TRANSPORT BILL

HL Deb 07 June 1962 vol 241 cc724-806

2.37 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

LORD SHEPHERD

Before the first Amendment is called may I ask the noble Lord whether, if business is slow and we do not make quite the progress some of us are hoping to make, which naturally we shall try to do, it is intended to adjourn for dinner.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS)

I think that it has already been announced that the House will adjourn for dinner.

Clause 61 [Amendment of enactments relating to inland waterways]:

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words from "shall" to the end of the subsection and to insert instead: apply to the Board as it applies to the Commission. The noble Viscount said: I very much enjoy in many ways entering into debate with the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on the subject of this Bill, because I think they are very nice people, and I like them. But the more I see of this Bill, and the more I hear from every single person who has anything to do with the waterways, the more they seem to me to be babes unborn in the matter of their innocence in what is going on.

The Amendment which I am moving performs a very simple function. It seeks to put the new Waterways Board in exactly the same position as the former Commission in regard to powers for the upkeep of waterways. The noble Lords have given us many assurances; they have said that these waterways will be kept up in all their former condition, according to Acts of Parliament concerning the matter; and that even where the statutory right of navigation is removed in certain cases these waterways are still to be kept navigable. That is what they say. I should be happy to believe them, and I should believe them all the more readily if I did not know that, entirely contrary to the wishes of Parliament, these waterways are even now being neglected and are going out of navigable state. All the ministerial assurances which have been made in the last few years are being violated, left and right; and, of course, there is no protection for the waterways except the protection of Statute.

As it reads to-day, Clause 61 is not very easy to understand, since it is a matter of legislation by reference to the Regulation of Railways Act. I will tell your Lordships exactly what the result of this clause is. The Regulation of Railways Act requires the British Transport Commission to maintain certain inland waterways. One might think that "certain inland waterways" were just one or two odd canals scattered throughout the country, and rather unimportant ones, but in fact they are every single waterway in the country, whether owned by the Commission or anybody else, with the exception of those which used to be railway-owned navigations. And when we come to the railway-owned navigations, we find that every single one of them has been closed down, with the exception of the Wytham Navigation and the Fossway. These are the only two which are now in active use and in good condition.

In other words, we are being asked in this clause to allow the new Board to jettison their duty of keeping in good condition every navigation in the country, except the Wytham Navigation and the Fossway. It is simply amazing. Why do the Government want the clause in this way? I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer. He has always said that the Bill is solely for the purpose of transferring certain assets from organisation A to organisation B. This change is about as big a change as one could possibly make; I cannot imagine a larger one. The Government may say that I am completely wrong in my reading of this and that the words do not carry this meaning. If they do not carry this meaning, what meaning do they carry? And if there is no intention of ceasing to keep these waterways in good order, what are these words doing in the Bill at all? Before we go any further with this, I think that we should have a Government answer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 38 and insert ("apply to the Board as it applies to the Commission.").—(Viscount St. Davids.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

The noble Viscount has been occupying himself, like some others, in seeking for a deep, dark plot.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

No, only a meaning.

LORD CHESHAM

I still think the noble Viscount is seeking a deep and dark plot in this matter. From what he has said so far—I understand that he is going to say more—I do not know whether we are intended to consider this Amendment seriously or not. It is customary, in moving an Amendment, to adduce reasons for doing so. So far the noble Viscount has sought a meaning, but has not suggested why we should accept his Amendment. This is a slightly unusual procedure, but I will respond to his invitation and tell him what this clause is about.

Before I do so, I would say a word about his arrogation to himself and his friends of the only knowledge and understanding of the waterways in this country. My noble friend Lord Mills and I may well be "innocent babes"—we have been trying to behave like that a good deal of the time—but I do not know whether, in calling us that, he is not once more taking up the attitude which led the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, on Second Reading to describe his attitude as "sheer effrontery". I am not using that kind of expression, but I think that the noble Viscount might care to bear that remark in mind. For myself, I do not accept what he says in this regard in the very least.

To understand the significance of Clause 61, it is necessary to go back to Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, which was brought in to prevent the railway companies at that time from buying up canals and closing them down in order to get rid of competition. The provisions of that section continued to apply to the successor to the railway companies, the British Transport Commission. It is quite logical that they should, because the Commission can be said to be a railway undertaking, and the same provisions should apply to them for the same reasons. I gather that there is a modest argument about whether the provisions of Section 17 apply to the non-railway-owned canals, the independent canals, but this argument has never been actually resolved by being put to the test, because there was no reason why it should be. I do not think that for our purposes it matters very much either way. If, as is now the case, the canals are to be transferred to a separate British Waterways Board, which is not a railway undertaking, it could be argued that there was no necessity to apply the provisions of Section 17 to the Board at all; but, as a matter of clarity and with a certain degree of logic, the protection of the provisions of Section 17 will continue to apply to the railway owned canals, so that there shall be no doubt on the matter. In this way these canals will be protected, but not the others, which are safeguarded by their own special enactments.

I think the noble Viscount should agree that the extension of this safeguard to the railway canals, when there is not a thoroughly justifiable case for doing so, represents quite a far-reaching concession. That is what is embodied in the clause. I hope that I have made it clearer to the noble Viscount and that he will feel happier about it.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

I do not think it has made it clear at all; in fact, I think it has confused the matter even more. I really do not see why the words are necessary, because, according to the noble Lord, they will have no effect in the matter of the upkeep of the canals. According to him, the canals will continue to be kept up regardless of these words in the Bill. If they mean nothing, there is no reason why they should not be struck out by this Amendment. However, I do not see that we can go much further to-day, and the only thing I can do is to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

The next five Amendments are all Waterways Amendments and, with your Lordships' permission, I will move them together. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 65, line 30, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 65, line 33, leave out ("the Authority") and insert ("that Board")

Page 65, line 35, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")

Page 65, line 46, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 66, line 3, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, after Clause 61 to insert the following new clause:

Other bodies operating waterways

".—(1) (a) Any body of persons corporate or incorporate or any statutory or local or public authority owning or managing any inland waterway to which this Act applies, or which hereafter acquires or proposes to acquire or undertake the management of any inland waterway to which this Act applies, may by resolution of its governing body or members or by declaration of its trustees or in any other appropriate manner exclude any provison of this Act as to charges conditions or facilities or the disposal or development of its property or any other like provision which would, if not expressly excluded, preclude such body or authority from being registered as a charity under the provisions of the Charities Act, 1960, or from claiming the status of a public or public charitable undertaking eligible for relief upon taxable income or grants in aid out of and the expenditure upon such inland waterway of public funds. (b) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prejudice the public or charitable status of any such body as aforesaid or, save as herein expressly provided, prejudice or preclude the public from 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.

(2) (a) Any local authority, river board, Board of Conservators exercising the functions of a river board, statutory water undertaker or other statutory authority exercising public functions under powers conferred by any enactment local or public may, subject as hereinafter provided and in addition to any other powers vested in them, out of their general funds make grants of or advance money to or guarantee the indebtedness of any authority company or person upon such terms or conditions as may be thought fit for any of the purposes specified in the next following paragraph. (b) The purposes to which these provisions apply are the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section seventeen of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, other than the purpose of constructing, improving or maintaining railways, light railways or tramways. (c) Any such body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above may borrow money for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by this subsection. (d) A local authority shall not in respect of any sum exceeding one thousand pounds in any one year exercise any power conferred by this subsection without the prior sanction of the Minister of Housing and Local Government; and a local authority or river board or Board of Conservators exercising the functions of a river board shall only exercise its powers in respect of works which are to be carried out, or some part of which are to be carried out, within, or which will in its opinion benefit, the area for which it is responsible. (e) Loans guaranteed by any local authority under the provisions of this subsection shall be Trustee investments for the purposes of the Trustee Investment Act, 1961, and Part II of the First Schedule thereto.

The noble Viscount said: This clause is for the protection of the many trusts and other charitable bodies (charitable in the income tax sense) which at present own or control waterways or which we hope will in the near future take over the ownership or control of waterways. Its purpose is to exempt them from certain powers which have been loaded on to their shoulders by the Bill as it now stands. The joint effect of Clause 11 and Clause 43 in the Bill is that any waterway has the power (I am sure the noble Lord will tell me that many of them have not the intention; but that is beside the point) to drive all waterway traffic away and, indeed, all other business, if they so wish, by raising their charges to any height they see fit—and the words "they see fit", are in the Bill. They have also power to dispose of their property as if it were their absolute property. If there were no navigation, much of that property would become redundant and they would be able to dispose of it.

I am not dealing with the question of whether any of these waterways intend to do those things, but merely with the fact that they have the power to do them. Intention may be of interest to this Committee, but the power is what interests the Inland Revenue and the taxation authorities. When the Inland Revenue look into whether an organisation is a charity, they do not ask the organisation, "What are your intentions?" They get hold of the articles under which the organisation was formed and they investigate its powers. The decision of the Inland Revenue Commissioners and of the courts in this matter has always depended on what those powers are. There have been innumerable cases, including the well-known case of the Oxford Group, where the Commissioners, working on what, on the face of it, seemed unlikely or farfetched cases, have obtained decisions that various bodies were not charitable bodies because, whatever their intentions and their actions were, their powers gave them much wider scope.

As the Bill now stands, any body, however charitable its intentions may be, which takes over a waterway is not a charitable body and will be liable to income tax unless this Amendment is put in to give the body the right to reject the powers which Parliament is now giving it, and, by that rejection, to bring itself within the charmed circle of untaxed organisations. Without this Amendment we shall see some very odd things happen. The National Trust, of course, will be considerably affected; and a number of other trusts, like the Lower Avon Navigation Trust, will also be affected. There is some question whether even such bodies as the Thames Conservancy and other waterways bodies may not come under this, although that is a much wider question and will need to be gone into further. However, in the Bill as it now stands we have left these organisations in a position where, unless we put this clause in the Bill, many of them will have to come to Parliament with Private Bills for the right to reject these powers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 61, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount St. Davids.)

LORD CHESHAM

I am at least in agreement with the noble Viscount in that I consider this question of charities to be a very important one. That must be so, if I meant what I said to him the other day, when I said it was hoped that there would be various bodies who would take over various stretches of canal; and perhaps of their nature some of them, if not all, may be bodies which could be loosely described as charities. Therefore I agree with the noble Viscount that this is a most important matter. But it is also, I am sorry to say (and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the simple way in which he put this forward), an extremely complicated subject, as I think he will agree. It is also extremely legalistic, and in order to consider it properly it would be necessary to go into Case Law in considerable detail. I think it would be quite wrong either for the noble Viscount (and I am glad he did not do so) or for me to attempt to go into all those aspects of it in this Committee to-day or, indeed. I should think, on any other day.

I have listened to what the noble Viscount has had to say, and there have been considerable consultations between the legal adviser of the noble Viscount and his friends in this matter and those advising the Ministry and the Commission. A great deal of work has been done about this. It remains very much a matter of opinion whether what the noble Viscount has told us is definitely so, or whether it is not. My advice in this matter is that the noble Viscount is not correct, that it is not so, and that we should not do what he asks us to do by means of another acre and a half of Amendment. I am advised that the status of charitable bodies is definitely controlled by the constitution of the charity, and the effect, if any, of the provisions in the Bill will depend on the constitution of the charity and not upon the Bill.

In any case, even if that were not so, it would not be right to enable a charitable trust to alter their own relationship vis-à-vis the Bill by passing a resolution themselves. I do not think it would be a desirable state of affairs to give an unspecified number of bodies the right to override what is in the Statute by a resolution of their own in a matter of this kind. I do not think that would be the way to do it, even if it needed doing.

I might add to that a point of detail which I am sure the noble Viscount knows. The latest occurrence in the consultations between two sets of legal advisers took place recently when, if I may call them for convenience, his legal advisers were invited to put forward more information and views and, in particular, details of one or more particular cases of bodies whose charitable status might be so affected. What they put forward as further evidence was a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust. Again I am advised that, on the information and views that were made available in that connection, there is nothing in Clause 43, or anywhere else in the Bill, which would have the effect, as has been suggested, of causing any charitable body to which it applied to cease to be a charity. Therefore, I think this Amendment is unnecessary.

LORD STONHAM

I am not altogether happy about this matter myself. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that it is an extraordinarily complicated Amendment, and I am not suprised to hear him say that two sets of lawyers have had a nice day out together. This new clause seems typical of the legal profession, in that one understands each subsection very much better if one reads just the first six words and the last six words of each paragraph, and leaves out all the words in between.

The one point about which I am not clear, and which the noble Lord did not make clear, is this. I appreciate that it would not be desirable to give a charitable body or a corporation who were going to acquire, make use of or manage one of these waterways special dispensation in the Bill to shed some of their powers and still remain a charitable undertaking. But is the noble Lord in a position to say that without my noble friend's new clause, it would not be possible for a charitable undertaking to acquire a waterway, or that there are known cases where organisations which have always been regarded as charities would be unable to acquire ground or manage a waterway in this way? If any desirable organisation or undertaking could be precluded in that way, I should have thought it would be desirable to try to find a way so that they could still be, as it were, within the Bill and use the waterway.

LORD CHESHAM

I am advised that that is so, and that the noble Lord need not have fears in this regard. I am not trying to argue that black is white in this matter, because I agree—and I am happy to repeat it—that it would be a great pity if the effect was that any body should lose their charitable status by this means. There is no intention that they should do so, and I should regard it as almost contrary to the intention of the Bill that they should lose their status in this matter. But I am definitely informed that it depends on the status of the charity. If I thought—and I mean this very seriously—that there was a real risk in this matter, I would be prepared to look further at it. If definite evidence could be adduced that something would happen to this body if it did so and so, our intention of keeping the thing fair and square is such that I would certainly look at that again. But, quite frankly, to our satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of the expert legal advice which we seek, the evidence does not indicate that that is the state of affairs.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

It seems to me that, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, says, there is a considerable doubt. Here are two legal experts, one set behind me and one set behind him, who cannot agree. That being the case, there is absolute certainty that the Inland Revenue will pick on some case and will take it to court. Some unfortunate trust will have to pay out vast sums of money, for purposes quite apart from those for which it is constituted, to settle a matter which we could settle to-day in the course of a minute or two by inserting this clause in the Bill. Surely, since there is this major dispute between expert legal advisers, it is a sign that there is considerable doubt. If the legal advisers were not in dispute, there would be no doubt, I agree. It is not a fight which will be fought between myself and the noble Lord, or which will take place on the Floor of this House; it will take place in the courts between some unfortunate trust and the Inland Revenue. Surely, it is our duty in this House to stop that sort of thing from happening. Our very purpose in this House is to pass clear legislation so that everybody knows where he is, and so that he does not have to spend large sums of money defending himself. I think we should carry this matter further.

LORD CHESHAM

Before the noble Lord makes up his mind about that—and your Lordships may wish to express some view on the matter—I should say this. The noble Viscount's Amendment is a long one and divides itself into three major parts.

The two other major points on which we have not touched have really nothing to do with this question of charitable bodies but are major and overriding reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted. I do not know whether it is going to be necessary to debate them—I rather hope not because the really important part is what we have been talking about so far. I can only say that if the noble Viscount wishes to take this matter into the Division Lobby I must appeal to your Lordships in the strongest terms I can muster, to reject the Amendment because of the effects it would have apart from the question of charities.

I cannot quite subscribe to the noble Viscount's view that because there is dissension there must be some middle way and everybody is wrong. The Government's advisers are not in any doubt on this matter, and the fact that the noble Viscount's advisers are arguing something different does not alter that, because, so far, no argument has been put forward to the satisfaction of the Government's advisers—and, after all, this is a Government Bill—that any doubt is justified. Therefore I think I must stand on this point. I say again that if further evidence should be produced at any time and we should prove to be wrong, then we certainly would look at the matter again. I do not think I can say fairer than that. So far we do not think we are wrong and we think that for this, as well as other reasons, this Amendment should not be accepted.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord has made it clear that the Government's legal advisers are sure that this Amendment in respect of the charitable undertaking point is unnecessary. But he has made it clear that apparently other distinguished lawyers who have discussed it with the Government's advisers take a contrary view. Therefore, my noble friend is quite right that there is a difference of opinion between people who imagine that they are qualified to pass judgment. The noble Lord is quite right to depend on his legal advisers and my noble friend on his, but the point which I think he made quite clear is that we cannot settle this matter in this way. We certainly shall not settle anything in the Division Lobby, and charitable undertakings would be no better off whatever. I should have thought that the best course would be for the noble Lord to implement his promise to look at this particular clause again and have my noble friend, between now and Report stage, bring forward his evidence. If I might, in a most friendly way, give some advice, I would say that if we have to consider this question again on Report we should have before us a much shorter Amendment dealing with this precise point, because it is very difficult at any time for your Lordships to accept any Amendment which runs to more than a page unless it is an Amendment moved by the Government.

LORD CHESHAM

I am not anxious to do other than what the Committee wishes me to do, and I am quite ready to accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that if the noble Viscount would withdraw his Amendment now and further and stronger evidence could be produced between now and Report, we should certainly look at it, because I did say, and still say, that the matter is important and it is necessary to get it right.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

I think all the evidence for the necessity of this Amendment has in fact been given by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, himself. He says that his legal advisers have no doubt whatever. I say that my legal advisers have no doubt whatever. It is because these two groups of eminent legal advisers both have no doubt that so much doubt arises. It is the certainty in which these two groups of legal gentlemen oppose one another which causes the uncertainty with which we are now faced. That is the whole trouble. What will happen now will be that the noble Lord will go back to his legal advisers who will tell him the same; I shall go back to my legal advisers and mine will say the same; and mine will put before him the large range of cases which they have already put before him. Where do we go from there?

LORD STONHAM

Swop legal advisers.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

I think we should do something about this. I do not clearly see the way out of it. Perhaps it would be better to withdraw the present Amendment and present a shorter one, but if such an Amendment is going to be necessary I do not see how you can possibly run two railway expresses at the same time on the same line in opposite directions and not have a collision. Something must be done; and between now and the next stage we must try to set the signals one way or another, or do something, otherwise we are going to have a very odd position indeed. Since the House wants a shorter Amendment, I will withdraw the present one and hope we can do better on the next stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 [Local enactments relating to the supply of water for canals]:

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next five Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 66, line 4, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 66, line 7, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 66, line 10, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 66, line 13, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 66, line 19, leave out ("Authority's") and insert ("Board's")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 63 [Abstraction of water by Inland Waterways Authority]:

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next two Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 66, line 22, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 66, line 35, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is a change, although still about water. Subsection (3) of Clause 63 provides that the procedures in the clause shall not apply to the abstraction of water from the River Lee in exercise of the express statutory power which the Board will inherit to sell water for industrial purposes. This comes under the River Lee Water Act, 1855. The whole of the water contained in the River Lee is already dealt with by one means or another and therefore there is no point in including it here. This Amendment puts the matter straight. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 45, at end insert ("or under section thirty-five of the Lee Conservancy Act, 1900 (under which the abstraction of water may be regulated by byelaw)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next two Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 67, line 1, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 67, line 8, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

3.20 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, after subsection (6) to 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, and stating that any person wishing to submit an objection to the Minister should submit any such objection within twenty-eight days of the publication of the notice, and should within that time send a copy of any such objection to the Board.

The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple Amendment. As your Lordships know, under Clause 10(3) the Inland Waterways Authority have powers to abstract and sell untreated water. When the Bill was first presented that power was governed only by Clause 14(6), but I understand that on Report stage in another place the present Clause 63 was inserted, which greatly limits their powers, and in most cases makes them subject to the approval of the Minister. Before any scheme is put forward certain people have to be notified. These are, principally, the borough councils, river boards and statutory undertakers. So far as I can see, there is no provision in this Bill that anybody else who might be affected should even know that the abstraction of water is contemplated. I know that the riparian owners of these canals have not the rights that riparian owners of ordinary natural waterways have; but they can acquire certain rights, and they certainly have an interest in the level of the water in these canals. Therefore, it seems to be only fair that some notice should be given when abstraction of the water is contemplated, so that they can object if they so desire.

I am not asking in this Amendment that notice should be served on each person. All I am asking is that, before going to the Minister for his consent, the Inland Waterways Board should publish in the local Press what they intend to do, so that everybody who may be affected—and a number of people other than the riparian owners may be affected by any proposal to abstract quantities of water from a canal—shall have the right of letting his objection be known, so that it can be taken into consideration by the Minister before he gives his consent. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment. Its exact value will vary from waterway to waterway, because the rights of riparian owners, or of any other owners or persons concerned with a waterway, depend on the Act under which that waterway was originally built; and these Acts are extremely varied. In some the resultant rights are considerable, and in others there are none at all; so that it is impossible to say what the rights of any riparian owner or any other person are in regard to any waterway without consulting the individual Act. But in many cases this Amendment might be valuable.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)

As my noble friend says, the intention of the Government is to leave the position in regard to rights of extracting water exactly the same as they are now, pending possibly a more comprehensive water legislation in future. As my noble friend said, at present the Transport Commission have this power without any obligation to inform anybody at all. But Clause 63 was introduced into the Bill making it obligatory on the Waterways Authority to inform certain public bodies. The bodies who have to be informed are, in England and Wales, river boards, statutory water undertakers and borough, urban and rural district councils; and in Scotland, river purification authorities, salmon fishery district boards, local water authorities and the county and burgh councils concerned. These public water authorities are given a statutory right to receive notices and lodge objections under Clause 63. They have been carefully selected to cover all the relevant local public interests involved in proposals to extract water for sale. We are doing this only in regard to public bodies which have definite statutory duties in relation to the protection of rivers and watercourses, fisheries and local amenity, requirements of public health and santitation, and the provision of public water supplies, which make it desirable that they should have notice of proposed abstractions and the right to lodge objections with the Minister.

I think it is important that this procedure under the clause should embrace only public authorities with relevant statutory duties; and the Minister should not be in a position of having to intervene, or even of appearing to intervene, in the settlement of disputes over any private legal rights. These are protected either by Common Law or, may be, by Statute. But any riparian owner or farmer, or anyone adversely affected by the abstraction of water, either from a canal or from any other kind of waterway, has his immediate remedy at law. Naturally, of course, one of the duties of any public authority would be to consider any possible effects upon private rights. But I think it is most important that the Minister should not appear to be intervening, to entertain objections and giving decisions which ought to be given by the courts.

I am myself a farmer. One often feels irritable if one is not given plenty of notice of anything which is being done—perhaps something that might take away water, or affect the water supply for one's cattle, or the supply to a house, or anything of that kind. I do not think that this clause is relevant to that sort of situation. Its purpose is to enable these public authorities, if they think right, to lodge objections, and I do not think it would be to the advantage of private owners to make it appear that they were being encouraged to lodge objections to the Minister; because, as I have said, if there is any likelihood of damage to their interests they have their legal remedy, and it would not be right that the Minister should seem to be interfering with the course of the law.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply, but I confess that I feel completely unconvinced by it. I think it absolutely right that all these bodies should be warned, and given a chance to object, but I cannot see why the ordinary person should be presented by a fait accompli. These people object; the Minister considers it, and approves the scheme, and then it is up to the other people, who have never heard about it before, to start going to law about it. Surely it is much more sensible that these people should put in their objections before the scheme is approved by the Minister, so that he can consider them in the way objections to any other proposals are considered. I must say that I feel completely unconvinced.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am sorry my noble friend is unconvinced. I quite see his point about a fait accompli, but it is not a fait accompli. If any scheme is approved and started, and, in spite of its being reviewed by all the public authorities concerned it is likely to cause loss, let us say, to a farmer, he has his immediate legal remedy. If, in advance of approval of the scheme, all the individuals were entitled to put objections to the Minister, the Minister would not be in a position to consider the merits of private objections of that kind. It would have to be a matter for the courts, and in most cases the private owner would not be doing himself any good, in fact he might be prejudicing his rights, by making it plain that it was a matter for the Minister and not for the law. I think in private rights of this kind the law is a very much better protection than a political Minister.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My noble friend says he would have the immediate protection of the law. But the remedy of the law is by no means immediate. It generally takes about five years. Cases may take a very long time and go from court to court. I do not say that there should be any special rights here. After all, all that the Amendment is suggesting is that there should be a notice in the local paper saying that something is going to be done. This does not commit the Minister to anything. Surely it would be much easier if people knew that something was going to be done. If somebody says, "I am going to be seriously damnified by this business", he can go to the Waterways Board or to the Minister and say, "Have a look at this". Everything sensible is done by consent, and in that way it is done quickly. If there is nothing in the case, the authority will ignore it. If it is a sensible case, they will be glad to have it brought to notice then and there rather than be involved in any litigation, so that the whole thing could be settled out of court in about two minutes. I should have thought that the Minister could say "Let us have this published in the local paper", without any commitment to do anything more.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

May I just remind my noble friend what the Amendment says? It is that the statement in the newspapers shall state … that any person wishing to submit an objection to the Minister should submit any such objection within twenty-eight days of the publication of the notice, and should within that time send a copy of any such objection to the Board". I do not think that it would be in the interests of justice to encourage the idea that individual people should appeal upon private rights to the political Minister concerning matters which ought to be settled, if at all, by the courts. And I do not think that cases of possible losses by removal of water would be likely to take five years. I would remind your Lordships that this power has been with the Transport Commissioners ever since they were set up, and I do not think that under the existing practice there have been any cases of delay or damage to private individuals.

We want at first to continue the existing practice, pending perhaps more general water legislation. We introduced Clause 63 in order to make it obligatory that these public water authorities should be individually informed of what was proposed, and we felt it would be undesirable in the general interests that the impression should be given that the Minister intended to consider not only objections from statutory authorities with regard to their statutory duties, which is one thing, but also objections concerning individuals' private rights—legal rights, for which they have proper protection in the courts.

LORD SAYE AND SELE

If this thing is not a fait accompli, as was properly suggested, is it not very important that it should not appear to be a fait accompli?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think it is much more important that a Minister of Transport should not appear to be making himself a judge of matters which ought to be settled by the courts.

LORD SPENS

May I add a word or two in defence of our legal system? The Chancery Division deals with dozens of cases every year in which someone has extracted water from a neighbour's property, and there is no difficulty whatever in getting an interim injunction within a matter of three or four days, or at any rate a week. It is perfectly true it may take a couple of years to decide what the ultimate legal rights are, but there is no difficulty at all under our system to-day for a private individual to protect his water rights through the courts with the utmost speed.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

The noble Earl said that the protection for the individual who was troubled in this way was through the courts. But he ought to consider Clause 43 of this Bill. Take, for example, the right of navigation. Supposing anybody went to the court on the grounds that the level had been dropped to a point at which the navigation of a loaded cargo craft could not be carried out, a very possible position. It would presumably be a question what damages the man would receive. At what value would his rights be held when the Waterways Board were allowed to charge him what they saw fit for his navigation? The value of his rights in that particular situation is infinitely small, and no lawyer would advise him to go to the courts. Surely it is a far better position for a notice to be put in a public newspaper. I do not say that the individual would then go to the Minister. I should have thought that here was a far more democratic way of doing things. All these public bodies are being given notice because of the fact they are public bodies, but they are democratic public bodies and surely the way in which a democratic body acts depends on what its electors do. The individual would approach his borough council and the borough council, warned of what would occur, would then put in its objection.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Clause 43, which deals with transport charges and facilities, is really not at all relevant in this matter of abstracting water. I think your Lordships know that I have always been particularly concerned about private rights, particularly those of agriculturists. All I am trying to persuade your Lordships—and I believe this to be the fact—is that the rights of private agriculturists in this matter would not be advantaged in any way if they were given a prior right of objecting to the Minister of Transport.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am afraid that I am still not entirely satisfied with what the noble Earl has said, but I do not intend to pursue the point any further at this stage. Perhaps I may consult with my advisers and reserve my right, if I am still not satisfied, to return to it at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 36, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.41 p.m.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE moved, after subsection (8) to insert: ( ) If an application relates to an inland waterway which has been designated as main river and objection is received by the Minister from the River Board concerned and the objection is not withdrawn, the Minister, before giving his consent under this section, shall cause a local inquiry to be held before a person appointed by him.

The noble Earl said: These three Amendments, Nos. 171 A, 171B, and 174A, concern matters which the River Boards' Central Association, of which I am happy to say I am Vice-President, feel touch their interests, and they have asked me to put certain sentences before your Lordships to explain them. If your Lordships will allow me, therefore, to preface Amendment No. 171A by a few remarks, I will do so.

This Association has a particular interest in the powers for the abstraction and sale of water by the proposed Inland Waterways Authority which are envisaged by Clause 10 (3) (d) and Clause 62 of the Bill. Upon the introduction of the Bill in another place, the Association, as well as representatives of the water supply industry and other interested bodies, expressed particular concern at the wide power proposed to be given under these two clauses, and it was as a result of the representations made in this connection that the limitations on the use of these powers were agreed with the Ministry of Transport following a meeting with representatives of that Department. And the Government added Clause 63 to the Bill during the Report stage in that House, with a view to the implementation of the agreement which had been reached.

In general, therefore, the clause is welcomed by the Association as a genuine attempt to meet the apprehensions which had been expressed at the powers proposed to be conferred on Clause 10 (3) (d) and Clause 62, in the the Inland Waterways Authority by form in which these were first introduced. As a (result of the addition to the Bill of Clause 63, river hoards will now have a real opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Ministry objections to proposed abstractions from inland waterways which are of significance to river boards, and the Association hope that proper weight will foe given to any representations in this connection which may be made. The Association are, however, concerned at the increasing demands being made on the country's surface water sources by abstractions for agricultural, industrial and other purposes, and it is clear from the recent White Paper, Water Conservation, England and Wales, that their apprehensions in the matter are shared by the Government. The Association fully support the view expressed in the White Paper that it is imperative that a new approach be adopted, and they consider it is urgent, in particular, that all surface water abstractions should be placed under the control of the proposed river authorities.

During the discussions which resulted in the presentation of Clause 63 the Ministry agreed that their proposals should be designedly of a temporary character, pending the passage of the anticipated general legislation on water conservation, so that the powers proposed to be conferred on the Inland Waterways Authority (now the British Waterways Board) in this connection would represent mo exception to the general legislation on the subject which is expected at an early date. Whilst this aspect of the agreement on the matter is on record in the correspondence which passed between the Association and the Ministry, no statement on behalf of the Government has been made to this effect; indeed, owing to the imposition of the "guillotine" on the later proceedings on the Bill in the other place, the clause was added to the Bill without discussion. In view of the importance attached by the Association to this aspect of the agreement, they wish that I should press the Minister to give the required assurance, so that the temporary character of these powers may be left in no doubt.

To proceed now to deal specifically with Amendment No. 171A, in relation to the first Amendment the Association attach particular importance to ensur- ing that abstractions from main river do not reduce the flow below that required in the interest of all river users. The Association therefore urge that in every case where objections to a proposed abstraction from a main river are lodged by the river board the Minister should be required to hold a public inquiry. The Association understand that in practice this will be so, but they would like an Amendment to the Bill or an assurance from the Minister to that effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 42 at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Albemarle.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Under Clause 88 of this Bill the Minister already has power to hold local inquiries. My noble friend will see that Clause 88 refers to the provisions of Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. Under those powers the Minister can appoint inspectors who would have the authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of relevant documents, so the Minister has all the powers he needs to hold inquiries into water abstraction applications if he thinks that such inquiries are necessary or useful. The noble Earl's Amendment would make it obligatory to hold an inquiry if any objection was put forward by a river board, which would mean that the discretion as to whether or not an inquiry should be held would in effect be transferred from the Minister to the river board concerned.

The Minister has the final responsibility in these matters, and I think it would not be justifiable to take away from him the ultimate responsibility of deciding whether or not an inquiry is necessary, because that would entail the risk of having to hold inquiries into applications relating to small quantities of water, in which cases there may be fairly strong reasons for assenting to the application quickly and without all the delay and expense of a public inquiry. I think the responsibility ought to be left with the Minister, but I should like to assure my noble friend that the Minister will give every consideration to objections lodged by river boards, and that he will hold inquiries arising out of those objections wherever he thinks this seems to be desirable.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I thank the noble Earl for that reply, but it is, of course, the Minister of Transport, whereas the words "main river" are sacrosanct to the river boards and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I have not had enough experience, perhaps, to know whether I ought to let that go, because "main river" is really our "show"—and when I say "our", I mean the Housing Ministry and the Central Association of River Boards. I am not sure whether I ought to let that go and withdraw the Amendment. If there is any doubt in the noble Earl's mind, perhaps I had better raise it again on another occasion.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am grateful to my noble friend for being so accommodating. In my noble friend's Amendment, "the Minister" would be the Minister of Transport and not the Minister of Housing, who, as he rightly points out, is the authority mainly responsible for water. As I have already told your Lordships, in this Bill we are trying to hold the present position as it is, in view of possible future legislation on national water supplies as a whole, which would be a matter for the Minister of Housing and not for the Minister of Transport.

With regard to this particular Amendment, I do not think it would be justifiable to compel the Minister of Transport to hold an inquiry whenever an objection is brought up by a river board. It might be that it was a small matter which really did not justify the expense of an inquiry, and which it was desirable to settle very quickly. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept the Government's assurance that the Minister intends to give the greatest consideration to the representations of river boards, and will hold an inquiry if it seems to him that there is any justification for it.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I thank the noble Earl very much. But will he utter the words I want to hear: that it is a temporary thing; this is stop-gap legislation, and it is not necessarily a permanent thing that the Minister of Transport would insist upon. That is what I want to hear: that you recognise that this is forced on the public because it is of a temporary nature, until this promised legislation is brought forward.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I have already said that we are holding the present position as it is and as it has existed all these years. Under the Transport Commission there was none of this power to hold inquiries. Although temporary, this is a new thing under Clause 63.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

In relation to subsection (9) (b) of the clause and the last Amendment, it is noted that while the Minister, in considering any application and the terms upon which any consent ought to be given, is to have regard to the effect which the proposals may have on, inter alia, fisheries and land drainage, no mention is made of the other main function of river boards relating to pollution. As at present drawn, this subsection could be construed as not requiring the Minister to take into account the prevention of pollution, and the River Boards' Central Association therefore consider that a specific reference to this equally important aspect should be included. It is appreciated that it may be argued that the concluding words of the paragraph, referring to the effect on the inland waterway concerned or any other inland waterway or stream, cover the point. But the Association consider that a specific reference to pollution is necessary in order to remove any doubt; and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 4, after ("drainage") insert ("stream pollution").—(The Earl of Albemarle.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think that in fact under subsection (9) of Clause 63 the Minister has to take into account the effect which an application for abstraction of water might have on the prior factors which could lead to stream pollution; because, as the noble Earl will see, the Minister is to take account of the effect which the proposal may have on fisheries or public health. He has also to take account of the effect on the inland waterway directly affected, or any other inland waterway or stream. These considerations are in very wide terms, and I think they would certainly embrace all relevant factors in relation to possible pollution.

My noble friend referred on the previous Amendment to the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I think that offences against the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts are under the authority of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not the Minister of Transport. Therefore, it is perhaps better not to mention the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts specifically, but I think in Clause 63 the Minister has power to take account of all the factors which could affect pollution. I would again assure my noble friend that the Minister of Transport will take very fully into account any objections relating to the possibility of pollution when he is considering applications under the terms of subsection (9) of this clause.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I thank the noble Earl, but I really do not think that is satisfactory. We consider that it is really important to push the word "pollution" in. Pollution has given us so much trouble, and in order to dilute bad cases of pollution, we have to have an extra quantity of water, and we really cannot prevent pollution without that one of the three main functions with which we are charged. I hope the Minister will acquiesce in my Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

May I just remind my noble friend again that the only possible effect of putting the specific word "pollution" into the Bill would be, in my submission, to appear that we were taking away responsibilities which properly belong to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and giving them to the Minister of Transport, in advance of general legislation to which we have referred and which is contemplated. I would certainly consider, my noble friend's suggestion, and I would also ask my noble friend to be good enough to study subsection (9) of Clause 63 again. I think he will see that all factors that might lead to pollution are included in the considerations which the Minister will take into account when he entertains an application of this kind.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

When my noble friend talks of the Minister (who in this case is the Minister of Transport) taking these various matters into full consideration, he surely means that he will consult with the Minister who is responsible in other respects, be it in respect of pollution, water, or any other matter. The consideration to which my noble friend refers means consultation with these Ministers.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think that consultation of that kind is always normal, and, indeed, automatic, between Departments if there is any need for it.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I should like to ask why we should leave in the words "land drainage and fisheries" but leave out the other equally important words. I do not understand that. It would be giving up so little to put in those two words "stream pollution".

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will look at that point again. I do not want to repeat what I have said already, which seems to me convincing; but I do want to improve the Bill, and if my noble friend is not satisfied, I will gladly reconsider the point that he has made.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

With that assurance I am satisfied; and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next three Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 68, line 17, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 68, line 21, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 68, line 29, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

The third point I want to make is that the Inland Waterways Authority should be required to install gauges for measuring the quantity of water taken (whether the abstraction is an existing or a new abstraction) and that river boards should have the right to inspect the records of the guages. As will be appreciated, unless the abstractions are metered the river board can have no assurance that the quantity authorised to be abstracted is not exceeded. It is understood that these matters will be dealt with in conditions to be attached to the Minister's consent, but the Association would wish for an assurance that this aspect will be covered. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 68, line 33, at end insert— ("( ) (a) In relation to any abstraction of water in respect of which the British Waterways Board are under an obligation such as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section or in respect of which the Minister has given his consent under subsection (10) of this section, the British Waterways Board shall on or before the prescribed date provide and maintain with respect thereto a gauge (with suitable automatic recording instruments and other apparatus) for the purpose of measuring and recording the quantity of water from time to time abstracted from the inland waterway in question and the British Waterways Board shall at all times afford to the representatives of the authorities described in subsection (5) and (6) of this section who are concerned, facilities for the purpose of inspecting such gauge and taking records therefrom. (b) In this subsection 'the prescribed date' means:

1. (i) in relation to an abstraction such as is referred to in subsection (2) of this Section, the vesting date;
2. (ii) in relation to an abstraction in respect of which the Minister has given his consent a date not later than the date on which the abstraction is commenced.") —(The Earl of Albemarle.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Clause 63 does already provide an adequate and, indeed, a fairly elaborate procedure to control the abstraction of water for sale by the British Waterways Board. The Government's White Paper on Water Conservation stated that comprehensive action to preserve water resources is urgently needed, and that legislation would be introduced in due course. As we have already agreed, and as the noble Earl has agreed, Clause 63 is only an interim measure without prejudice to what may be provided in general legislation when it is brought forward. I think it would not be justifiable to place an absolute obligation on the British Waterways Board to provide gauges to measure all the water they abstract for sale. Detailed measuring of this kind may be very expensive and it may not always be justified, particularly when the amounts of water being abstracted are comparatively small. Therefore, I do not think we ought to make it obligatory in all cases.

However, I will assure my noble friend that, in considering applications from the British Waterways Board to abstract water for sale, and in giving consent to such applications, the Minister will have regard to the need for appropriate arrangements to measure that water. If necessary, he would require, as a condition of his consent, that automatic metering devices should be used in any cases where, having regard to the size and importance of the abstraction, this would seem to be justifiable.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not know whether the Minister realises the way we have been harried all over the country for not getting on with the question of gauges. It is laid down absolutely by those in authority that, before you can really assess where the water is and how much passes certain points, in order to allocate and distribute water that falls in England, you must have gauges. In addition, the longer the period for which gauges have been installed, the more reliable are your records of the amounts of water entailed. We feel very concerned about this, and I do not know whether the noble Earl can explain how you are going to record abstractions of water without gauges. I fail to understand how this is going to be measured.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I have already given my noble friend an assurance that the Minister will have regard to the need for appropriate arrangements to measure water, and if necessary he will require as a condition of his consent that automatic metering devices shall be used wherever they would seem to be necessary. He does not want to make it automatic in all cases, because in cases where only a very small amount of water is to be abstracted the expense would be quite unjustifiable. There are other ways of measuring the abstraction of water, and I feel I have gone as far as is possible in giving my noble friend an assurance that the Government wish to meet his point in this respect.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I shall have to be content with that, but it will not satisfy the Ministry of Housing. I must reserve to myself, on instructions from those who sent me here, the right to bring this matter up again because gauging is extremely important. I regret to say that I did not turn over the page, and I find there is a second part to this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I do not think it adds anything to what has been said.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

Is not (b) part of—

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

May I try to assist my noble friend? It is the same Amendment. There are two subparagraphs, (a) and (b). Paragraph (b), as I read it, is consequential on paragraph (a). I do not think it introduces any new point of substance.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move three Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 69, line 10, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 69, line 12, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")

Page 69, line 17, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 64 [The railway savings banks]:

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move five Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 69, line 25, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 69, line 30, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 69, line 43, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 70, line 36, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 71, line 5, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 [Liability of Boards to rates]:

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move four Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 73, line 17, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 73, line 33, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 73, line 41, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 74, line 10, column 2, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert "British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

4.9 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (11) to insert: ( ) During any review which may be made of either the standard amounts referred to in subsection (2) of this section, or of any other rating arrangements relating to any of the Boards the Minister shall consult with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any other local authority with whom consultations appear to him to be desirable.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, and I do so with some trepidation, because, frankly, until a few days ago I should never have thought I should have to speak on a question of rates. I suspect that the Ministerial team are of that opinion, as I now see on the Bench opposite that they have enlisted a new recruit from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple. The Local Government Act, 1948, provided for the exemption from direct rating of the nationalised railways and canals and that payments in lieu of rates should be distributed to the rating authorities in proportion to the rateable value. I understand that in 1948–49 the standard amount was in the region of £1,800,000 and that in the years 1957 and 1958 that was adjusted to approximately £2,600,000. I understand that there is to be a review, a revaluation of property for rateable value, in 1963. The various councils are anxious that when this review takes place they or their associations should be consulted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE)

As the noble Lord has said, I am rather new to this Bill and I hope your Lordships will therefore allow this transport virgin to tiptoe very briefly on to the stage to try to fend off the noble Lord's Amendment, with designs on the rating provisions of the Bill. Perhaps I should say a word in explanation of Clause 66. The clause is essentially a holding operation, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, designed to enable the 1948 formula for the rating of the British Transport Commission's railway and canal hereditaments to be grafted on to the new set-up. This is an important point, I think. There will be an opportunity to consider the underlying principles of the formula next year, when my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government intends to hold a review into the methods of assessing not only transport but also the gas and electricity undertakings. This is in fulfilment of a quite definite undertaking given by his predecessor, the present Chief Secretary, at the recommittal stage of last year's rating revaluation Bill.

Meantime the effect of subsection (6) of the clause, the second limb of it as now drafted (and that second limb was grafted on to the Bill, as it were, under the shadow of the guillotine in another place) requires the Minister making an order under Section 109 (1) of the 1948 Act to consult the Boards and local authority associations concerned and any other local authority with whom consultation appears desirable. That, I think, is the hallowed formula, and that would include the London County Council. I wish to suggest to your Lordships that you should resist the noble Lord's Amendment on two grounds. In the first place, I hope I have made it clear from what I have just said that the second limb of subsection (6) already provides adequately for consultation with local authority associations and with the L.C.C. Incidentally, it also provides for consultation with the Boards. Quite clearly, therefore, the Government have no objection whatsoever to a provision for consultation before the standard amounts are changed. They have in fact already included one in the Bill.

Apart from this, there is a technical objection. This Amendment would call for consultation during any review—and then I use the words of the Amendment—which may be made of any other rating arrangements relating to any of the Boards". I think this language is pretty wide and rather imprecise, because "any review" could cover a whole multitude of discusions. If, therefore, the noble Lord's Amendment is designed to deal with consultations on the matters dealt with by Section 109 of the Local Government Act, 1948, I think it is unnecessary, and in view of the slight imprecision of the language not necessarily particularly desirable. The noble Lord, from what he said, I believe is thinking of something a little wider than that. He may wish by his Amendment to prescribe mandatory consultations with the local authority associations and the L.C.C. at the time next year when the whole working of the assessment formula is under review. If that is what he is after, I would again suggest that his Amendment, whatever its theoretical justification may be, is in fact unnecessary.

In practice, whenever there is occasion for a formal review of the rating formula with legislation in prospect the Ministers concerned invariably consult the local authority associations and anyone, such as the L.C.C., also affected. Such consultations took place in 1956 when the existing gas, electricity and transport formulae were worked out. Furthermore, as I said at the beginning, a specific undertaking was given last year to the effect that this formula will be examined next year; and I think the noble Lord may take it as axiomatic that in any such review there will be full consultation with all concerned. I hope, therefore, I have given him part satisfaction and that he will consider not pressing this Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Earl has shot my Amendment to ribbons, but I think it has served its purpose, because I will not say he has exactly exposed his position but he has really explained what is the Government's attitude towards these rating assessments. I think it will be satisfactory to my friends, and therefore at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move this Amendment, again on rating. As I understand it, at present the rates of the London Passenger Transport area are added to the rates that are brought forward from the properties of all the railways and canals, and those rates are shared out in a set proportion to the various authorities throughout England and Wales. But, as we know, in this Bill we are now setting up a special separate Board, the London Board, for operation in the London area. I am suggesting—here I am not pressing, because personally I think there may be some doubt, but the point has been put to me—that now that the London Board is being set up the London County Council and some of the local authorities on the fringe area of the London County Council, the area in which the new London Board will be operating, should receive in full the rates that will be raised on the properties of the London Board. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 76, line 6, at end insert— ("( ) As from the beginning of the first rating year in which the vesting date falls, subsection (2) of section 100 of the said Act of 1948 shall have effect as if there were added at the end thereof the following proviso, that is to say: 'Provided that the sums falling to be paid by the London Transport Board shall be allocated only among those rating authorities within or partly within that Board's area.'").—(Lord Shepherd.)

EARL JELLICOE

I rather fear I shall not be able to give the noble Lord very much satisfaction on this point, at least at this stage. His Amendment is open, in the first place, to a technical objection. If he looks at it carefully, I am sure that he will realise that it would alter the basis for rating distribution for nine months before the new Boards are set up, and I am sure he does not intend this. However, I do not wish to argue the case against the noble Lord's Amendment on possibly a rather technical ground. This obection could obviously be put right by juggling with the noble Lord's drafting.

I would suggest there is a more substantial objection to the Amendment. The effect of his proposal would be pretty significant. The division of the standard amount provided for in Clause 66 (2) allocates 25 per cent. to the London Transport Board. This means that the sum which would be reserved to the London area rating authorities, if effect were given to the noble Lord's Amendment, would be of the order of £750,000. Of course, a large part of this sum already finds its way into the coffers of the authorities in the London Board's area. However, there would be a loss of several hundreds of thousands of pounds to other authorities in the country, since the Amendment would leave authorities with their present share of the payments made by other Boards unchanged. This, incidentally, strikes me as possibly inequitable.

The real point is that the Government do not wish at this stage to pre-judge this question. It may be that local authorities in the London area may have some sort of case for a prior claim on these payments. On the other hand, authorities elsewhere in the country may feel that in their turn they should have a prior claim on certain payments of these Boards. Take, for example, railway centres like Crewe and Swindon, which could make out a case in that respect, and local authorities in certain canals areas, which might make possibly justifiable claims on payments by the Waterways Board.

At this stage I am disinclined to say what the right final solution is, and certainly I should be very unwilling to accept such a big diversion of rate income as would be brought about by the noble Lord's Amendment without proper inquiry into all the implications for all throughout the country, both inside and outside London. Perhaps I could remind the noble Lord that the intention behind Clause 66 is to make no more than the necessary modifications which will enable the present formula to be applied to the new set-up. It deals solely with the mechanics of collecting payment and is not concerned with the principles with which it is distributed.

I would also remind the noble Lord of what I said in answer to his immediately preceding Amendment: that there will be an opportunity to look at this principle carefully and fully next year. I would suggest that such a review is clearly the right place for discussion about the precise allocation of the Board's rate payments. All the local authority associations and the London County Council would be represented in such discussions and therefore the Government would have the advantage of hearing all sides before deciding whether there should be fresh legislation to cover a point of this sort. In the meantime, I would suggest that piecemeal modifications in the distribution formula are not likely to do justice to all those who have a stake in the rate contributions from the various Boards. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will see his way not to press this Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

I will set the noble Earl completely at rest by begging leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 [Bylaws for railways and railway shipping Services]:

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next two Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 78, line 34, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Water-ways Board")

Page 78, line 39, leave out ("Inland Water ways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69 [Transport police]:

4.27 p.m.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN moved to leave out Clause 69 and to insert the following new clause: .—(1) This section adapts and modifies section fifty-three of the British Transport Commission Act, 1949, which relates to the Commission's Police Force. (2) Any premises transferred or leased to the Hotel Company before the vesting date shall until the vesting date be regarded for the purposes of that section as belonging to the Commission. (3) (i) There shall be on and after the vesting date a Police Authority. (ii) The Police Authority shall consist of a chairman and eight members, two from each Board; the chairman shall be a person who has had wide eperience of, and shown capacity in, police administration and police matters in general and shall be appointed by the Minister: each member shall be a member of his respective Board and shall be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the respective Board, provided that when the Minister considers, for any reason, any recommendation unsuitable he shall refer such recommendation back to the respective Board. (iii) There shall be, on and after the vesting date, a joint Police Force with an executive head responsible only to the Police Authority and consisting of Constables appointed under section fifty-three of the British Transport Commission Act, 1949, for the purpose of providing a unified Police Service for the Boards. (iv) On and after the vesting date the Police Authority may apply under the section for the appointment of a Constable and accordingly for the first two references in subsection (i) of the section to the Commission there shall be substituted references to the Police Authority. (4) On and after the vesting date, for references in the section to premises belonging to, leased to or worked by the Commission, there shall be substituted references to premises belonging to, leased to or worked by any of the Boards or the Hotel Company, and in the provio to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the section, for the reference to matters in connection with or affecting the Commission or their undertaking there shall be substituted a reference to matters in connection with or affecting any of the Boards or their undertakings. (5) On and after the vesting date the Police Authority may dismiss a Constable who is employed by them (whether or not appointed after the vesting date) and, accordingly, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of the section for references to the Commission there shall, as regards such a Constable employed by the Police Authority be substituted a reference to that Authority and for the reference at the end of the said paragraph (c) to the Authority by whom a Constable was dismissed or by whom a Constable's resignation is accepted there shall, in the case of a Constable dismissed by the Commission or whose resignation was accepted by the Commission be substituted a reference to the Authority. (6) On and after the vesting date references in any statutory provision or other document to a Constable appointed or employed by the Commission shall be taken as a reference to a Constable employed by the Authority and acting under the said section fifty-three.

The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Merrivale, who at the moment is visiting Greece with the Inter-Parliamentary Union party, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Marshalled List. With your Lordships' permission, I would speak to Amendments No. 191 and 192 together, as they follow on one from the other. These Amendments, which deal with a new subject in this Bill—that is, the police—are extremely important. As can be seen from the Marshalled List, they have support from both sides of the House. Clause 69 makes no specific provision for continuing the existence of the British Transport Commission police force, but empowers the several Boards either to appoint their own police forces or agree together to appoint one or more. I realise that it only gives them power to do so, but it has the effect of creating doubt in the minds of the police and makes the whole thing more difficult. Since 1949, the Commission's police force has been a united one and has been responsible for police functions on the railways, docks and inland waterways, and the system has worked very well.

There are two main questions that we must consider seriously. The first is how to provide the best possible police service for the public and for the protection of the Boards' property. The second, which is equally important, is the best possible method of administering the police to carry out these duties. In the matter of the first, I think it is obvious that a unified police force can carry out these duties far more efficiently than several smaller police forces. There is always the question of inquiries which do not contain themselves to one area and which would have to be handed over from one force to another, if there were separate forces, creating delay and difficulties. In a unified force, there is only one chain of command and that makes it much easier to run it efficiently. Again, with a unified force there would be no question of jealousy between various forces. Finally, a unified force is far less expensive to run.

As to administration, there are several disadvantages in splitting up the present Transport Commission's police force. Since 1949 the force has been built up with great trouble and people throughout the country realise that it has done a good job of work. I think it would be a pity if the tradition which the force now enjoys was to be ended and the force split up. That would go; a great reputation would be lost with it, and the new police forces would have to start again. Another point is that there would be no guarantee that the conditions of service and pay would be the same for the various new forces. The present system of promotion in the unified force would be upset. It is much more difficult to carry out promotion fairly in a smaller unit. It having reached a certain stage, to split it up would mean that the promotion within these forces would be probably unfair.

Our Amendments seek to continue in existence after vesting day the transport police as an integrated police force, to be placed not under the management of any Board but under a British Transport Police Authority, which would be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Board. We consider that the principle of these Amendments is vital to the running of the police and the transport of this country. It may be that the wording of the Amendments is not quite correct, but on the principle we are most anxious to see that we get a good answer. If this is given, a further Amendment would have to be made to Clause 34; but I am sure that would be looked into, not by me, but by others. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 69, and insert the said new Clause.—(Viscount Goschen.)

LORD STONHAM

On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the Committee I should like to support strongly the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, which is one we hope the Government will accept in principle, even if they do not accept the wording in its present form. The Amendment seeks to make sure that the British Transport Commission police or, as I hope they will eventually be called, the British Transport police, cannot be split up into the components of the four Railway Boards, the docks and so on. There is no question that since the police were unified under the 1949 Act there has been progressively greater efficiency, and, due to the reasons put forward by the noble Viscount, have given more satisfaction all round. It is important that the morale of this force should not be lowered, and there is no doubt that they are very much alarmed at the possibility that they might be split up. I feel that considerable importance should be attached to this, but that what we should stress is the far greater efficiency. It would be an absurdity to have six different forces of transport police, all chasing, as it were, the same incident of stolen goods all over the place. There would be different officers looking into the same incident, and a great deal of overlapping. There would be the same kind of situation as there is between the Railway Board and the docks. I do not want to go into instances, but there are many within my knowledge where at the present time there is the possibility of unified action with regard to undesirables who frequent railway stations and the docks. If we have separate forces it will be an absurdity.

Another point that I think is important is that the British Transport police now have their own conference on the same lines as other police forces, and they settle pay, conditions of service and so on in a first-class and civilised way. If that is broken up it is certain that agitation will start immediately, and will eventually become irresistible, to bring them together again in one conference. If you break them up, after six, seven or eight years of trouble, abuse and undesirable incidents, you will have to bring them together again. That, I think would be quite absurd.

I think the case stands up on its merits and there is no need to say more about it. I hope the Government will give an assurance that this very satisfactory force of men and women, who do a first-class job, will be allowed to go on as one force, the British Transport police of 3,000 men and women working together as one unified body, with their own C.I.D. and their own headquarters for all these things, and that there will be no possibility when this Bill becomes law of their being broken up.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I should like to draw attention to another aspect of this Amendment. Since the clauses in the Bill were drafted, the Final Report of the Royal Commission on the Police has appeared, and although I know that this Royal Commission did not cover the British Transport police, nevertheless, I think the principles ought to be the same with these police forces as with the ordinary borough and county police. In paragraphs 278 and 280 of the Report a strong case is made for having police forces larger rather than smaller. I will not go into this in detail, but as this Report has appeared since the clauses were drafted I think there is a case for my noble friend to look at the matter again, with a view to seeing that what is sauce for the ordinary police's goose shall be sauce for the British Transport police's gander.

4.38 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My noble friend Lord Goschen asked whether he might get a good answer from me on this Amendment. I do not know what he considers to be a good answer. If I say that I agree with him, I am not sure whether he would say that was good enough. But, broadly speaking, I do agree with the case that has been made by my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite; sympathetic consideration should be given to that for which they ask. I wish to associate myself with the remarks made about the efficiency of this force and the good work they have done, and we certainly should not wish to see that spoilt. I think there is every justification on the grounds of efficiency that this matter should be carefully considered; and what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said is an added case in point. It may be said that I am going against my previous argument that decentralisation increases efficiency, but in the case of the police I feel that the police aspect of it overrides any argument of that kind.

There is only one reservation that I have to make—namely, that I think each management should have some element of "say so" in the matter, because only they can have the detailed knowledge of exactly what the needs of their particular undertaking are; and they are not yet in a position to know them.

Therefore, what I should like to do is this. I should like noble Lords to withdraw their Amendments to-day, so that we can give this further consideration on the basis of preparing an Amendment to put down at a later stage which would secure that a separate police force shall not be set up unless there appears to the Minister to be some extremely good reason to the contrary. That is what I think we should do. I do not see why such an Amendment should be beyond the wit of man to produce. It will secure the unification of this force and will have the effect, which is important, of removing the doubts which are at present in the minds of members serving in this force. I do not want to make anything of this. This Amendment itself would not do; it is deficient in certain ways. Even if we were 100 per cent. in agreement on this matter, instead of nearly so, I should have had to ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. I hope he can accept what I have suggested, and if he withdraws his Amendment I shall be very pleased to do what I have said.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN

I thank my noble friend Lord Chesham for what he has said. I thought he was going splendidly until he used some such words as, "unless the Minister saw any exceptional circumstances". Then, a minute later, the noble Lord said that what he was going to do would remove the doubt from the police force. Surely the doubt will still remain, because the doubt will be whether the Minister will find any "exceptional circumstances". It rather alters the complexion of what the noble Lord said. If he can tell us that he will be able to put down an Amendment which will keep the unification of the police force, and leave out any question of the Minister's finding "exceptional circumstances"—because I cannot see any exceptional circumstances which any Minister could find—that will be satisfactory. If we are all agreed that it makes for the efficiency of the police to have one force, I cannot see why any Minister should think, or be allowed to think, to the contrary.

LORD BOOTHBY

Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that there was one passage in his speech which left me in a state of some mental confusion? That was his reference to the possible desirability or necessity of the various Transport Boards—the separate ones—exercising control over their own police. That seems to me to run counter to the whole of the rest of his argument. Did the noble Lord actually use the phrase (that is the impression I got) that it may be necessary in certain circumstances for the different Transport Boards to have operational control?

LORD CHESHAM

I did not say that. I said that it seemed desirable that they should have some element of choice in the matter, which left me in a slight difficulty, in that they do not yet exist. Perhaps I may go on and answer the point my noble friend made about "exceptional circumstances". Actually I did not say that either. I said "extremely good reasons". Perhaps, to avoid any confusion in my noble friend's mind, I should repeat what I said. I said that an Amendment should be put down which would secure that separate police forces shall not be set up—and I selected those words with some care—unless the Minister is satisfied that there are extremely good reasons for doing so. If we are agreed on the principle that the forces should remain unified, and an Amendment of that kind is put down, I think that would do what noble Lords are seeking. I do not think noble Lords or, probably, members of the force themselves, would wish this unification to be achieved, so to speak, at the cost of complete rigidity if there should be extremely good reason for doing it in some other way. I should have thought that would be reasonable, and I should not have thought, having regard to the words I have used, that the doubt would remain unresolved as it was before. I hope I have made that clear, but if I have not I will gladly try to answer any further question, or make it clearer.

LORD STONHAM

Whether or not it is clear, it certainly is not satisfactory to my noble friends on this side of the House. I appreciate the point about consulting the Boards, but we have allowed for that in this Amendment. Subsection (3) (ii) says: The Police Authority shall consist of a chairman and eight members, two from each board. … That implies the participation of the employers. But the important thing about the police is that they should have what they call their conference and committee. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that until last week or the week before that when I introduced the last Police Federations Bill, not a single thing could be done affecting the police without a new Act of Parliament. Neither the Home Secretary nor the police could do anything to change their conditions unless there was a separate Act of Parliament. That was why the last Police Federations Bill was brought forward, in order to make it possible for changes to be made by regulation. That position has been built up over a period of years ever since 1919. Conditions in the Transport Commission police are not absolutely identical, but in many respects they are similar.

I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, is here, because if in this respect I say anything with which he disagrees from his own considerable experience, I hope he will correct me. It is inconceivable that in a police federation matter the Home Secretary should intervene on the kind of grounds the noble Lord suggested, or that he should move an Amendment to suggest that the Minister of Transport could intervene if he is satisfied that there are extremely good reasons. What are extremely good reasons to one Minister or one Government are no reasons at all to another. This would be a most unsatisfactory position from the viewpoint of the Transport police, and entirely unacceptable. I cannot understand why the Government have been advised to deal with it in this way. We suggest—I think in the most generous terms—that the Chairman of the Police Authority shall be appointed by the Minister and that each member shall be a member of his respective Board and appointed by the Minister on his recommendation. Indeed, if the Minister is not satisfied he can refer it back. How much more authority does the Minister want in this matter? It is not good enough.

I very much agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said. This answer will not dispel doubts in the police; it will create them, and there will be continuing doubts. They will always be uneasy and if they are of a strong Conservative turn of mind they will say, "We are all right while we have a Tory Minister". If they are Labour or Liberal inclined, they will have a different point of view. I do not think this is the way to deal with the matter at all. I do not consider this is an Amendment upon which to divide the Committee at this stage, but I think we should make it clear from this side of the House that if, after further deliberation, the noble Lord comes back at the Report stage with an Amendment which leaves it virtually at the discretion of the Minister of Transport whether or not he should leave the police as one unified body or break them up into six components, then the Government, in my submission, will not have met us at all. The position would be exactly the same, in effect, as it is now. I thought, much as I am anxious to reach accommodation, that I ought to make that position perfectly clear.

LORD CHESHAM

Frankly, I am disappointed in the line that the noble Lord opposite has taken. Anxious as he may be to reach accommodation on this matter, it seemed to me that some of his objections were made for objection's sake; and from his speech it would be a little difficult to detect anxiety to reach accommodation on this matter. I am not going to take him up in detailed argument at the moment, but he will see this if he will examine his words later on. It seemed to me that he went to some length to ignore completely what I had put forward before and, in fact, to say it was less than absolutely nothing at all. I think this is, at least, a disappointing reception, considering the distance that I have tried to go to meet noble Lords. Particularly, his criticism of leaving it in the hands of the Minister is really unreasonable, in view of what I said.

I am not going to argue any longer. As I said when I started, I regard the argument which was put forward for this Amendment as an important one in the interests of the police and therefore I am going to ask noble Lords behind this Amendment to withdraw it. I am going to stick to the offer I made; and in that consideration I will certainly bear in mind what noble Lords have said, even if it was disappointing, and do my utmost to come back with the best Amendment I can. I think we should take the matter on from there. I am now aware of the thoughts of noble Lords in the matter and the Committee is aware of my own, and I think we could perhaps quite progressively adopt that course.

VISCOUNT TENBY

Might I ask the noble Lord one thing? He said in the course of his remarks that he accepted the principle of the Amendment, which was in fact that there should be a unified force. This unified force has been in existence since 1949. It is a valued aspect of the British Transport Commission, of the railways, waterways, docks, and hotels. They now have a wonderfully good force of 3,000, with a Chief Constable and all the ancillaries which you want for crime detection, and they are in very close touch with Scotland Yard. The noble Lord accepts the principle, which I welcome, but I am very worried indeed about the possibility that the Minister could depart from it at his discretion. That is what gives me the greatest worry, because we have now had unified pay and conditions for the police of this country since 1919, and I think it would be a grave departure from a principle that everybody has accepted if a Minister who is not the Home Secretary may at his discretion, if he thinks it necessary, depart from it.

The position is that there are six regions, and if we take a place like Birmingham where two regions are involved, it would be absolute folly if a separate force were dealing with crime there. There are other places where two regions serve. I hope very much that the Minister can now and at the next stage of the Bill give a much firmer assurance, if I may respectfully say so, because everybody has admitted that this unified force has done exceptionally good work. It has been built up over a period of years, and the Maxwell Committee, which reported in 1957, affirmed that the proper thing was that this force should remain a unified force. It has done very well and I do most sincerely hope that between now and the next stage my noble friend will by able to ensure that our fears are set at rest and that it will remain a unified force.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Tenby has said. If the Minister were able, in the Amendment that is to be produced on Report stage, to make an order constituting a separate police force in, say, the docks or the waterways without coming to Parliament, I should be very disturbed indeed. If the order had to be laid before Parliament, I should feel slightly happier.

LORD CHESHAM

Yes. May I just add one more word, in view of what my noble friend Lord Tenby has said? It is the Government's intention that the force should remain unified. As a long-stop, if you like, there might be some good reason, which might well be acceptable to all concerned, for a division or a split-up of the force; but it is intended that it should remain unified. It is merely to keep the matter somewhat less rigid than it would be if it had to be a unified force, no matter what the circumstances. That is the way we thought about it. I repeat that I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Tenby and other noble Lords have said, and I assure the Committee that I will take that very carefully into consideration between now and the next stage; and the result your Lordships will be able to judge in due course.

LORD STONHAM

What the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has said, with very considerable authority and much better than I could say it myself exactly expresses the fears I had in my mind. I am not accustomed to looking a gift horse in the mouth: I just did not see that this was a gift. That is why I tried to make the position quite clear, I was not satisfied with the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the change could be made by making a regulation which would be subject either to the Affirmative or the Negative Resolution procedure of the House. I feel that if, in two, three, five or ten years' time, some change is needed, the Government of the day will be perfectly competent to bring in a Bill to make the necessary change.

The kind of amendment that I want to see coming from the Government is one which will make it quite clear that there is not to be any change in this unified police force, unless a new Act of Parliament is brought in, perhaps dealing with this, or with that and other matters, which, of course, would happen only if a very clear need had arisen. That is the kind of position that we take up, and I think it is the only one that would satisfy the police themselves and satisfy the circumstances. But at this stage, before Report, I am quite willing to accept what the noble Lord might give with regard to this Amendment.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN

I should like to thank the noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, and I think the best thing I can do at this moment is for me to withdraw it and for us to look very carefully at the Government Amendment when it comes out, reserving the right to come back to it on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 69 agreed to.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71:

General provisions as to terms and conditions of employment of staff

71.—(1) It shall be the duty of each Board, except as far as they are satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purpose of this subsection, to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to the Board to be appropriate, with a view to the conclusion between the Board and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for— (a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Board, with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements, and

5.0 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), after "Board" (where that first occurs) to insert "and Company". The noble Lord said: When I looked down the list of Amendments to this clause I almost followed the precedent set by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and said, "I move 9." But I cannot get away with it in this case, because I want to say something about this Amendment that I am now moving. This Amendment is tied up with No. 211, which seeks to define what "Company" means in this respect. We do not intend that our Amendment shall apply only to the few people who will be employed by the Holding Company, but rather shall apply to all those who are to be employed by the Holding Company's subsidiaries.

Clause 71, as at present drafted, carries on an obligation originally laid upon the four groups of railway companies by the Act of 1921. This was an obligation to ensure that there should be in existence machinery of negotiation for the settlement of disputes on wages and conditions. This obligation was again continued by the Act of 1947, but it was extended by that Act to apply to the whole of the Commission's employees. Clause 71, which we are here considering, substantially reproduces Clause 95 of the 1947 Act, substituting the words "each Board" for the word "Commission". This is a matter of tremendous importance to the railway trade unions, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for my little bit of history in this connection. The Act of 1921 effectively broke through the railway companies' resistance to any form of machinery of negotiation between the railwaymen of that day and the railway companies. It was, in fact, regarded by the railwaymen as a railwaymen's charter, and reference to it was frequently made in the years following 1921 and up to 1947. Here was something, legislation, a statutory requirement, to which trade unions and local branch officials and everyone must from time to time have made reference. I remember that my own copy of the 1921 Act became considerably dog-eared before I managed to get a new one.

But the Act of 1947 also made provision for something else. It added to the machinery of negotiation terms and conditions of service. It also for the first time added the matters which are set out here, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this clause, by the words and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Commission and such persons, including efficiency in the operation of the Commission's services. The employees, through their representatives, had the right to question management on their decisions of management. Before 1947, those of us who were charged with negotiating with the railway companies, no matter at what level, if we dared to question an act of management, even if it affected the company's ability to pay higher wages or to improve conditions of service, were told quite firmly, "That is the management's prerogative; you keep out. "I had it said to me, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lindgren had it said to him during that period when he was entering into negotiation with the railway companies.

After 1947, the employee, no matter at what level, could refer to the 1947 Act as containing words which gave him a statutory right to discuss the efficiency of the undertaking. In our opinion that was a most valuable extension of the 1921 charter. I am sorry to say that this right was not quite so fully operated as was originally intended. It was never fully (understood away from the union headquarters. Indeed, many local grouses met with at depôt and station level could have been dealt with if someone had been knowledgeable enough firmly to say at that point, "Do not just grouse about it. Get our representative to ask why, and then we will consider the answer." Despite the fact that, as I say, this new right was never fully understood, it was valuable to have it in the form of legislation.

I happen to be a firm believer in joint consultation. We are seeking to establish for one section of the nation's employees the right to have the same sort of machinery as is set out in this Bill for another section of the nation's employees. (If the statutory right is good for the railwayman, and for the employees of the Dock and other Boards, surely it is equally good for the employees of the nation who are the direct employees of the subsidiaries to the Holding Company. I think this establishes that there is some justice in this case, where we have related companies and where these companies are all being dealt with to some extent in the Bill that we have before us to-day.

The Government which in 1921 gave us the original charter was a Government composed of "hard-faced businessmen" who looked as though they had done well out of the war, according to an expression of Mr. J. M. Keynes (later Lord Keynes), in connection with the Government of the day. But despite that description, the Government did impose upon four privately owned companies the obligation to establish a machinery of negotiation. They were talking not to a nationally owned body but to privately owned companies, though, it is true, they had been merged as the result of the passing of the Railways Act, 1921. The last thing I would say about the noble Lords, Lord Mills and Lord Chesham, is that they look like hard-faced business men who have done too well out of anything. Indeed, they look most kindly occasionally, when they are saying the right things from that side. Despite that fact, I think that they ought here not to fall behind the good deed done in 1921 by the then Government of the day, composed, as it was, of these people mentioned by the late Lord Keynes.

I believe that to-day our thoughts for employees should exceed the thoughts that were in the minds of the people in 1921. If it is good for the employees of Boards, why not for subsidiaries of Holding Companies? If I rightly understood the Conservative industrial charter which came out after the last world war, we were to enter into a new era of industrial relations in which the two sides of the table, management on the one side and employees on the other, would go. We were asked to work towards co-operation and away from the old antagonisms of management and men. I accept that conception: I believe that in this Bill we ought to be working towards it. I believe that the Government accept this principle. Indeed, so far as I can see they have set up the organisation, N.E.D.C., specifically in order to ensure that from the point of view of the economy of the country there should not be two separate sides. That is my understanding of it; and I wish that organisation well, and I hope that it achieves its purpose.

I am rather afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is going to tell us that most of the bus and road service companies already have agreed machinery of negotiation. If he does say that, my reply is bound to be: So have the Boards; but the difference is that the subsidiaries have not got it as a statutory right. The Boards, Yes; but the Holding Company's subsidiaries, No. Yet they are equally employees of the nation. I feel that this is the sort of occasion when a gesture might be made. I believe that it is merely asking for a simple act of justice to write into this clause the requirement that the Holding Company and its subsidiaries should have to follow a principle which was established in 1921, which was carried on in 1947 and which now should be extended to cover all the companies covered by this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 5, after ("Board") insert ("and Company").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD LINDGREN

Before the Minister replies, I should like to amplify one or two things my noble friend Lord Champion has said. He quite rightly says that, so far as direct negotiations are concerned with the various sections of the Commission, we as railway trade unions have had very happy relationships with them, and quite satisfactory agreements, so far as they go. The Committee may not be aware, but I think your Lordships should know, that one of the problems of negotiations in a large organisation has been that you start one set of negotiations going—shall we say, concerning main line railways?—and then have to follow through on a whole series of negotiations with the London Transport Executive, the docks, the B.R.S., the hotels, Thomas Cook and a whole range of them. We have generally come to very satisfactory agreements with those I have mentioned, based on the settlement we have secured through the main line companies. I must say that, in spite of the statutory rights we had under the 1947 Act, we have had serious trouble in reaching agreement with some of the smaller subsidiary companies, which I will not mention here because it would be unfair if I mentioned one or two and missed others. On many occasions we have actually had to go to the Chairman of the Commission, and it has been only through his very kindly, gentle persuasion, or through hints he has given via his manpower adviser, that some of these other undertakings have come to a settlement.

What we really fear is this. If in fact a statutory right which we have had since 1947 now goes, it is going to be very difficult indeed. I would ask your Lordships to think seriously about this because, to put it quite bluntly, we have now reached the stage in regard to certain sections of the Commission that we do not mind whether there is statutory obligation or whether there is not. There is full authority and power to stop the job, although we do not like to do it. But where there is that power to stop the job and where it constitutes a threat to the national economy, even Governments have to talk to employers if they are not being reasonable. But while many of these subsidiaries are important in their way, they have no real fundamental strength in the economy of the country, and their employees have not the power and authority of the main line railway company employees, the drivers, the signalmen and the rest, who can stop the job.

I think this House has a duty to see that those who have not the power, shall we say, of stopping the job should equally have the right of negotiating a satisfactory settlement as those who can use the "big stick". Those of us who are associated with the trade union movement have always been in favour of having negotiations right up to the very last minute, and satisfactory negotiations if we can get them. But, of course, it has been easier where in fact you have a power to withdraw labour which is likely to be effective behind your argument. In regard to these firms we are hinting at which are associated with the Holding Company—or, at least, some of them—we feel there ought to be the same statutory right—the same obligation and power—to bring employees to an agreement as exists for the trade unions and larger companies. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to give us this very reasonable Amendment.

LORD MILLS

I listened with very great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, had to say on this subject. To-day is 1962, not 1921. We are not only glad of what happened in 1921 but we are all convinced that the question of proper consultation is of the utmost importance in human relations. In the case of the transport industries we are dealing very largely with human relations. We are setting up four statutory Boards to replace the existing Transport Commission. The Transport Commission under the 1947 Act is under an obligation to have the kind of machinery we are now discussing. I have seen it working. I have been intimately concerned with it and can testify that it works well. And under Clause 71 of this Bill we have placed the same obligations on the four statutory Boards as the 1947 Act placed upon the Transport Commission.

We now come to the question of the Holding Company and its subsidiaries. The subsidiaries are of two types. There are those over which the Holding Company have complete control and there are those where there is minority shareholding and the Holding Company is not directly concerned with the labour relations of their subsidiaries. These subsidiaries are all organised as commercial companies, running the same kind of business in many cases, as private competitors and negotiating their wages and conditions alongside these private competitors. Where I think noble Lords have probably mistaken the position is in regard to the fact that the position of the Transport Commission under the 1947 Act obliged it to consult on staff matters in respect of its own employees; but its subsidiaries never came under that same requirement.

These subsidiaries have proper arrangements—as, indeed, private industry has—with the trade unions, to deal with their problems and to settle them. What noble Lords are seeking to do here is to extend a duty, an obligation, which is quite proper to the statutory Boards, but which is not practical or possible in relation to the subsidiaries. If there were not proper labour relations, it might be another matter; but proper labour relations do exist. They exist alongside those in private industry, with whom they are in step. In my view, it would not be practical to try to put a statutory obligation on these companies, organised under the Companies Act.

So, while I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, would like to see, I can say only that I do not think it is practical. I sympathise with their desire to have the best machinery possible to make certain that labour relations are the finest possible, but I would just ask them to consider what I have said: that everything that the British Transport Commission had is here provided. I suggest that it would not be possible for us to impose this upon these subsidiary companies. The Holding Company do not matter; they have—or will have—only a few professional staff. I think that the noble Lords opposite should be satisfied with what I have said on this matter.

LORD STONHAM

We are, of course, very disappointed with that reply, but I should like to deal first of all with something that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said at the very end of his speech. He said that we were proposing something in this Amendment which is proper to a statutory Board but not to organisations registered under the Companies Act. Then, just when I was going to get up and say, "Well, the Holding Company is a statutory Board; therefore, why not apply it to the staff of the Holding Company?", he answered me in advance by saying, "The Holding Company would employ only a few professional people, and it therefore does not matter very much." To deal with that point first of all, I would say that it does matter to us, and I believe it will matter to the staff of the Holding Company. We are getting instance after instance of professional people of various kinds who, through lack of adequate representation, lack of proper negotiating machinery, are, in the view of most of the people of this country, I think, very badly treated in relation to other sections of the community.

Therefore, the first point that I would put quite strongly to the noble Lord is that, whatever the Government's decision about the Amendment as a whole which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Champion, they should in any case concede the point about the Holding Company. That cannot be met by any of the objections which the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has adduced to all the remainder. The noble Lord will be aware that there are a number of Amendments on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Burden, and it had been my intention to move the first one on my noble friend's behalf, but I thought that the greater would include the less and that it would save a separate discussion. But I hope, both in order to save time and for reasons of equity, that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will agree that words should be inserted to provide that at least the staff of the Holding Company should have the same advantages in this matter as had previously been enjoyed by the staff of the British Transport Commission. This the Government are anxious to continue, and, therefore, they must apply these advantages to the Holding Company's staff, which Lord Mills indicated would be proper, since the Holding Company are a statutory Board. That is the first point.

The second point is with regard to the noble Lord's reference to subsidiary companies. I see the difficulties here, although we on this side of the Committee, as my noble friend made clear, are anxious to enlarge these facilities or to extend the field of employees to which these facilities are available. But I think the use of the word "subsidiaries" as applied to some of the firms involved is a misnomer, because the Holding Company will hold less than 50 per cent. of the shares of some of them and they will not control the board of directors. Therefore, they do not satisfy either of the provisions laid down in the Companies Act, 1948, which decide whether a company is a subsidiary. So quite a number of the firms mentioned in the Bill are not, indeed, subsidiaries. As I say, we are extremely disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept the whole of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Champion, which I thought were very well put, extremely attractive and almost unanswerable; but I hope that, in any case, they will concede the point about the staff of the Holding Company.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I compliment my noble friend Lord Champion on the manner in which he has moved this Amendment? The noble Lord, Lord Mills, made his case: that what he called the subsidiaries were facing competition in a commercial world, and that perhaps it would be unwise to place upon them these statutory requirements. We are considering in the region of, I believe, 60,000-odd men, whether they are in the bus services or the British Road Services. Now British Road Services are, I suppose, a subsidiary of the Holding Company, but I should have thought that, in the mind of any noble Lord in this Committee this afternoon, we should look upon British Road Services in the same way as we should regard the railways. The only difference is that they are transporting merchandise by road, and not by rail.

Now what is being asked? It is that there should be negotiating machinery to cover this very large number of men. We should have machinery, for what purpose?—to provide reasonable terms and conditions of employment. We are not asking for a great deal. I should think that the Government could well accept this Amendment. It is not far-reaching. It may well involve some difficulty with the minority position in subsidiaries, but we well know (and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mills, knows) the influence that even a minority shareholding can have upon the manner in which a business is conducted. If we are taking part in this business, then it should be the aim of us all, as the shareholders, to see that there are proper terms and conditions of employment for the employees of those companies, and that, within our ability to provide it, we should see that they have this proper machinery. I think we are entitled to say, "Let us put it in".

Many times when we were in Government the Opposition (the Conservative Party) said: "If that is what you mean, then put it in the Bill". I am quite sure that if every noble Lord in this Committee wishes to see decent terms and conditions for employees, whether they are employees of the Board, of British Road Services, or of the main bus companies which are wholly-owned, we should, so far as possible, also use our influence to see that the same standards apply even to the employees of minority shareholding companies. I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable; indeed, I think that what we are asking is reasonable, and I feel that, for the men with whom we are now dealing, it is a matter of justice.

5.31 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN

Before the noble Lord replies, or before my noble friend Lord Champion says something, I would point out that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that this clause gives us everything we had under the 1947 Act and everything we had under the British Transport Commission. He was not quite correct about that. May I mention just two organisations where the labour relations generally have been excellent, and where I have every reason to believe, irrespective of whether it is made a statutory obligation or not, they will continue to be excellent? The firms are B.R.S. and Pickfords. They are not included. They were included under the 1947 Act and under the British Transport Commission prior to the Act, and they are at the moment. I want only to repeat what I said when speaking a little while ago: that whilst in certain of these subsidiaries the labour relationship has been happy and the negotiations have been conducted in the spirit in which negotiations should take place, there have been some concerns under the umbrella of the Commission whose boards, because they were separate and stuck to their right of independent negotiation, were, to put it mildly, difficult and were really only (in trade union language) brought to heel by our working through the Chairman of and the manpower adviser to the Commission. In future we shall not be able to do that, and that is what really worries us. B.R.S. and Pickfords are good employers and have good relationships, but we are worried about some of the others, whom I will not name unless the noble Lord, Lord Mills, asks me to—I do not think he will. The conditions we have now under the British Transport Commission should not be worsened as the result of this Bill.

LORD MILLS

Noble Lords opposite, I am sure, see the difficulties of this situation. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to the distinction that I made between wholly-owned subsidiaries and those in which the Holding Company would have an interest. That is just one of the difficulties. I do not see how in this context you could easily separate the wholly-owned subsidiaries from those which may be doing precisely the same work but in which the financial holding is different. Nor do I see that you could, or should, very easily separate the consideration of these matters from the consideration which has to be given by other private concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, posed the questions as he understood them—and he understood them very well. But what he appeared to be not very willing to understand was that there are such difficulties in dealing with this situation as preclude us from accepting the noble Lord's Amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren—and I do not want to dodge the question—referred to one exception. There was one exception which came about by the passing of the 1953 Act, when it was proposed to return road haulage to private hands. I am quite aware of that particular case, but it is the only case; and apart from that the position will remain just as it was under the Transport Commission, as I have said before. I am afraid that the practical difficulties of dealing with this are the real considerations. We all want better human relations. We all want better manpower relations and staff relations, because these are two of the things which make for better efficiency. As I said the other day, I think we all ought to keep on repeating the word "efficiency", because that is the keynote for everything we want to do for our own happiness and comfort.

LORD STONHAM

Before the noble Lord sits down, would he deal with the separate point of the Holding Company—whether or not the Government would be prepared to accept the Holding Company into these provisions?

LORD MILLS

I should like to consider that. Again, I do not think it is a very practical suggestion, because of the nature of the staff which it is expected will be in the Holding Company; but I will certainly consider it.

LORD CHAMPION

I was very disappointed with the reply of Lord Mills, with his long background of understanding of all the problems between management and men. I rather thought he might jump at the opportunity of accepting a very good Amendment. I say "a very good Amendment" because I moved it, and therefore it must be. But he agreed that the matters about which we are talking were of the greatest importance. He said that the Government have continued to place upon the Boards the obligation put on the Commission by the 1947 Act. In the circumstances they could hardly do less. In view of the economic climate and the industrial conditions of the day, it would seem to me that no Government could do less than was done in this matter in 1947.

The noble Lord having told us how good this all was, then went on to decline the Amendment, and I am disappointed. He declined it, it seemed to me, on two grounds. The first was that in 1947 the subsidiaries were not bought under the "umbrella" of the 1947 Act. We knew that, of course, but we said we thought this was an opportunity of extending to those subsidiaries the protection given by the 1947 Act, which, as I said before, carried on the tradition established in 1921. I do not think his argument on that point is one which we can accept.

His second argument, it seemed to me, was that it would not be proper to place this obligation upon the subsidiaries, because they had to be in open competition with other privately-owned companies of a similar nature.

LORD MILLS

I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but he must couple with that the other statement I made; that they already have adequate arrangements for dealing with these matters.

LORD CHAMPION

They might have adequate arrangements, but they have no statutory right to which they could refer from time to time in the event of difficulty. That is what we have always had in the railway industry since 1921, and it has been so valuable to us that

Clause 71 agreed to.

Clauses 72 to 75 agreed to.

Clause 76 [Commission's power to develop land]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The next five Amendments to Clause 76 are all connected with Clause 11, which your Lordships agreed to omit from the Bill. Therefore, I think that the most sensible course would be to leave Clause 76 as it is for the time being and not to move these Amendments.

Clause 76 agreed to.

Clauses 77 to 79 agreed to.

we want to see it extended to others. It seemed to me that, in connection with the bus companies, the noble Lord was suggesting that if we placed this obligation upon those subsidiaries we should be preventing them from standing on equal terms with our competitors. Frankly, I do not believe that is true. I do not believe that it would lessen their competitive ability one iota. I can see by the demeanour of the noble Lord that he is not going to give way; his mouth is set a little tight, which seems to indicate something. I fear that I shall have to ask my noble friends to support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS
Amulree, L.	Lindgren, L.	Summerskill, B.
Amwell, L.	Peddie, L.	Swanborough, B.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Shepherd, L. [Teller.]	Taylor, L.
Champion, L.	Silkin, L.	Walston, L.
Chorley, L.	Sinha, L.	Williams, L.
Colwyn, L.	Stonham, L. [Teller.]	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Kenswood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Devonshire, D.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Dundee, E.	Mills, L.
Ampthill, L.	Forster of Harraby, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Auckland, L.	Fraser of Lonsdale, L.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Bathurst, E.	Goschen, V.	St. Aldwyn. E. [Teller.]
Bethell, L.	Hastings, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Brecon, L.	Hereford, V.	Somers, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Inchyra, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Chesham, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Swinton, E.
Cholmondeley, M.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Tenby, V.
Colville of Culross, V.	Lansdowne, M.	Teynham, L.
Crathorne, L.	Long, V.	Waleran, L.
Davidson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 80:

Compensation to officers and servants of the Commission

80.—(1) The Minister shall by regulations contained in a statutory instrument require the appropriate body as defined in this section to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to persons who are at the passing of this Act officers or servants of the Commission and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the reorganisation effected by this Act.

5.51 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in consequence of the reorganisation effected by" and insert "after the passage of". The noble Lord said: I hope that the brevity with which I move this Amendment will be taken merely as showing a desire to facilitate the progress of the Bill and not as an indication that we do not consider the Amendment to be extremely important. I am fairly certain that the main reply will be that these words have appeared in previous Acts of Parliament. They appear in the 1921 Act, and it is really because of the difficulties we had after the 1921 Act and some of the consequences which arose from it that we consider this Amendment to be most important. The clause now reads: … officers or servants of the Commission … who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the reorganisation effected by this Act. It will be within your Lordships' knowlege that the reorganisation which is being effected by this Bill is not the only reorganisation, and disorganisation, which is being perpetrated with railways, in particular, and with other sections of the Commission's undertaking. If I may mention them, there are the activities of Dr. Beeching at the moment in regard to the closing of branch lines, the reducing of facilities on main-lines and internal reorganisation. They are not as a consequence of this Bill, which has not yet become an Act. The general outline of activity being pursued by Dr. Beeching is undoubtedly that which was agreed between himself and the Minister prior to publication of this Bill.

These reorganisations—with loss of opportunities, emoluments, income and the rest—which are likely to arise are just as important from the staff point of view as is anything likely to arise from this Bill when it becomes an Act. I would submit that to prove to an employer that a redundancy, a demotion or transfer of an individual from one grade to another is arising from the Bill and not from general circumstances of trade or a change of other circumstances in the area is very difficult indeed. Though we are quite pleased with the protection that we get in Clause 80, we do not by any means think it is sufficient.

I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment, which would mean that the worsening of conditions after the passing of the Bill would give entitlement to compensation, should it arise. There is one further point. Whether or not the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, I am not clear (and I should be grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government would make it clear) whether this affects all sections of the Commission, as the Commission is now constituted. I can understand that this applies to all the new Railway Boards. But will it apply to B.R.S., to Thomas Cook's, or to any of those undertakings which are at the moment under the control of the British Transport Commision? If it does, that might go a considerable distance towards alleviating some of the feeling of disquiet which some sections of the Commission's staff have. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 89, line 11, leave out ("in consequence of the reorganisation effected by") and insert ("after the passing of").—(Lord Lindgren.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I know it is a little difficult, at first sight, to understand the distinction between loss of employment or diminution of status in consequence of statutory reorganisation and similar loss as a result of a managerial process of rationalisation, or any other word you like to use, which may cause redundancy of staff. Redundancy due to rationalisation is entirely outside the scope of this clause, and, of course, it has been going on for a very long time. It is in pursuance of their duties that the Transport Commission have been endeavouring to economise in railway services, to make them more efficient and give a better service, very often with smaller staffs, and the fact that they will continue to do so after the passage of the Bill is not a consequence of the Bill itself.

The Commission, of course, have to negotiate with the unions, as all employers ought to do, about the resulting employment position. There is no statutory compensation, and it would be an entirely new principle if we were to introduce statutory compensation for loss or diminution of employment as a result of managerial policy. But people who lose their employment as a result of rationalisation in one field or another are all covered by agreements reached with the unions for dealing with normal redundancy. Those agreements provide, in certain circumstances, for financial compensation for loss of employment. I think that most of your Lordships, and possibly even the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, would agree that it would be a bad principle in the industrial affairs of this nation if the Government were to take it upon themselves to intervene and interfere with industrial agreements worked out between the employers and the unions concerning redundancy which might arise from reorganisation or rationalisation of any kind, and which, of course, is happening in many industries to-day.

This clause covers a completely different point, and it is one which has always been dealt with in every Statute dealing with nationalised industries. It has always been thought right to provide that if as a result of reorganisation due to a Statute people are adversely affected they should be compensated. It may be that the people adversely affected would be very few.

In regard to the particular question asked by the noble Lord as to who, according to the terms of the clause, this would cover, I think it could cover anybody; but it would be extremely unlikely that the provisions of this clause could apply to anybody except the people who are actually on the staff of the Board. They would be the most obvious examples of people who might be affected directly and inevitably in consequence of the statutory reorganisation brought about by this Bill. One might think it likely that if one Commission is being split up into three or four, the tendency would be to have more rather than fewer jobs. I do not know. But that does not necessarily mean that some people might not fit into the new arrangements, or that some people would have to accept a new post at a lower salary as a direct result of the reorganisation.

It has always been considered a just principle to provide that statutory reorganisation causing loss of employment should be accompanied by statutory compensation. Correspondingly, I think it would be a very bad principle that there should be statutory compensation on account of any redundancy caused by (managerial policy, as distinct from legal enactments. Under subsection (4) of this clause regulations are to be prescribed about the procedure to be followed and about the board of referees to be appointed by the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, or, where proceedings are held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State. It would be for them to decide the answer to any particular case. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, wanted to know whether any particular number of individuals came within the terms of this clause. It may be there would be very few; it may be 30 or 40; or it may be not more than a dozen. But if it were only one, it is still regarded as a right principle that provision should be made for that one person.

While I entirely agree with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment about the desirability of taking care of railway-men and others who may be displaced or affected by rationalisation schemes: that is a thing which is going on all the time. It is not really within the scope of this clause, which is designed, like similar clauses in other Statutes affecting nationalised industries, to affect comparatively few people, mostly, I should think, on the Boards or the Commissions themselves, who are directly affected by the reorganisation.

LORD LINDGREN

This is really very strange. May I read the clause again? It says … officers or servants of the Commission who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the reorganisation … An officer and a servant are the same, except that one gets a salary and the other a wage. That is the only difference. If an officer gets the sack it is generally called incompatibility of temperament, and he receives twelve months salary; in the case of a servant, he gets his cards.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I was not suggesting that they were not covered by this clause as they ought to be. I was only pointing out that there were very few individuals who would be likely to be affected by the wording of this clause in consequence of the reorganisation under the Act, as is the case in all other Acts affecting nationalised industries.

LORD LINDGREN

I agree, but surely a member of the Board is not an officer or a servant. Unless he was a full-time officer of a Board, I should not have thought he would be affected. This is the difficulty. This is unlike any circumstances that we have met before. The 1947 Act was an expansion of other Acts. Here we have a managerial policy which has been progressing for some time. But this managerial policy (I want to use the right word) has really been running parallel to this legislation, and not in anticipation of it. But it has still been at ministerial direction. After all, the Chairman of the Board is appointed by the Minister. There are discussions as to the line of activity likely to be taken by the Minister within the time of his appointment, and as to the general direction in which the Minister wants to move. After all, the Minister has continually reminded us—and has emphasised the fact—that he has a right to interfere because he is the banker. That may be a justification for it. But if the Minister is interfering as the banker as a preliminary to this legislation, then what arises in consequence of the actions taken between the time the decision is taken and the effects of this Act are felt? I feel that there ought to be some extension of the provision for compensation.

I was not quite sure from the reply—and I put a specific question—whether this affects the staff if they become entitled under the interpretation which the noble Earl is putting upon it. I am thinking of British Road Services, Thomas Cook, or Pickford's. I agree that the activities of the new Holding Company, or the separate companies under the Holding Company, are perhaps less likely to cause loss of office, reduction in status or loss of emoluments than in the case of the main-line railway companies. I should like to be clear whether or not it directly affects those members of B.R.S. and Pickford's staff if they become entitled under the regulations, when they are issued. If the noble Earl cannot give me the answer "off the cuff", perhaps he would be good enough to write to me in regard to it. I feel we ought to have another word from the noble Earl, particularly on the latter part.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am always very glad to send any information, in addition to what can be given across the Floor of the House, to the noble Lord, and any other of your Lordships who want it. From what the noble Lord said just now, it seemed that I had perhaps given the impression unintentionally that members of the Boards were included. That might have been so if my noble friend had not been about to move Amendment No. 217A, which makes it clear that "officer" in relation to the Commission or any other body does not include a member of that body. What I intended to say was that the most obvious people who would be included would be the staff employed by the Boards. As for the other people, such as employees of Thomas Cook, whom the noble Lord specifically mentioned, their position would depend on whether their loss of employment or diminution of emoluments was or was not in consequence of reorganisation effected by this Act. If there was any dispute about it, the only people who could decide that question would be the board of referees which is to be set up under subsection (4) of the clause. When I said that probably very few would be affected, that was only conjecture. It is impossible to say in advance how many there are likely to be.

LORD LINDGREN

I join with the noble Earl in hoping that it will be none, because the fewer people who lose their jobs and become entitled to compensation the better we shall like it. But it would be better if we could have it made clear as possible. I am most grateful for the reply of the noble Earl. I am not satisfied, but in view of the statement I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next two Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 90, line 22, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 90, line 32, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 81 to 83 agreed to.

Clause 84 [Disqualification for membership of House of Commons]:

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next two Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 93, leave out lines 14 to 16 in column 1.

Page 93, line 14, column 2, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").— (Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to.

Clause 87:

Duty to give effect to Minister's directions

87.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Boards or of any other person to whom the Minister or any other authority gives directions under this Act to give effect to those directions. (2) Any direction given by the Minister under this Act shall be in writing.

6.10 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved to leave out Clause 87. The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment. Clearly, what we want here is some answer from the Government as to what they had in mind when they drafted this clause. I am somewhat puzzled by it. When looking at this Amendment and considering the Bill as a whole I had by me five separate Acts of Parliament, and in no single one of them did a clause of this sort appear—a wide blanket clause covering the Minister's powers. It may well be that in other Acts of Parliament such a clause is to be found, but in the five Acts relating to transport that I had by me I could not find anything similar to this clause.

I do not pretend to be well versed in these matters, but I think we ought to be careful before blanketing our powers in quite this way. So the first question that I am going to ask is, why this blanket clause at all? Why is it included, what does it cover, and how? The second question I should like to ask is about the words, "or of any other person". The Boards have a specific mention, but the Holding Company is not mentioned at all, although under Clause 29 the Holding Company is told that it "may receive directions". Do the words "any other person" embrace the Holding Company? If the words "any other person" embrace the Holding Company, why is there a specific mention of the Boards at all? Why not use the simple term, "any person receiving directions"? Does "any person" in this connection include the subsidiaries of the Holding Company? Is that the intention here? Because I believe that the Minister has taken powers somewhere in the Bill to direct not only the Holding Company but the subsidiaries of the Holding Company. If it is not the Holding Company and its subsidiaries that come under this term "or any other person", who are these any other persons and in what circumstances will the Minister give them directions?

My third question is about the few words "any other authority". When it says that the Minister gives directions under this Act, it refers to someone who is easily identifiable. Indeed, the present Minister of Transport is very identifiable, because he never shuns the photographers; but what is identifiable under this Bill? The words may be quite clear to a lawyer, which I am not, but I am in this difficulty: that when I was considering this Amendment I did what I normally do when I do not know what words mean—I turned to the interpretation clause. There is nothing at all in the interpretation clause of this Bill which tells me what is an "authority" under this Act. I wonder whether the referee under Clause 57 is an "authority". Is a local authority under the Town and Country Planning Act an "authority" for the purpose of this clause? I can well imagine that there is a simple explanation to all this. I have sufficient confidence in those who draft these Bills to know they do not just put these words in for fun and they do not as a rule add words for fun, but I think it is right that we should know what these words actually mean in this context.

The last point is perhaps a slightly wider one. I should certainly like some information about the Minister's powers to give information. We know he has considerable powers to direct. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lindgren said yesterday that in the Bill there were 100 instances of the Minister's power to direct, which is pretty considerable. These powers of direction may range from the comparatively trivial to the very important. I want to know, and I think the House ought to know, in what sort of cases the Minister of Transport, having given such direction, will come to Parliament and say, "I have given this direction and I give Parliament the chance to discuss it". Your Lordships will see that there is a possibility under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, that a very important directive may be given and Parliament may not know about it until the Board publish their annual report. That is a possibility.

There might be a dispute between the Board and the Minister as to what is important in this connection. There are occassions when, clearly, it would be politically inconvenient for the Minister to make known what direction he had given. He might not like it to be known, but if he did not publish the information immediately it might be contrary to the interests of the Board. I am of the opinion that important decisions should be reported to Parliament immediately, and, in view of the possibility of a dispute as between Board and Minister, I believe the Boards should themselves have the power—the right in fact—to publish the direction given to them by the Minister. I consider that this has some importance, and I look forward to the reply I shall now get from the noble Lord. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 87.—(Lord Champion.)

LORD MILLS

The noble Lord, Lord Champion, dealt with a number of points here and I will do my best to answer him. The first point was a natural one: why is the clause necessary? The purpose of the clause is twofold. It sets out explicity a duty which might otherwise be implicit but which is of sufficient importance to make a clear and express statement desirable. It follows, in a way, the 1947 Act, except that in that case the provision was repeated for each direction. As a matter of drafting, the provision in this Bill is in a general form. The clause also provides that directions by the Minister must be in writing, which is considered to be necessary.

Then the noble Lord asked what was meant by "any other person". This expression is used because, apart from the Boards, directions may be given to the Commission (for example Clause 33 (3) as to property to go to the Hotel Company; Clause 76 (3) as to expendi- ture on property development), to the Holding Company (Clause 29 (4)) or to undertakers of independent railways in connection with abandonment proceedings (Clause 82 (2) and (4)). The expression "any other person" was inserted to include these. The word "person" would include the Holding Company and its subsidiaries, though in fact there is no provision for the Minister to give any direction to a subsidiary. Control of a subsidiary would be secured by direction to the Board, under Clause 35 (2); and control of a subsidiary of the Holding Company by a direction to the Holding Company under Clause 29 (4). The words "any other authority" have been introduced into the Bill and would include the Treasury—see Clauses 21 (4) and 29 (13). Off hand, I cannot say what other authorities are concerned, but I think those are sufficient to illustrate the need for these references.

It will be for the Minister to judge those cases where Parliament should be informed immediately of a direction, and in a matter likely to be considered by Parliament as important the Minister obviously would do so. In my experience a direction is a very rare thing indeed. There is nothing, generally speaking, to prevent a Board from making public the fact that a direction has been given to it, but the special considerations would apply where the directions were concerned with national security. That, I think, is understandable. I think it is desirable that there should be an express statutory sanction for the carrying out of directions given by the Minister.

The Minister has power under the Bill, as I have just mentioned, to give directions to the Board and to the Holding Company in various circumstances. It is true that the Minister would be able to take administrative action against a Board which disregarded a direction, but it is clearly better that a legal duty should be laid on the potential recipients to obey the Minister's direction, in order to avoid the delays and doubts to which the lack of express duty to obey could conceivably give rise. This principle was also recognised in the Transport Act, 1947, but in that case there was no general provision corresponding to Clause 87. Indeed, as I have said, that Bill dealt with the matter piecemeal, because the duty was repeated in each relevant section. I think that the present method is an improvement. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have dealt adequately with his questions and with his proposal to delete the clause. I think the clause is a necessary one.

LORD SHEPHERD

Can the noble Lord help me? In the case of a subsidiary company, this is a company constituted as would be a private company, with a board of directors appointed according to the articles of association. Normally in that type of company directors are appointed for three years or two years, or whatever may be the case, but for a fixed period, unless of course they commit a serious misdemeanour. But suppose there is a dispute between the subsidiary and the Minister as to what should be done; the Minister has given a direction and the board of directors of the subsidiary refuse to carry it out because it would not be in the interests of the company of which they are directors.

The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that then, of course, the Minister could take administrative action. I wonder how the Minister would deal with the board which had refused. I doubt whether he could remove the directors. It would mean going to the considerable difficulty which we know is involved when it is decided to remove a director from office in a private company. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us any help in this matter.

LORD MILLS

I think I said that the Minister would not give directions to the subsidiary companies of the Holding Company or the Railways Board. He would give directions to the Holding Company or to the Railways Board, as the case may be, and it would be for them to act on those directions, to carry out the Minister's directions by instructing their own companies, which they control—they own them—to do this, that or the other. If the boards refuse to carry that out the position is no different from that of any other holding company. They would obviously take effective steps to deal with the situation with which they were involved over the control of their own property. I hope that that answer is satisfactory.

LORD CHAMPION

The noble Lord has completely anticipated the questions I wanted to ask on this. He has answered them to at any rate my satisfaction, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 87 agreed to.

Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.

Clause 90 [Interpretation]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is the Amendment that my noble friend Lord Dundee mentioned a moment ago, to clear up any ambiguity that "officer" includes a member of the Board. Of course it should not do so because there are other provisions for members of the Boards in Clause 78. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 98, line 20, at end insert: ("'officer', in relation to the Commission or any other body does not include a member of that body;").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 99, line 31, at end insert— ("'wholly-owned subsidiary' means a subsidiary all the securities of which are owned by the body of which it is a subsidiary, or by one or more other wholly-owned subsidiaries of that body, or partly by that body and partly by any wholly-owned subsidiary of that body") .—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 91 [Application to Northern Ireland]:

6.29 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment, with Amendment No. 218B and Amendment 260AA, provides for the detailed application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. This is the first Amendment, which actually does the work, because at present the Bill provides that it shall be applied to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. This does not seem to be quite the best way. It seems better and more in line with precedent to do it by application in detail in the Bill. The detail is rather long and complicated. This Amendment does nothing more than that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 99, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 100, and insert— ("(1) The provisions of this Act set out in Part I of the Schedule (Application to Northern Ireland) to this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland subject to the modifications set out in Part II of that Schedule, and save as aforesaid this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. (2)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 100, line 10, leave out from ("Ireland") to end of line 15 and insert ("this Act shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day.")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule [Part II: The Regional Railway Boards]:

LORD MILLS

I think this Amendment will be quite clear to your Lordships. It merely requires the Minister, when he appoints a person as a member of a Regional Railway Board, to lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the salary or fees and allowances payable. And if any subsequent determination is made by him involving a departure from the terms of that statement, then that also should be laid before Parliament.

Amendment moved—

Page 105, line 7, at end insert— ("(3) The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the first appointment of any person as a member of a Regonal Railway Board, lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the salary or fees and of the allowances that are or will be payable under this paragraph; and, if any subsequent determination by him under this paragraph involves a departure from the terms of that statement, or if a determination by him under this paragraph relates to the payment of, or of payment towards the provision of, a pension to or in respect of a member of a Regional Railway Board, the Minister shall, as soon as possible after the determination, lay a statement thereof before each House of Parliament.")—(Lord Mills.)

6.32 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

We do not disagree with this Amendment. It does, in fact, reproduce a similar provision applicable to the four Boards. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, will remember that at an earlier stage in this Committee we discussed the question of whether members of the Board should be full-time or part-time, and what in fact "part-time" would mean. I read the Report of the Select Committee on this matter, and it would appear that there were one or two members who admitted that they were serving one or possibly two days a week on the Board. It may be other members served longer, though still part-time; possibly there may be some who did less. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mills, would go along with us in thinking that these Boards face a very formidable task, and must be strong if they are to do their duty properly, and I think he would agree that these Boards should, in the main, consist of full-time executive directors. The noble Lord could not accept our Amendment at an earlier stage, because we were stipulating numbers, and I quite appreciate that the noble Lord wanted to have some flexibility for his Minister. We certainly shall wish to come back on Report stage to see whether we can find some words which would mean that when the Minister was appointing these Boards he should provide that at least the greater part of their membership should be full-time.

The reason I am speaking on this Amendment is to ask whether the noble Lord would consider that when the Minister lays before the Houses of Parliament the details of the salary fees or allowances of these directors he should also state the terms on which these persons will be serving, so that the manner in which they will serve will be clearly indicated—in other words, whether full-time or part-time. I doubt if we could find words to describe whether the person should work two days a week or sixty days in a year, but I think that Parliament should have some idea, when approving the salaries of these people, as to duties and the sort of time these ladies and gentlemen (and it may be that we shall have ladies) will be spending on these Boards. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will appreciate our concern to see that these Boards shall be strong and shall work to the maximum extent to make them a success. I think that when Parliament is asked to approve salaries and fees it should take into account the period of service these people will be rendering.

LORD MILLS

I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that my objection to the proposals earlier put forward is that I do not think it appropriate to lay down by Statute exactly what shall be the qualifications of any particular member. I cannot but agree with him that there should be a large element of full-time service, because these Boards have a great deal to do. What they are doing is of the highest importance, and therefore I do not disagree with the general statement that has been made. But it is a different thing from laying down in a Statute that the members should serve all the time. As regards the request that Parliament should be informed of the terms under which a man is appointed, the time he will serve, and so on, I do not think I can go any further than to say that I will make known to the Minister—and to the Treasury, of course—the noble Lord's views, because, again, I think that Parliament should be as fully informed as is reasonably possible.

LORD SHEPHERD

When the Chairman of B.O.A.C. was appointed he was described as being part-time—and, let us face it, a few eyebrows were raised when one considers the importance of B.O.A.C. For all I know, the Chairman of B.O.A.C. may still be part-time, but that means he is involved in B.O.A.C. matters for a very considerable part of the week. Therefore, I should have thought it would be of interest, and only fair to the Board, that Parliament should have some idea of the terms under which the members will serve.

LORD MILLS

I think I am right in saying that the present Chairman of B.O.A.C. is full-time, but I quite appreciate the point put forward by the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule [Transfer of Commissioner's Statutory Functions]:

LORD CHESHAM

Amendments Nos. 224 to 229 all go together; all are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 107, line 16, leave out ("and")

Page 107, line 16, at end insert ("and in paragraphs 1 and 8 of the First Schedule")

Page 107, line 19, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 107, line 26, leave out ("Inland Walter-ways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 107, line 29, leave out from ("five") to first ("to") and insert ("and in paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (4) of section eight (which relate")

Page 107, line 31, leave out from ("Boards") to end of line 32.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This in another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 108, line 47, at end insert—

("Section 157 … (Financial and statistical returns)

In subsection (3), for the reference to the Commission or an Executive there shall be substituted a reference to the Railways Board and the London Board.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 109, line 8, at end insert—

("Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland The Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland), 1953

	1953 c. 14
Section 12 (3) … (Evidence in criminal proceedings regarding goods and mail in transit)	For the reference to the Commission or any Executive there shall be substituted a reference to any of the Boards.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next three Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 111, line 12, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 111, line 24, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 111, line 31, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule agreed to.

Fourth Schedule [Distribution of Commission's securities]:

6.42 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment goes with the next, and it refers to the Penarth Dock Engineering Company. This company moves from Part II of the Schedules to Part IV for this reason. Originally, it was allocated to the Docks Board because it used to be an undertaker in a docks—it had a pontoon, and that sort of thing. It has subsequently given up all those activities and now confines its activities to ordinary engineering, and therefore is more appropriately with the Holding Company than with the Docks Board. It is a dock in name only. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 113, leave out line 17.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 115, line 7, at end insert ("The Penarth Dock Engineering Company Limited").—(Lord Chesham)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next three Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 115, line 12, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 115, line 17, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 115, line 24, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth Schedule [Miscellaneous Items in the Distribution of the Commissions Assets]:

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next two Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 116, line 24, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board'")

Page 116, line 28, leave out ("the Authority") and insert ("that Board")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Sixth Schedule agreed to.

Seventh Schedule [Transitional Provisions]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 128, line 7, at end insert— ("(5) In the application of this paragraph to a pension scheme the benefits under which are or will be receivable as of right, persons who have obtained pension rights under the scheme without having contributed under the scheme shall be regarded as participants in the scheme; and references to being eligible to participate in a pension scheme shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

This is very little more than a drafting Amendment. This sub-paragraph already makes provision for the Minister's discretion, and this Amendment is intended to ensure that, if he is satisfied, as mentioned in line 32, he ought to approve the scheme. I believe that this Amendment will commend itself to the noble Lords opposite, and I am looking hopefully for their acceptance of it.

Amendment moved— Page 129, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD CHESHAM

I would regard it in some ways, perhaps, as a little more than "little more than drafting", but none the less it commends itself, and I accept this, and the next three Amendments, with pleasure.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

I beg to move the next three Amendments together. These Amendments having had such a kindly reception from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I think I ought to thank him for accepting the last Amendment that I shall move on the first Bill I have dealt with in this House.

Amendments moved—

Page 129, line 45, after ("Minister") insert (", upon representations made to him by, or on behalf of, any person, or class of persons, affected,")

Page 130, line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")

Page 130, line 7, at end insert ("as if those payments were payments which the Commission were making in the period before the vesting date.")—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 132, line 46, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Eighth Schedule agreed to.

Ninth Schedule [Port Charges]:

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move the next two Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 135, line 7, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")

Page 135, line 35, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 136, leave out lines 1 to 3.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Tenth Schedule [Constitution, Powers and Proceedings of the Transport Tribunal]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment and the next four—that is, Nos. 252 to 255—relate to the age limits of the members of the Transport Tribunal and members of the special panel. These are in accordance with the first Report of the Council on Tribunals. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 136, line 43, at end insert— ("(3) A person shall not be appointed under the last foregoing sub-paragraph for a term extending beyond the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of seventy years, except that, where the Lord Chancellor and the Minister concur in considering it to be desirable in the public interest that a person should be appointed for a term extending beyond that date, that person may, with the approval of the Treasury, be appointed for such term not extending beyond the date on which he attains the age of seventy-five years, as the Lord Chancellor and the Minister thing fit.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 137, line 6, at end insert— ("(2) A person shall not be appointed to act under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subparagraph after he attains the age of seventy-two years, or under paragraph (b) of that subparagraph after he attains the age of seventy years, except where the Lord Chancellor or the Minister, as the case may be, think it desirable in the public interest, but no person shall be appointed to act after he attains the age of seventy-five years.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD STONHAM

Could the noble Earl tell us why the age here is seventy-two years, when it is seventy years in the previous Amendment? This Amendment says: A person shall not be appointed to act under paragraph (a) … after he attains the age of seventy-two years …", whereas in the previous one it is "seventy".

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Perhaps it takes two years to get from the beginning of the sentence to the end of it. I am afraid I do not know.

LORD STONHAM

As the noble Earl does not know, and as his first thought was not very convincing, I wonder whether an error has been made in the drafting, and whether, perhaps, he would look at it again.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will of course look at it again, and I will write to the noble Lord, when I shall be able to explain it. I think there is a difference between the functions or the status of the person who is seventy-two and that of the person who is only seventy.

LORD STONHAM

I do not want to be awkward about this, but it is the case—and we are always being made aware of it—that on all sorts of boards, voluntary or otherwise, people approaching these ages get a bit tender about it, and there should be some real reason why in one paragraph the age is seventy and in the other it is apparently seventy-two. Although it may seem a small point, it might lead to questions and difficulties in other directions. That is my only reason for raising it. If there is a simple answer which the noble Earl is now in a position to give, perhaps he would give it.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I now have the explanation. Seventy-two is the age for the President, and seventy for the other members.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 137, line 26, leave out ("and") and insert— (3) A person shall not be appointed under this paragraph for a term extending beyond the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of seventy years, except that where the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Minister, as the case may be, consider it to be desirable in the public interest that a person should be appointed for a term extending beyond that date, that person may, with the approval of the Treasury, be appointed for such term not extending beyond the date on which he attains the age of seventy-five years, as the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Minister, as the case may be, thinks fit. (4)".—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 137, line 27, leave out ("such a person") and insert ("a person appointed under this paragraph").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment, and No. 257, which is consequential, provides for the deletion of the provisions in the Tenth Schedule which limit the discretion of the Transport Tribunal, in respect of the first one about the awarding of costs, and in respect of the second one with regard to the rights of audience before them.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 139, line 8, leave out from ("tribunal") to end of line 12.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 139, line 24, leave out from ("tribunal") to end of line 27.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This is also a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 139, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert— ("(2) The Minister").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 139, line 36, leave out from ("he") to ("shall") in line 33 and insert ("considers will be of assistance to the tribunal in connection with any matter before them, and").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This is a drafting Amendment to leave out some unnecessary words.

Amendment moved— Page 140, line 8, leave out from ("law") to end of line 9.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

I move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— After the Tenth Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—