry on behalf of, inter alios, my noble friend Lord Conesford, and the subject of this inquiry was planning permission for statutory undertakers. I gave Mr. W. S. Morrison (as he then was, and who, if my recollection is right, was my noble friend's Minister) a long and elaborate report after six months' work on planning permission for statutory undertakers and all it involved. I did not want to give myself a pat on the back; all I wanted was to say to my noble friend that I heard of a great many ways in which statutory undertakers might be affected by conditions being imposed. That is a real point here: that the imposition of conditions in the future might be most unfair to the Boards.
I do not think the other point is so strong, but I ought to mention it. That is, that the effect of the Amendment might be to throw doubt on the position of additional lands becoming surplus to operational requirements in the future. Any application for planning permission to develop such land might not be in accordance with the proposals settled under subsection (1), because the land might not have been embraced in these proposals. My noble friend may say: "Well, you can find a way to clarify
224
that". But I am sure my noble friend would agree with the principle that if it were new land becoming surplus one would not necessarily apply the same rules, and I do not think he would want the compensation automatically to be excluded in that land. But one really comes back to the point that there are, for better or for worse, so many changes in life that to make the matter rigid for many years ahead would be wrong. I i have given a practical example, and therefore I feel that I cannot accept this point.
I should like only to add this (I said it yesterday I think, but I should like to say it again): that my noble friend's points were of great interest; I have tried my best to appreciate his point of view, and I assure him that if I have failed to do so the fault is entirely mine, and does not rest on the lucidity of his explanation. I have formed that view and I hope that he will not press the Amendment to-night.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, let me say at once to my noble and learned friend that I certainly will not press the matter to-night, but I entirely deny his last statement that the fault lies with him. I am quite convinced from his speech that the fault lies with me for not making the matter clear. Although I will not delay withdrawal of the Amendment more than a few moments, I should like my noble and learned friend to bear certain matters in mind in the thought he gives to the subject between now and Third Reading. First of all, there is the connection between Amendment No. 80O and Amendment No. 80P. Amendment No. 80O, of course, deals with the definition of the land in respect of which the application is made. That also affects my Amendment No. 80P because in that Amendment I use the words "the said land".
The substance which I wish my noble and learned friend to bear in mind is this: before the Minister approves proposals the Board may have alienated the land in a perfectly honest manner, thinking that the people to whom they alienated it would pay some regard to the proposals for which they have sought, and for which they later obtain, the Minister's approval. Nevertheless, the new owners of the land at a later date put forward a proposal that is not in

225
accordance with the plan approved by the Minister—not in accordance with the proposals approved by the Minister, and the Minister still thinks them undesirable. In those conditions the matter will be taken quite outside the purview of the scheme of the Government's new clause on two grounds: first of all, the land will not fall within the definition; and, secondly, there is nothing to stop an application being made which bears no reference to the proposals approved by the Minister. My noble and learned friend has convinced me that my drafting will not do. It does not provide for a number of the things to which he has called attention. But, in my submission, neither does the Government drafting do, for the reasons I have given. With the certainty that my noble and learned friend will further consider the points that I have now made, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment No. 80M, and I will not move Nos. 80O and 80P.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.28 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I beg to move Amendment No. 80PA and I think it might be convenient to deal at the same time with Amendment No. 80PB. I move these Amendments with great fear and trepidation. As I listened to the speeches of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I could not help but feel that perhaps silence was best. But I have been given a duty; therefore, if I should cover some of the points that have been dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I hope he will tell me so. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in regard to the definition of trade and business, where I understand that, for a proper balance, there will be on the one side the housing requirements and on the other side new office accommodation and factory premises.
I think this is a very significant development. I would refer your Lordships
226
to subsection (3), which deals with the question of compensation and says that if the scheme prohibits a particular type of development the local authority will have to provide compensation. Paragraphs (a) and (b), which my Amendment seeks to delete, specifically relate to office premises, whether intended to be used fully or partly as office premises. It would appear that whilst the noble and learned Viscount has accepted that the proper balance must take into account factory space, it may be decided that a particular factory shall not be developed in that area. I would remind your Lordships that it is a declared policy, particularly under the Local Employment Act, 1960, that industrial development should not be encouraged within this area. It would appear, as the clause is before us, that the local authority would then be called upon to pay compensation when a factory's capacity has not been approved. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether that is to be the case, or whether we are going to treat offices and factory space alike.
By Amendment 80PB we wish to insert the words
"or of the making of a material change in the use of land, or a building".
It may be decided in the scheme that land shall not be materially altered. In the same way it is felt that compensation should not be paid. In other words, we should treat it in a similar fashion as we would treat office accommodation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 4 of subsection (3) leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).—(Lord Shepherd.)
7.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on his dive into town and planning law. I am glad we have had a chance to discuss his point. The real issue is that under subsection (3) of the new clause the Commission and the new Boards are excluded from compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission for office development in London. They cannot get compensation for office development until the Ministry so certify. The point of the Amendment which Lord Shepherd

227
has just put before your Lordships is to delete office development and to extend the area of exclusion from compensation to any "material change in the use of land"—that is development of any kind, even the lowest kind in the scale of developments. The argument really is that until the balanced proposals have been approved, applications for all developments affecting the land in question, not only office development, should be excluded from compensation.
I come back to my old point: that this is, as I submit, unnecessarily increasing the discrimination against the Commission and the Boards. As I have said, the clause is highly discriminatory; even if you bar them only from compensation for office development you are putting them in that position. In simple language, they have to make that sacrifice for the public good. But now you are going to say that not only office development but any kind of development is forbidden. I should have thought that the clause provides ample incentive and sanction for the Commission to submit their proposals, and the basis for the arrangements for which the new clause provides rests on this special problem in London of office accommodation. The noble Lord will appreciate that that comes in twice: whether it is an economic way of spending the money, and whether it is going to increase the traffic problem and the commuter problem as well. It would not be right to generalise the exclusion of compensation to cover all forms of development merely in order to exact stronger pressure against the Boards to reach agreement. I know that the noble Lord does not start from the point of view that the Commission and the Boards will deliberately seek to circumvent what is proposed. I think he would rather take my view that, having several proposals under subsection (1), they will stick to them unless in the future circumstances change.
Finally, I would, just put the one viewpoint to your Lordships. The Amendments of my noble friends Lord Conesford and Lord Molson, taken together with those of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would, in my view, really produce a situation which would put a public body in an intolerable position.
228
The short answer to Lord Shepherd is that it is a point one wants to consider, but it is office accommodation that one wants to prevent. One wants to put the inducement against office development, not against any sort of development. For example, it might even be housing development of some kind. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
LORD GREENHILL: Is not the whole purpose of this clause a temporary provision? If that is so, it is not a clause that would be binding for all time on the subject. One would imagine, therefore, that the dangers that the noble Viscount envisages are perhaps a little exaggerated. In other words, if one could embody in the clause the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which my noble friend Lord Shepherd has moved, it would not do any real harm, as a temporary purpose.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will not press the noble and learned Viscount—I do not know whether I should have the authority of my noble friend Lord Silkin to do so. I think, however, the noble and learned Viscount will accept that it is policy to discourage, and I hope prevent, any industrial development in the centre of London, which is what we are really considering. Therefore, whilst the noble and learned Viscount has accepted that, under the temporary provisions of subsection (1), it would appear that the local authorities would in fact be liable to pay compensation even on a factory. I would agree with the noble Viscount that we do not wish to cover every field of development, but there are one or two types of development which the Government, in the public interest, should recognise should not take place. If that is the case, and if compensation is not to be paid on office buildings, I think that ruling should apply equally to factory space. Perhaps the noble Viscount would consider that point. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, again on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment. As I understand it, if the Board, or an organisation

229
to whom property has been disposed of, were to approach the London County Council for permission to develop, and the County Council refused permission, they would either have to pay compensation or they might receive a notice to purchase that particular property. That might well involve very considerable sums of money, probably not far short of what might have to be paid out in compensation. It is felt in the present circumstances, taking the principle behind this new clause, that for the period of this new clause the County Council should be relieved of the responsibility of being forced to buy that property if in their wisdom they had refused development permission. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 11 of subsection (3) after ("conditions.") insert ("the provisions of section 19 of the Act of 1947 shall not apply and,").—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment again seeks to increase the disabilities of the Commission and the new Boards, in respect of the development of surplus land in London during the period prior to the approval of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government of their proposals under subsection (1). Under this Amendment, should the Commission or the new Boards be refused planning permission for office development on surplus land, before the date on which the Minister approved their proposals under subsection (1), not only would they be excluded from compensation under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but they would also be prevented, where in consequence of the refusal of planning permission there was no reasonable beneficial use to which they could put the land in question, from serving notice on the local authority under Section 19 of that Act. I hope your Lordships appreciate how far that would be going, because, if I may speak from memory and not having checked it, the way it works is this.
Suppose you have a piece of land for which you want to get planning permission and that is refused, then the question of compensation will turn on whether your land has such a low value that the planning authority could not give you permission for something else which would still be higher than the
230
value of the land. That would mean that if you had a piece of waste land, and you wanted to put up office accommodation and you did not get planning permission, so long as the local authority could say, "All right, you can build houses there", then, generally, building houses there would be more valuable than an old disused railway site. That is the way I have approached it, and it seemed to me that the Amendment was really going a little too far, because it was excluding the ground that I have just stated. I am very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, and I will consider it, but on reflection we are really dealing with a problem that has exercised your Lordships' minds. Your Lordships did not really intend that there would be any greater discrimination than that I will consider it but, again, I hope the noble Lord will not press it tonight.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I convey to the noble and learned Viscount our extreme thanks for the manner in which he has dealt with the Amendments from this side, in a very intricate matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.46 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I feel that we are all working in conditions of very great difficulty, and I hope that the flexibility of the procedure of your Lordships' House may enable something to be done about the matter. I think it is known to many of your Lordships that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has an engagement, which he really cannot avoid keeping, and this is a matter of extreme importance which he himself has handled completely. I am seeking elucidation not on my own account only. I do not think I should be breaking any secret if I indicated that I believe the London County Council themselves are not clear as to exactly how this is going to work. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be most unfair to my noble and learned friend, and would really render your Lordships proceedings almost nugatory, if in a matter which is so specially within his knowledge we sought to press him further upon this in the last few moments

231
that he can be here. It really would be impossible to do justice to a matter of the greatest importance, which involves over a thousand acres of London land and a very large sum of money.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I feel I must accept what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, says, and I propose that the Report stage of this Bill be further adjourned.
Moved, That the Report stage of the Bill be further adjourned.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Report stage adjourned accordingly.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL
7.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Landlord and Tenant Bill be read a second time. This Bill comes to this House from another place where it received universal commendation on Second Reading, although I think it is true to say that that commendation was considerably spiced with constructive criticism. During the passage of the Bill through the Committee stage it was considerably amended, but principally in matters of detail and not so much as to affect the original principle of the Bill. So that when it came to its Third Reading in another place it again received universal approbation from all parts of that House. I mention this fact in the hope that it will receive a like reception in your Lordships' House.
The relationship of landlord and tenant may well be considered by many of your Lordships, in so far as weekly tenancies are concerned (and those are the tenancies which are dealt with by this Bill), as something of a personal relationship. But it remains the fact that it has been found in practice that there are a by no means insignificant number of landlords in this country, and particularly in urban areas, who do not share such a view. In fact, they prefer to remain incognito; to hide their light, as well as their name, under a bushel; and to avoid any possible contact with their tenants—the result being, of course,
232
that if the tenant has a legitimate complaint which he desires to make concerning the state of the property, or anything of that description, there are no means by which he can get behind the agent who collects his rent and get in touch with the responsible person.
Another impression which I personally had before I started to delve into these matters was that it was incumbent upon a landlord to provide every weekly tenant whom he might have with a rent book containing the landlord's name and address. Such an impression, as I am sure your Lordships will know, is entirely erroneous. There are some forms of weekly tenants who are entitled to have a rent book provided for them by their landlords; some classes are entitled to have certain information set out in that rent book, and other classes other information set out in that rent book. But there is a substantial class of weekly tenants who are not entitled to a rent book at all, and that is the second point which we are seeking to overcome in this Bill.
In fact, the objects of this Bill, my Lords, are really fourfold. The first and primary object is that it shall be incumbent by law upon all landlords to provide their weekly tenants with a rent book which contains the landlord's name and address. Secondly, the Bill provides that where the law already provides that a rent book, where it is requisite, shall contain certain information of a specified character, that information shall continue to be required. Thirdly, it lays down that landlords which are companies shall provide their weekly tenants, upon written request, which the agent is bound to pass on to the landlord, with the names and addresses of the directors and the secretary of that company. I think that that is a logical extension of the principle that a tenant should be entitled to know the name and address of his landlord. Next, as a necessary corollary to the other provisions, there is a slight extension of these obligations to local authorities, housing associations and new town development corporations.
At the same time, certain of the powers of local authorities under the Rent Restriction Act, 1933, whereby they are entitled to supply information to

233
landlords and tenants concerning the Jaw as it applies to weekly tenancies of properties, and also to initiate prosecutions where such are liable, are automatically revoked by this Bill and are therefore reinstated in the Bill. Next, the Bill seeks to standardise the penalties which are applicable to the matters contained in the Bill, and in certain instances, my Lords, to increase those penalties to a more realistic figure. In fact, the offences with which the Bill deals carry at the present time penalties which range from £2 for the first offence, through £10 to £50; and so the provisions in the Bill standardise the penalties for all those offences at a maximum sum of £50 for the first offence and £100 for a second and each subsequent offence.
Finally, my Lords, one of the objects of this Bill is to consolidate the existing law. I hope that your Lordships will consider that at the same time it also clarifies it, and to some extent codifies it. It is quite arguable that much of this Bill's contents can be found, in part, in earlier legislation—particularly, for instance, in the 1925 Law of Property Act; but I think that your Lordships will agree that to expect the ordinary weekly tenant, for Whose benefit this Bill is primarily concerned, to know his way about and to find out the particulars contained in the Law of Property Act, 1925, is really asking the impossible. Therefore, the final object of this Bill is to try to provide, within its very limited compass, the law relating to those particular matters which affect the weekly tenant, and so to provide it for him to the exclusion of his having to seek it elsewhere. To that extent, it is a consolidation measure. My Lords, I have tried to explain (this matter briefly to your Lordships. I hope that I have not over-simplified it, and I hope also that your Lordships will see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Brentford.)
7.57 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for his very lucid explanation of this Bill. As he says, it both clarifies and codifies, to some extent, the present law; but I think it does quite a deal more than that. It
234
is going to be quite a useful Bill for many tenants, particularly of slum properties. In my own experience as a Member of another place I often came across cases of people being victimised because they did not have a rent book. They did not even know who their landlord was; and this often led to cases of hardship. Therefore we on this side of your Lordships' House warmly welcome this very useful measure.
7.58 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend on the way in which he has explained this measure to your Lordships' House. I do not think that the noble Viscount has suggested that this is other than a fairly modest measure, and I would not suggest otherwise, either, but I feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it is in fact a useful and desirable one.
The relationship between a landlord and his tenant is, by its very mature, a peculiarly close one. It is unlikely to be a satisfactory one unless the obligations which fall on both the landlord and his tenant are satisfactorily discharged on both sides. As some of your Lordships who are familiar with these matters know, there are a number of ways in which some landlords seek to evade their rightful obligations. One method is to make it difficult by one device or another for the tenant to establish direct contact—in order, for example (and it is not an uncommon example), to prevent the tenant from asking the landlord to carry out those repairs which are his, the landlord's responsibility. Only a minority of landlords—and a small minority at that—resort to such practices. Nevertheless, it is clear from the information reaching my Department that evasion of this sort, which sometimes involves very serious hardship on the tenant, is a too frequent occurrence. If, therefore, there are gaps here in the law, it is right that they should be closed, and it is for that reason that I, too, welcome this Bill.
Since my noble friend has explained the objects of this measure so clearly, I, for my part, wish to touch upon only one particular clause in the Bill,

235
Clause 5, which deals with the powers of local authorities. Under the 1933 Rent Act, as I understand it, local authorities can not only publish information for the assistance of landlords and tenants about their rights and duties under the various Rent Acts, but can also institute proceedings for any offence under those Acts. It is dearly desirable that local authorities should still be able to exercise these powers, and to exercise them over the rather wider field covered by this Bill. For example, tenants are often fairly naturally reluctant to institute proceedings of a sort on their own behalf. That is why my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposes, if and when Parliament approves this measure, to draw the attention of local authorities specifically to it, and to remind them of their duties under it. I have no hesitation in recommending your Lordships to give my noble friend's Bill your approval.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PENALTIES FOR DRUNKENNESS BILL
8.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill, and was introduced in another place by the Member for Tynemouth, Dame Irene Ward. It seems appropriate that I should do so, as the honourable lady and I were appointed as Justices of the Peace on the same day, and for the same bench in the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in 1949. When this Bill was introduced in another place and debated there, it had the support of all political Parties, so I shall not detain your Lordships for long over this small, but nevertheless important, Bill, and I shall endeavour, as briefly as I can, to explain the main points in it.
Clause 1 of the Bill is the operative and virtually the only clause in the Bill, and it sets out to increase the existing maximum penalties for certain forms of
236
drunkenness. The existing penalties have been laid down in Acts which, as you will see from subsection (2), go back as far as the Refreshment Act, 1860, which is over 100 years ago, and the Licensing Act, 1872, which is now 90 years old. Reference is also made to other Acts of various dates, the most recent being the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, although that was only a consolidating measure, and there was no discussion on penalties at that time.
The existing penalties for drunkenness under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, which this Bill seeks to amend, are as follows. The penalty for being drunk on any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or in licensed premises, is 10s. for the first offence, 20s. for a second conviction within 12 months, and on a third or subsequent conviction within the same period of 12 months the fine is 40s. The penalties for being drunk and disorderly, or guilty of riotous or disorderly behaviour, are 40s., or imprisonment not exceeding one month. But here I would say that the provisions of Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, do not apply to any persons who are drunk and in charge of a motor car. Provisions for them are dealt with under the Road Traffic Acts, and the relevant sections in those Acts provide that the person liable to be charged with an offence under them shall not be liable to be charged under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, or the equivalent Scottish Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, asked a Question in your Lordships' House on June 6 last. He asked Her Majesty's Government [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 91), col. 597]:
"whether they are satisfied that the current maximum fines prescribed in the Statutes … are in all cases adequate, having regard to the fall in the value of money since they were enacted".
The noble Lord was informed by the Government that they agreed that there is a case for the revision of some fines in the light of present-day monetary values, and it is for this very reason that this Bill has been introduced. The new penalties as laid down in the Bill are: for simple drunkenness, a fine not exceeding £5; and for being drunk and disorderly, the maximum fine is increased to £10, or imprisonment not

237
exceeding one month. I would hasten to assure your Lordships that these increases in the penalties for drunkenness are not due to any increase in drunkenness, or any fear that there would be a sudden increase in drunkenness. It is simply that the value of money and the deterrent effect of these fines of 10s. and up to 40s. have become very small with the passage of time. But I would not hazard a guess what the accurate measurement of the decrease in the value of money has been since the year 1860.
It is my firm belief that this Bill will be welcomed by the courts of summary jurisdiction, and it will certainly be welcomed by the police, who have a great deal of trouble with drunk and disorderly people. I can give an example. If a person who is drunk is arrested on a Saturday afternoon, it is usual for that person to be housed in a cell for two nights, obtain up to five meals, and when he or she appears before the magistrates on the Monday morning, he or she is fined the paltry sum of 10s. Consultations have taken place with the Home Office, and it has been agreed that the suggested new penalties are reasonable, and are up to date and in line with present-day standards. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I ask that you give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Westwood.)
8.8 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, again I would thank the noble Lord for the very lucid and careful way that he has explained this Bill. I am always very dubious about the value of deterrents, and although I do not in any way oppose this Bill, which I am quite prepared to accept as necessary, I very much doubt that, with the kind of people the noble Lord has mainly in mind, it will deter them very much from getting drunk. Having regard to the fact that the penalties for drunkenness were fixed when whisky was 3s. 6d. a bottle but it is now ten times the price, I think it is quite justifiable to step up the penalties somewhat, and the figures here of £5, or £10, or imprisonment not exceeding one month, are nothing to quarrel with.
238
My difficulty, however, and I have no doubt it is his difficulty as a magistrate—and these increased penalties, I hope, will throw up this difficulty even more—is that the kind of man or woman who continually comes before the magistrates and is fined 10s. and told not to come again, as the noble Lord said, is eventually sent to prison for a week, two weeks, or even a month. They are cleaned up, perhaps given a new suit of clothes, and sent out again. They pawn their clothes and come before the magistrates again well and truly drunk. I do not think that these enlarged fines are going to deter them, although the noble Lord may well say that that is not an argument against the Bill, and he is quite right. It is an argument, perhaps, in favour of providing the magistrates with different forms of treatment to which they can send persistent drunkards. Perhaps the increase of penalties in this Bill may throw that up more distinctly, and eventually we shall have a different way of treating persistent drunkards, other than sending them to general local prisons, where they are a great nuisance to prison officers and are mixed up with all kinds of criminals, at considerable expense to the State and with no permanent benefit to themselves. Apart from that, we welcome this Bill and will not oppose it.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Westwood on moving the Second Reading of this Bill and on giving an admirable explanation to its purpose and its scope. As he said, the Bill seeks simply to increase the penalties for drunkeness under the existing law of England and Wales and Scotland and to bring them into line with the present-day value of money. I think that that is a purpose with which most of your Lordships would concur. I shall be brief, especially at this late hour and with the scarcity of noble Lords in the House.
The Home Office are making a comprehensive review of all the smaller maximum fines, with a view to the possible introduction of legislation to bring them into line with the present-day value of money, as my noble friend has suggested. It is a large task. It is not possible just to multiply the old fines, some

239
of which go back hundreds of years, by a factor representing the change in the value of money. Some offences may have changed considerably in importance, and some of the heavier fines may be quite inappropriate.
The honourable lady who represents Tynemouth in another place decided, with the vigour for which she is noted, that fines for drunkeness might well be dealt with on their own in a short Bill, which is before your Lordships to-night under my noble friend's name. In its relatively narrow compass, it is comprehensive in its treatment of penalties for the several offences of drunkenness, which my noble friend has mentioned. We welcome the Bill, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Westwood, in particular, for his part in bringing this small but useful measure before your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and also my noble friend Lord Bathurst for their support. I would now ask your Lordships to accord this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.