Lords Sitting of 2 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

PETROL ENGINES FOR GARDEN TOOLS
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that British manufacturers appear to have almost wholly lost their once predominant position in the supply of petrol engines for garden tools in the home market; and, if so, whether any investigations have been made and whether any remedies are in view.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology is aware of the difficulties that have arisen in the supply of small petrol engines from British industry for lawnmowers and other garden tools. His Ministry are in touch with firms concerned to see whether there is any way in which help can be given.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, which confirms the rather unfortunate position of this industry and which means that we are spending many millions of pounds in foreign exchange. Is there any question of dumping involved?
LORD KENNET: Not that I am aware of, my Lords.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could make it clear chat the whole of the British agricultural machine industry is not working at a disadvantage with foreign competitors. There is one com-
154
pany which manufactures a certain type of agricultural machine—I must not mention its name—which exports 66 per cent. of its output.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that raises wider issues relating to the entire agricultural machinery industry. The Question was addressed only to small petrol engines for garden tools, where different considerations apply.

TERRITORIAL AND ARMY VOLUNTEER RESERVE TRAINING CAMPS
2.39 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present strength of the Territorial Army, what proportion of this total strength is likely to attend training in camp for a weekend or longer during the current financial year, and what proportion of the cost of such training is being borne, respectively, by the Central Government, T.A. associations and the units themselves.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I assume that the Question is directed at the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. If so, the present overall strength of the T. & A.V.R. is 53,749, and it is expected that of this total strength between 40,000 and 48,000 men and women will attend training in camp for a weekend or longer Suring the current financial year. In the case of T. & A.V.R. Categories I, II and IV the cost of their training is borne entirely by the Central Government. No public funds will be spent on T. & A.V.R. III camps and the cost of any camps which they hold must be borne by the units themselves. Some private funds are however being raised from a number of sources including the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations and from the members themselves.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that it is something which we can all be proud of that such a very large proportion of our

155
volunteer forces in Categories I, II, III and IV will be attending some form of training this year in the face of a good many difficulties? But can he not also tell us that the money spent by units in Category III from their regimental funds in buying from the War Office petrol, rations and other items of equipment, such as 19-Sets, in order to make it possible for them to go to camp and make their training more realistic will be repaid at the end of the training season? It will seem shameful to the majority of people in this country that young men and women who give up their time at weekends for public service are then presented with a bill.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that was a very interesting speech on the subject of the Territorial Army. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that what is happening in these units reflects the spirit which has always been the spirit of the Territorial Army, or at least since the days when I was a Territorial soldier. But I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. We announced in January that Home Defence was to be placed on a care-and-maintenance basis and that therefore T. & A.V.R. III was to be disbanded. The decision was as simple as that. But we are having continuing discussions with the Council of the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve about ways of retaining the benefits which the Regular Army and other categories of the T. & A.V.R. get from T. & A.V.R. III.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Lord gave figures of the present strengths. Is he in a position to give any figures of the establishments of the units incorporated in the strengths which he gave?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords, I did not give any details of establishment to compare with the actual strengths. If the noble Lord would like to have that information, I can certainly get it for him.
LORD BARNBY: Thank you.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, is it the Government's intention that the third category should be financed from private sources indefinitely? Secondly, how far are Regular units who may come into
156
contact and be asked to help units these units during their annual training encouraged to give that help?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the second part of the question is concerned, I have already answered that. We are engaged in discussions on that point at the moment. The first part of the question is, I think, largely irrelevant. My answer to that is that the third category of T. & A.V.R. is to be disbanded.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, does this mean that they are going to be suppressed by the Government. If it is possible to keep them going by private finance, will they be allowed and be given any encouragement to do so?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, what these units will do after disbandment is an entirely different question. It seems to me that it is unfair of the noble Lord to suggest, on the one hand, that we are going to leave these units to be financed by public funds and, on the other hand, to suggest that we are in some way suppressing them. We have said that so far as the Central Government are concerned this category is to be disbanded. If they remain in existence in some way after that, it would surely not be suggested by anybody that the financing of them should be chargeable to public funds.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the fact that the economic outlook is now brightening for the country—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am glad that that remark has given such joy to noble Lords opposite—will it still be necessary to save the £2 or £3 million involved in the disbandment of T. & A.V.R. III? May I ask the noble Lord whether the existence of T. & A.V.R. III is not essential to ensure a flow of recruits into T. & A.V.R. I and into the Regular Army? If we abolish T. & A.V.R. III, shall we not be wrecking the recruitment prospects of the Regular Army?
LORD CHALFONT: We have already discussed at very great length the arguments for and against the disbandment of T. & A.V.R.III. My noble friend

157
will be aware of the arguments adduced for carrying out this disbandment, and I can give him no assurance that this decision will be reviewed.

TANZANIA: PENSIONS LIABILITY AND WITHDRAWAL OF AID
2.45 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds aid programmes in Tanzania have been cancelled.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the Government of Tanzania have decided to make no budgetary provision after July 1 this year for most of their pension liabilities towards expatriate, mainly British, officers formerly in the service of the Tanganyika and Zanzibar Governments. The pensions in question were earned before independence and are covered by the Public Officers' Agreements between the Tanganyika and Zanzibar Governments and the British Government. The Tanzania Government have also stated that they will not repay about £6·5 million of loans amounting to £9 million provided by Her Majesty's Government towards Tanzania's liabilities for compensating British officials for loss of career and for capitalising part of their pensions.
We informed the Tanzania Government that we did not agree that Tanzania should cease to be responsible for these obligations and we made certain suggestions to help Tanzania meet the cost. I regret to say the Tanzanian Government were unable to accept our suggestions.
We have had to take immediate steps to protect the pensioners from hardship arising from these decisions and the cost to Britain will be about £800,000 for the current financial year. Payments will be made on an ex gratia, basis and, in making these arrangements, Her Majesty's Government do not regard themselves as relieving the Tanzanian Government of their liability in this matter. It was for these reasons teat we felt bound to bring our aid programme to an end.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very full Answer. May I ask him, first, whether it is not the case that the Tanzania Government are prepared to pay the pensions of all civil servants who were in Tanganyika after independence was declared? Secondly, is it not the case that other Colonialist Government; have accepted that principle and the responsibility of meeting the cost of pensions of civil servants before independence was declared? Thirdly, is it right fiat aid, which is for the purpose of social and economic development, should be used as an instrument of coercion for political purposes?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords. I could not accept the last part of my noble friend's supplementary question. The pensions which are in dispute are those of civil servants and officers who were in these countries prior to independence. There was a contract—an understanding, an agreement—and it was in the light of that agreement that the financial arrangements were made with Tanzania and Zanzibar when they obtained independence. We made an offer to help the Tanzanian Government in this matter, but unfortunately they were not able to accept it. I personally very much regret the action that we had to take, but I feel that we were right to take it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that the Oversea Service Pensioner's Association, representing these men, takes the view that in the case of civil servants before independence, the responsibility is with the colonial Government?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD BROCKWAY: Is it not the case that that Association had a letter published in The Times this week? I assure my noble friend—and I have a copy of the letter with me—that the Association indicated that view.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not accept everything that appears in the newspapers. There was an agreement, to which referred, and that agreement was between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Tanganyika and Zanzibar in relation to the civil servants in question.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government are taking every possible step to secure that the agreement freely entered into by the Tanzanian Government will be fulfilled by them?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, all steps that are open to us will be taken.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's statement that he does not believe everything that appears in the newspapers, is he aware that the letter to which I referred was signed by Mr. S. A. Walden, the Secretary of the Oversea Service Pensioners' Association?
LORD SHEPHERD: I have not seen the letter. If my noble friend will show it to me later, I will gladly read it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, would the Minister take it from me, as one who had great responsibility for the Colonial Service, that the action which he has taken in insisting on withdrawing this aid because of a gross breach of undertakings by the Government of Tanzania will have the full support of the great majority of people in this country, including all ex-civil servants?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say on what scale the ex gratia payments will be made to pensioners? Will it be 50 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent., remembering that many of these men have heavy family commitments and would like to be assured that the scale of payments which the Government will be giving will be adequate to meet their needs?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's question. It is a supplementary question that I had not anticipated, and I will write to him about it.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider, for the assistance of the House, making available in the Library the amounts paid to Tanzania in all forms of aid in the three years prior to the breaking off of relations and the amounts, if any, paid since relations were broken off?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will consider that point, but it might be more convenient if the noble Lord tabled a Question.

PHARMACEUTICAL SUPPLIES: PRICES AND PROFITS
2.50 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how far they have accepted the recommendations of the Sainsbury Report.]
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I would refer my noble friend to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health in the House of Commons on June 24, which I repeated in this House.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I read that Statement and heard it? May I ask him two supplementary questions? First, as branded names are sometimes held to hide excessive prices, why is there to be delay in requiring that all new products be marked under one approved name? Secondly, in view of the finding that the cost to the National Health Service has been inflated by excessive profits, to the extent of several million pounds, is it not desirable that the National Health Service Act should be amended in order to secure a reduction in these costs?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the proposals in the Sainsbury Report that branded names should be discontinued were not adopted by the Government for the reasons given in the Statement; namely, that in the opinion of the Minister the Committee had underestimated the adverse effect which that would have upon exports. On the question of excessive profits, it appears to the Government to be more expedient to attempt to regulate the profits of the industry—and I do not now say whether or not I accept that they have been excessive—by means of negotiated agreements on individual products.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would urge the Front Bench to enable us to have a debate on this matter, as unfortunately Lord Sainsbury is unable to be here to-day and I am sure we should all like to hear his views on this matter?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the supreme value of the Sainsbury Report lies in its skilful analysis of the facts of the industry; and would he not further agree that all its recommendations are not necessarily sacrosanct, but ought to be subjected to the fullest discussion before they are adopted as Government policy?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the answer to both questions is, Yes. The Government agree that the Sainsbury Report most skilfully analysed the industry; and the Government have adopted many of the Committee's recommendations, and have said that they may later adopt others.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, in so far as the Government have so far announced their decisions on the recommendations of the Report we consider that they have done extremely well?

BUSINESS
2.53 p.m.
LORD BESW1CK: My Lords, at the conclusion of this Business Statement my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on Nigeria. At a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Baroness Phillips will be making a Statement on Aintree and the Grand National.
I thought it would be helpful if I said something about the further Business to-day. After consultations through the usual channels, we intend to adjourn the Committee stage of the Transport Bill at a convenient moment around 7 o'clock, when we shall take the Motions on cinematograph films and also the consideration of Commons Amendments and Commons Reasons in regard to the Countryside Bill. I hope that this will be a reasonable relief to those engaged on the Transport Bill. After that we shall resume consideration of the Transport Bill, and I expect we shall sit until around 10 p.m. Dinner will be available again this evening between 7 and 8.30 p.m.

NIGERIA: PEACE TALKS AND RELIEF AID
2.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): With permission, my Lords, I will make a Statement on Nigeria. Since my Statement in the House on June 26 after my return from Nigeria, we have taken the following action to aid a settlement of this unhappy war. At our request, Mr. Arnold Smith has taken steps to convey to the Biafran authorities that, in the light of my discussions in Lagos, the opening of direct informal discussions between the two parties in London with a view to the reconvening of the Kampala peace talks are, in our view, possible, and could be productive. In addition to Mr. Smith's action, I spoke yesterday to Mr. Kogbara, who was associated with Sir Louis Mbanafo in his earlier talks, and urged upon him the need for a representative of Colonel Ojukwu to come to London as soon as possible in pursuance of the undertaking given by Sir Louis. I have accordingly read with regret—and I am sure this is shared by all Members of this House—the reports of Colonel Ojukwu's speech yesterday. I hope that this speech does not mean that he has turned his back on the attempt to secure a return to the negotiating table. In that event, the responsibility he would incur would be grave indeed.
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to tell the House of our attitude if, following upon a cease-fire in Nigeria, the two parties to the conflict were to request an external Observer Force and were to ask for British participation in it. In that event, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to contribute up to one battalion with appropriate support, for a period of up to six months, to a Commonwealth Force on the understanding that other Commonwealth countries also agreed to take part on a suitable scale and that such conditions were agreed upon as would permit the Force to carry out its duties effectively.
Regarding relief, I promised on June 26 to make a further Statement on this subject. Subject to Parliamentary approval, I can now say that in addition to the £20,000 which we have already given to the Red Cross Her Majesty's Government will now make available a

163
further sum of £250,000 for humanitarian relief in the war-stricken areas of Nigeria, including the Ibo areas. Parliament will be asked in due course to approve a Supplementary Estimate. In the meantime, an advance will if necessary be sought from the Civil Contingencies Fund. The intention is that this relief aid should be used as flexibly as possible in order to make the greatest contribution to the relief of suffering, hardship and malnutrition.
In order to ensure that the money is spent in the most effective ways, expert advice and on the spot discussion with local authorities and relief bodies concerned will be necessary. We are therefore arranging, given the necessary co-operation of both sides, for a high-powered relief advisory team to go to Nigeria as a matter of urgency in order to assess the forms which our humanitarian help should take. I am glad to be able to announce that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has accepted the invitation of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to lead the relief team to Nigeria and to make recommendations. Sir Colin Thornley, Director-General of the Save the Children Fund, and Mr. Hodgson, Deputy Director-General of the British Red Cross Society, have agreed to accompany Lord Hunt on this mission. I am sure the whole House will join with me in expressing our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues for agreeing to undertake this arduous but vital task.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think we must all welcome this Statement, and the fact that the Government have now taken action, even if perhaps some action might have been taken a little earlier. But I think we should welcome what the noble Lord has done and the energies he has put into this. I hope that direct talks will now be reconvened. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has any further information regarding participation of other Commonwealth countries in the Observer Force. I am very glad to hear that we are going to contribute one battalion.
In regard to relief, I think we should also welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to allot the sum of £250,000 for this purpose; and we cer-
164
tainly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as head of this relief mission. On the question of relief, there is only one question that I should like to ask the noble Lord. There is no doubt that people in the Eastern Region are now starving, and I understand that OXFAM are willing to fly out relief and food. But am I right in saying that there is some difficulty in this matter? I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about this.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for making this Statement, and I certainly hope that negotiations will be resumed. On the subject of relief, I welcome the appointment of this relief team under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the fact that the relief aid is to be as flexible as possible. But may I also stress the point of urgency? From all that one reads, there is a very desperate need. To what extent is relief getting there now—for example, through the OXFAM Fund? Many people are willing to contribute, but they wish to know whether this relief can get through, and how quickly. On the subject of the observer team, is it possible at present to indicate what other Commonwealth countries will be contributing and what are the conditions referred to in the Statement?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may I will deal with the Commonwealth force, the external force. As I said in my Statement last week, this is a matter which is subject to discussion; but in the end the choice of the countries who will participate must be that of the two sides in the conflict. We have not yet reached that stage in those discussions. But this would arise, I hope, when the two representatives are in London for informal talks.
In regard to aid, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that Oxfam have, I think, some 400 tons of food at Fernando Póo. Distribution of this food would require an airlift, and we are in active consultation with the federal military government in Nigeria to see whether it would be possible for these urgently needed food supplies to be flown in to Biafra. I say with the greatest possible sincerity that while an airlift can deal with the immediate emergency, the

165
long-term problem can be dealt with only by the creation of neutral corridors through which road vehicles can travel carrying heavy quantities of food. At the present moment we have not been able to get agreement about these corridors from one side; I hope that we shall get agreement from both sides so that supplies can be got through quickly and regularly.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we shall all support his appeal for renewed negotiations and that we welcome the steps that have been taken for relief? But in view of the urgency of the issue at this moment, when thousands of children are dying from starvation, is it not necessary that steps should be taken to provide these supplies by air? Does my noble friend remember that on the last occasion that I raised this issue he said that the air strips would not be suitable for this purpose? Is it not We case that both the International Red Cross and Oxfam have now made arrangements to use these air strips to provide relief; and will Her Majesty's Government give the utmost support with a view to the immediate relief of the present terrible suffering in Biafra?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I sought to point out to my noble friend the difficulties of using these air strips. They are very difficult from the point of view of navigation; particularly in the type of weather existing in Nigeria. Therefore, the hope of continuing supplies through this means is very precarious. That is why I stressed the need for open corridors. I agree with my noble friend that this is a matter of urgency. We are in the closest consultation with Oxfam, with the International Red Cross, with the Federal Government, and, if I may say so, with the representatives in Biafra. It is not easy to reach a conclusion quickly; but I would assure my noble friend that there is nothing that we are now doing that in any way could be done more quickly.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government will not only make available R.A.F. aircraft but will consider the use of local aircraft which are, presumably, more suitable for this task?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I believe that the Andover, with its capabilities, will merely scratch the surface of this problem. We have various projects
166
in mind. There is a pilot who is now on his way to Biafra to see whether the air strips are suitable for a Hercules. This is something on which only the pilot can advise us and we must await his report.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the remarks of Colonel Ojukwe were very unfortunate. Is it possible that that situation could have been avoided if we had kept more closely in touch with the Biafra people? Is it not now and in future possible to have someone on a slightly more official basis near to the centre of their organisation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, when this unfortunate incident started we had a Deputy High Commissioner in the Eastern Region. It was Colonel Ojukwe who made it impossible for huff to remain and to carry out his duties not only to Her Majesty's Government but also to the British citizens who are in this area. It is through no fault of ours that we are not in a position to have direct contact with events in Biafra. But we hope that we are making some contact with the Biafran authorities in London on an informal basis to see whether we cannot speed up this humanitarian action.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, is it not possible to drop some supplies from the air? I realise that this would be only scratching the surface; but is it not better to save some children's lives than none?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Loris, we must take into account the question of terrain. I have heard it suggested that supplies may be dropped by parachute. But the noble Viscount can appreciate that this would afford relief of only a very temporary nature. The suggestion has been examined; I do not think it is practicable.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, I was going to ask a question on those lines but was anticipated by the noble Lord. I was told on good authority that both thy; Red Cross and Oxfam—two very well credited international bodies—had expressed their view that medical supplies and food could be dropped on to the airstrips in Biafra. They did not bring the R.A.F. into it; although, of course, we should welcome their help. I should like to

167
ask the noble Lord whether he discounts that evidence. My other question is this. Does the noble Lord really believe that we can be taken seriously as mediators when we visit the country of only one of the combatants and sell arms to only one of the combatants? Surely that is a partisan position and one which cannot be accepted as mediation. When I last asked a Question on this matter the noble Lord said—although it was not in answer to my Question—that we should lose all the influence that we now possess with the Nigerians if we suspended or stopped the supply of arms. I believe that those were the noble Lord's words; perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. In view of that statement, I should like to ask him how many human lives he thinks that we have saved by our influence up to date, and how many human lives he thinks have been destroyed through the effect of our arms?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to the first question of the noble Baroness, it would be possible, as an act of desperation, to drop food by parachute; but there is a very great long-term problem and, as I have said to my noble friend, Lord Brockway, consideration is being given by Oxfam to the use of a Hercules. A pilot is now on his way to see how feasible is this project. In reply to the second part of the question of the noble Baroness, I can say only this. I have seen Sir Louis Mbanafo, the chief negotiator at Kampala for the Biafran authorities. I explained to him fully our policy and our continuing to adhere to it. Sir Louis said that he had power to negotiate and that he was prepared to return to London for talks. I had three or four meetings with Sir Louis and his colleagues. I do not believe that our position with the legal Federal Government in Nigeria in any way inhibits our using our good offices between the two parties in Nigeria.
In regard to the third part of the noble Baroness's question, of course everyone deplores war and particularly civil war. I am bound to say that I am getting a little tired of the allegations, the reflections, that this civil war was started by one side. My Lords, it was started by both, and the responsibility is borne by both sides, not by one.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, I made no allegation about the causes of this war. I said that we were selling arms to one side only, which is to my mind an act of partisanship that must inspire suspicion and mistrust in the other. I further said that none of our official negotiators had visited Biafra, whereas they all went to Lagos.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the extreme urgency of the situation can my noble friend say what is the earliest date at which British observers can be expected to arrive at the scene of operations?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it will depend on how quickly we can arrange a cease-fire between the two parties.
LORD SEGAL: But does my noble friend—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
3.12 p.m.

TRANSPORT BILL
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 49 [Powers with respect to land]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 72, line 1, leave out from ("use") to end and insert ("in connection with").
The noble Lord said: Clause 49(4) enables the Railways Board and the Waterways Board, with the consent of the

169
Minister, to acquire land adjoining their own for development. This may sound reasonable enough if the additional land is needed for the legitimate extension or development of some part of their own business, but the power is not limited in this way. Indeed, the opposite is the case, and the Bill specifically refers to land which is required
"for use otherwise than for the purposes of their business."
So here again, following on the debate we had yesterday, is an example of a very wide power concerning the acquisition of further land which comes at a time when the Railways Board and the other authorities should be concerned more with the sale of land which is no longer required than with thinking about the acquisition of further land.
This Amendment seeks to limit the power. The wording that appears on the Order Paper was carefully chosen. I would point out that we do not seek to limit this power for the acquisition of additional land for purposes which are confined to the existing business of the authority. We do not say that it should be entirely within their existing business, because we can appreciate that there might be a connecting purpose which would thereby be excluded. On the other hand, we feel that what is in the Bill—that is, no restriction at all, and that additional land can be acquired for purposes unconnected with the business of the authority—goes too far. So we have chosen a mid-way position and said "in connection with" the business of the Railways Board or the other authorities which are mentioned.
LORD ST. HELENS: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Windlesham who has moved this Amendment. Our current theme, which I think was brought out many times by speakers from this side of the Committee during the discussions yesterday, is that we believe that the prime job of the Railways Board is to run the railways. We feel that when they have proved to us and to the country that they are doing a competent job would be time enough to talk about the Railways Board branching into other activities which have no direct contact with the railways. We realise what a very difficult job the Railways Board have, but so far they have not shown the country that they are making a com-
170
petent job of running the railways. They have a very long way to go, and we believe that supporting this Amendment will indicate that they should put first things first and get on with their prime job.
LORD HUGHES: If I may, I will first refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, that the job of the Railways Board is to run the railways, and say that we want the Board to be able to run the railways without losing money in the process. We must give them every possible assistance that we can legitimately give. If we are to deny that assistance we shall be thrown back, on to a conclusion which was arrived at by the Provost of a Scottish city, Brechin, which lost its branch railway. The then Government gave a remit to Dr. Beeching to say how you can make money by running a railway. The Scottish Provost thought the answer which Dr. Beeching brought back was that the only way to make money out of running a railway was not to have a railway. So Brechin lost its railway. We do not accept that. There have to be railways and if it is at all possible, we want the railways to get their returns out of the red into the black. This is one of the ways in which they can be helped.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, stressed the fact that this Bill would enable them to acquire land for purposes other than the purpose of their business. That principle has been accepted already, in the 1962 Act. The Conservative Government did not find it wrong, because Section 11(4) of the 1962 Transport Act enables the Railways Board and the Waterways Board to acquire adjoining land, by agreement, for the purpose of developing it, with their own land, for use for purposes other than the purposes of their business. So that principle has already been accepted, and if it was not an anathema in 1962, it could hardly be so in 1968.
The difference is that the power which the Boards have under the 1962 Act means that they must develop this adjoining land with their own land. We are seeking to specify in subsection (4) certain circumstances in which land can be acquired—and I would stress that it is to be acquired by agreement—for development for use other than for the purposes of the Board's business, without its

171
being a condition, as in Section 11(4) of the 1962 Act, that the acquired land must be developed with the Board's existing land. That is the difference. It can be developed separately from the land which the Board already holds. I cannot see that there is any difference in principle on that point.
A circumstance in which we see that this could be very helpful to the railways is if land adjoins other land of the Railways Board, and if the Minister is satisfied that the land so acquired will be so connected by rail, or so situated in relation to a railway line, that the rail services of the Board can be directly used by the person occupying the land. Or it could be helpful, in the case of the Waterways Board, if the land adjoins any of the commercial or cruising waterways of the Board and the Minister is satisfied that the land acquired will be so connected by the waterways or is so situated in relation to that commercial or cruising waterway, that the waterway services of the Board can be directly used by the person occupying the land.
The intention is that the subsection should give the Boards the opportunity to acquire land with a view to its development either by themselves or by others, for industrial or commercial use by others, in such a way as to generate new rail or new waterway traffic. This is a principle of which private enterprise in the United States makes good use. They have this sort of freedom and they make considerable use of it.
In another place an Amendment similar to the one we are discussing was put forward by a Liberal Member. And when his attention was drawn by my honourable friend the then Parliamentary Secretary to what is done in the United States—he gave the specific example that the Southern Pacific Railroad attracts additional traffic by providing for industrial activity by tenants and by providing a rail link—the answer given by the Liberal Member, in withdrawing his Amendment, was that he congratulated the Minister on the research that he had undertaken and he accepted that this was in fact a good use for land; and the Amendment was withdrawn. During the last few days there have been occasions when the Liberal Party and the Conservatives in this House have been in agree-
172
ment; there have been occasions when the Liberals have followed the Conservative lead. I think this is a case where the Opposition Front Bench can accept the arguments which I am putting forward here, and that which in another place persuaded the Liberal Party that they could safely ally themselves with the Government on this piece of commercial enterprise for the railways.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord has trailed his coat. I hope that no Liberal foot will tread on it. This section goes one step further—I think the noble Lord has made this quite clear—than the provisions of the 1962 Act. We do not think that this sort of extension is a desirable trend from the standpoint of public policy, and that was the reason why we put down this Amendment. The examples given in reply did not seem to me to be very powerful. It is true that the Southern Pacific Railroad in the United States generates new rail traffic in this way, but of course it does not do so with public funds. The capital for development of that sort has to be raised through the market.
We do not want, on this side of the House to have an extended debate at this stage on this particular Amendment. The underlying, rooted objection that we have applies not only to this provision but, much more so, to a whole set of additional provisions running through the Bill which will come up at various times during the next few days. I therefore do not intend to press this Amendment, and, with the leave of the Committee, beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Miscellaneous provisions as to powers]:
3.23 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 72, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: There are three Amendments on the Order Paper to Clause 50, Nos. 142, 143 and 144, which all concern hotels. These Amendments were not discussed at all, so far as we can see, in another place, and therefore it seemed to us that it was worth looking at them rather closely in this House if

173
we are to exercise our function as a revising Chamber. Although each of the three Amendments concerns hotels, they are all on different points, so I am proposing to move them separately.
Clause 50(2) gives the British Railways Board
"power to provide and manage hotels in any part of Great Britain and, with the consent of the Minister, elsewhere".
We will return to the word "elsewhere" in a few moments. In addition, the limiting provisions of the 1962 Act cease to apply to the Railways Board. It seems to us that here is a very considerable extension to the powers of hotel trading which are possessed at the present time by the British Railways Board.
Since there are three Amendments on hotels, it may be convenient to run quickly through the existing position. The situation to-day is that the railway hotels are operated by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the British Railways Board, British Transport Hotels, Limited. These hotels are mostly in city centres and mostly adjacent to railway terminals or to railway terminals which have now been closed. In addition, there are certain resort hotels, in particular the three fine Scottish golfing hotels at Gleneagles, Turnberry and, the new hotel opened only last month, at St. Andrews. The assets at the book value are approximately £10 million. Last year, 1967, despite lower receipts, the net profits were slightly up, after altering, I suppose it should be said, the charge for depreciation; there was a slight increase in the net profit of £813,000. Good though it is to see a part of British Railways' business in a profit-making position, it is none the less a fairly modest return on assets of the order of £10 million.
As I say, it seems to us that this provision in the Bill is an extension to the existing powers which the Railways Board have. We accept that some railway hotels are very fine. They have been operating for a very long time. In the last few years they have been subject to the provisions of the 1962 Act, but now the limiting provisions of the 1962 Act are to be removed from the railway hotels, although not from the other hotels which we shall consider later. I think we must ask the Government for the reasons why that is so; and secondly,
174
to look rather more closely at the wording of Clause 50(2), which says:
"The Railways Board shall have power to provide and manage hotels in any part of Great Britain, and with the consent of the Minister, elsewhere".
What does this word "elsewhere" mean? On the face of it, it means that the Railways Board could open an hotel in Hong Kong if they wanted to do so. There may be some explanation which has escaped us, but I think we need to hear from the Minister who is to reply what the Government draftsmen had in mind when they put in this word. I beg to move Amendment No. 142.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: We also should like to support Amendment No. 142, although we are considerably more doubtful about Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. Amendment No. 142 relates to a provision which seems to spread unnecessarily the powers of the railways into a position where they are are going to be able to have hotels merely in order to make money unconnected with the railways. This is where I should like to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the last Amendment. The Government Front Bench seem to be very hurt because they think that we in these two Opposition Parties do not want British Railways to make money. Of course we want British Railways to make money. It may he that the only way to make money with a railway is, as has been suggested, to close down the rail. In that situation we say, "Right! We recognise flat the Government must produce a grant, clearly earmarked as a social benefit, for keeping the railways going if the country needs them". What we say is that there is no point in answering the need to make the railways pay by merely adding more and more businesses until their surpluses come to more than the railways lose. That is not making the railways pay. Anyone can take a single company and add several more companies until overall their accounts are balanced. That is the point we want to make, and that is why I wish to support Amendment No. 142.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I add a word in support of my noble friend Lord Windlesham on this Amendment. As to what he said as regards the operating results of the Hotel Company,

175
I think it is fair to say that that £813,000 is really a working surplus, not a net profit; and a surplus naturally tends to go to reducing the deficit of the railway company. But the operations of this holding company are by any standard pretty considerable industrial operations. The only difference this clause makes in the existing position is to widen the scope of this company by extending its operations outside this country and beyond the needs of the users of the transport system whom these hotels were primarily designed to serve. I think it is inevitable that when a power of this kind is included in a Bill, it is an encouragement to those operating it to do their best to exercise that power. Therefore this is an encouragement to the holding company to look outside and to embark on a highly speculative and difficult business which, I should have thought, was much better left to those who have some knowledge of the territory and the commercial risks.
LORD HANKEY: Before we go further into these somewhat ideological questions I should like to express a word of doubt from these Benches. First of all, if we look at the position in broad outline it seems that we have to enable the railways to bring themselves up to date, to run efficiently, to take a forward and dynamic look at what is happening in the economy to see where the best service can be rendered. But especially we have to help them to make some money and they are not likely to do it unless they are dynamic. We either have to enable the railways to make some money, or at any rate make a smaller loss, or we have to face the fact that sooner or later we shall have to subsidise them. That is a decision which I think everybody in this House is reluctant to take.
If we look round at what is happening in our economy, we see that there are many businesses which find themselves hard pressed, and that they will be able to make the grade only if they combine with other businesses. This explains many of the takeover bids and mergers that are going on. This is the way our economy achieves greater efficiency, because businesses which combine their affairs can offset small losses in other ways and especially can do business with each other in a more efficient way.
176
How does this apply to the railways? If we look at Canadian Pacific Railways (which I mention because they are not nationalised) it is interesting to see that they run hotels in half the cities of Canada. And they are tremendously efficient hotels. I have stayed in a good many of them. If British Railway hotels attain that efficiency I am sure that it will be very conducive to the efficient running of the railways. Canadian Pacific also run a large telecommunications service, air lines and develop forests and minerals. They are in business in a big way, and it really is a fact that if Canadian Pacific were confined purely to the business of running a railway they would lose money on a vast scale. I think the same thing applies here.
Personally I do not believe in nationalisation. I have absolutely no ideological stand in this matter, but I do not like nationalisation because it seems to me that the nationalised industries have a way of losing money. I believe, as the Conservatives do, that if we want a really good productive job done, it is better done by, private industry. Still, the fact remains that a great deal can be done by this holding company and by small concerns sponsored by it. If we want our railways to pay, to be modern and "with it", I do not think it would pay us to put them in the position where they cannot diversify their activities to some extent. I believe that the very diversification of their activities will tend to make them more go ahead and produce better transport services.
As I am on my feet, I should like to say that I hope we are going to reject an Amendment about camping sites. We need more hotels and certainly more camping sites. I should like to see our economy developed altogether faster and with more investment, and I should be very sorry if the result of the discussions on this Bill were to prevent investment and development taking place, even if it has to be done by our nationalised railway system.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: While I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, in the whole of his argument, I support him in general. I find myself considerably confused by the proposers of this Amendment, some of whom support it on the ground that the railways are inefficient and cannot make money, while others support it on the

177
ground that as the Bill stands the railways will make money and damage private enterprise. I think that they should agree one way or the other. In nearly all cases these hotels were started by the old railway companies, and for what were then good reasons. Certainly the Minister should keep a watchful eye on any further investment of public money in this field, but, subject to that, I think that it is rather mean to put forward an Amendment to cramp the railways and their hotels and catering branch from further enterprise.
3.36 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I am very tempted to leave the argument on the basis on which it has been taken by the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I find myself in agreement with every word the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, uttered, except for the bit he put in parenthesis about not being in favour of nationalisation. I cannot go all the way with him on that. I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has said. But the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, seems to be under a misapprehension about what the Government want to do in this matter. We are not taking the point of view that it is impossible for the railways to make money in normal railway running and that therefore we have the choice of either letting them carry on these loss-making activities and helping them by subsidy, or permitting them to make profits on something which has nothing at all to do with the railways. What the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said suggested to some extent that it was not unreasonable that the railways, like progressive private enterprises who find their traditional lines are not doing so well as they could, should find ways of diversification. I do not believe that this should be denied to the railways.
But that is not the primary purpose here. The main purpose is that it should be made easier for the railways, waterways and buses to turn their loss-making activities to profit-earning ones by adding other lines which induce increased traffic. It may well be that a new enterprise may not in itself make a great deal of money; but if, together with the increase in revenue that accrues to the railways it substantially improves business then it is a good thing. For these reasons, we think that this is a proper thing to do.
178
As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, this is not something which has suddenly been thought up in 1968 by a Socialist Government. It is a longstanding part of railway history. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in moving the Amendment, giving as his first justification that it and the succeeding Amendments had not been discussed in another place. He has not done his homework very well on this. These Amendments were not only discussed in another place but were negatived on a Division. It is true that they were not discussed on Report, but they were discussed in Committee.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Could the noble Lord help us by giving the reference?
LORD HUGHES: Yes. An Amendment was tabled by the Conservatives, debated in Commons Committee and negatived on a Division: Hansard, Standing Committee F, March 21, cols. 206378. An identical Amendment which was tabled for the Commons Report stage was not debated. If it will help in relation to the succeeding Amendments, the equivalent to Amendment No. 143 was No. 1813. That also was negatived on a Division. The same column references as for Amendment No. 142, I think, are applicable, and again for an Amendment identical to No. 144 which was negatived on a Division in Commons Committee. So, in fact, the three Amendments were the subject of debate in another place.
The concept which we wish to reject is that railway hotels must be next door to railway lines. We no longer accept that; we think it is quite out-dated. For one thing, "Motorail" enables travellers who use the railways for the greater part of their journey to use hotels at places to which rail passenger services are not run. We think it is desirable to give the Board freedom to exercise their commercial judgment in deciding whether to manage hotels themselves, or to entrust the management to British Transport Hotels, or to other subsidiary companies, if they so wish. II, for example, the running of an hotel was something which was obviously in the interest of the railways, and obviously was going to be a profitable concern, then it would be run by the hotel company.

179
But in pursuance of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was following up—helping the operation of the railways itself—if there were to be a case for running an hotel in a particular place where the direct beneficiary would perhaps be not the hotel profits themselves, but the induced extra railway traffic, it might well be the case that the right thing would be for the railways to manage that hotel themselves, as they would be getting the traffic benefit, although it might not be worthwhile, say, for the hotel company who would say: "It is not going to help our position all that much."
The noble Lord asked about the power given to run hotels elsewhere than in Great Britain, and he postulated that British Railways might open an hotel in Hong Kong, or that they might open an hotel in Tahiti, or one at Christmas Island. I have no doubt whatever that they will not do any such thing. What I do think, having regard to the fact that British Rail have interests in certain shipping services, is that it might be reasonable for them to run an hotel or manage an hotel at the terminals of the shipping services, because it would be a direct advantage to them in getting business for their shipping services and for their railway lines. If this is done elsewhere than in Britain, it will obviously be done only where it has a direct connection with the services which the railways are providing in or to this country. It does not seem to me that this is an unreasonable thing to do. We propose to remove the restrictions which the 1962 Act imposes. The Government's policy is that the nationalised Boards should have power to expand ancillary activities where they can do this to advantage and where they can do it without detriment to their primary functions. If we accepted this Amendment, we should be cutting completely across the principles that we are seeking to follow up, and I therefore cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Perhaps I might ask one question of the noble Lord. He says that these services of hotels abroad should be in direct connection with the railway services. Personally, I agree with that. But there is nothing about that in the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: One of the things that we are seeking to alter in this Bill is the not surprising fact that, as Parliament has in the past been so obsessed with putting restrictions in the way of nationalised industries, the nationalised industries have found it difficult sometimes to make money. We would suggest, for a change, that it is worth while trying to look at it the other way. Let us see how we can help the nationalised industries to make money by seeing how few restrictions we can put in their way and confine them to those that are reasonable.
BARONESS HORSBR UGH: Can the noble Lord say whether the Government have considered, in order to help the railways to make more money, setting up casinos in various parts, when they would probably get a great deal of railway traffic to those places?
LORD HUGHES: I always give the most careful consideration to anything proposed by the noble Baroness. If she puts down an Amendment to that effect on Report stage, I promise her that the Government will not reject it without giving it the consideration that it merits.
3.45 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: This has proved to be an interesting debate to start off the afternoon, and I should like to make a comment on the way the debate has gone. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with his customary dialectical skill, sought to put us in the dock as if we were being mean and unkind to the railways; and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, suggests this. But let us look into the facts before we get into the emotions. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, in what I thought was a most interesting intervention, said that the railways should be helped to make money.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Hear, hear!
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: With that we all agree; that is what this Bill is about. If we did not help them, they would have to be subsidised. And, bless my soul ! that is what this Bill is about, too. Let us consider for a moment what the Bill does provide. Those noble Lords who were present in the Committee last night will remember that we had a debate about the capital

181
provision of this Bill. Among other things, this Bill writes off over £1,300 million of the railways' capital. It is the taxpayer who has paid that; it is money that the people of this country, the whole nation, have paid—and in the post-war years, too. The Bill also provides another £700 million to finance the railways needs over the coming years. We are subsidising these; and we are subsidizing current deficits, too. We accept that. Of course, the main object of this Bill is to write down the capital to a reasonable size—the £300 million—to provide certain specific subsidies, and to relieve the railways of things which they cannot make a paying proposition, like urban and conurbation services, and so put them on a viable basis. That is the primary object of the Bill.
The noble Lord's comments, I thought, were rather directed to the idea that the railways should be allowed to develop hotels wherever they liked, because this would make money for them as well. I very much doubt whether it would; there is no particular reason to think so. Our position here is that we support the railways, the subsidiaries they have, and the railway hotels which they have which are just paying their way, and we think they should go on with them. Furthermore, we are willing to see them open new ones under the terms of the 1962 Act, which are very reasonable. Section 6 of the 1962 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred as if it was a sort of stranglehold says this:
"The Railways Board shall have power to provide hotels in places where those using the railway services provided by the Board may require them for use both by those and other persons, and shall have power to manage hotels".
Then it says it is subject to the Minister. This is perfectly reasonable, and I should have thought that is all the railways would normally want. What subsection (2) does here is to remove this and allow the railways to develop hotels anywhere. I do not think this is right. Where does the money come from to do this? It comes from the taxpayer, from the nation, and while I would agree—and I am sure everybody would agree—that we want to put taxpayers' money into British Rail to strengthen their finances and to put them on a viable basis for running railways, because this is what we want them to succeed with, it is altogether
182
a different matter when we are being asked to provide extra money for them to develop hotels.
The noble Lord referred with interest to the Canadian Pacific Railway and said that the Canadian Pacific rail services would not pay their way if they did not have subsidiaries. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am a small shareholder in the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is true that they do not make much out of their railways, but they certainly "wash their face". They certainly do make their railways pay, which is due to exceptionally good management. This is entirely up to them. They are doing it with their own funds—and, incidentally, with a little of mine because I am willing to put my money there— but this is a different proposition altogether and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made out his case. It is one thing to ask a nation to provide money for strengthening the finances of the railways in operating the railways. That we are doing on a gigantic scale in this Bill, and it is a right thing to do, but it is quite another matter to ask the general public to provide money for the building of hotels.
3.52 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, if he will say whether he disagrees with the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, who at least implied, if he did not exactly say, that part of the success of the Canadian national railways was due to the extent to which they had these other services? And I think he expressed the opinion that if they confined themselves to running railways they would not make money out of it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is helping to make the case for both the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and the Government when he points out that after doing all these other think they not only make money out of them but also have been running the railways. That is what we are trying to do; to avoid providing subsidies by getting profits on other things to offset losses on the railway. If I am wrong, is it then the noble Lord's opinion, speaking with his declared interest as a shareholder in the Canadian Pacific Railway, that he would have received a dividend from them if they had confined themselves to running railways?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Is it not the fact that the Canadian Pacific hotels are all adjacent to the railways? The Canadian Pacific Railway does not exercise powers to build hotels anywhere, as is now proposed in this Bill. At Lake Louise, Banff, Ottawa—all the hotels are adjacent to the railway. We have no objection to that, but the Canadian Pacific Railway authorities do not do what the Government propose for British Rail.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It seems to me that we are back to where we were last night, indicating the deep cleavage between both sides of the Committee on the question of public ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, constantly refers to the great deficit which has been created since the Tories took control of British Rail in 1951. Therefore, at the risk of tedious repetition, we must continue to remind the Committee that this huge deficit which is constantly being referred to has been created entirely by the policy followed by successive Conservative Governments.
The railways were encouraged to develop under the British Transport Commission—I am repeating myself, but in view of the number of times this has been referred to by the Party opposite I am going to give the answer. Up to 1953, under the old 1947 Act, the railways paid all interest charges, all working costs, and showed a profit. The deficit of £1,200 million has been created entirely by the Tories. Therefore, the problem to which they are referring is one of their own creation and now, under this Bill, at long last some freedom is being given to the various publicly owned undertakings to allow them to develop as they so determine in the best interests of their business, whether it be by hotels, caravan sites, or anything else. Why should they not have the right to develop?
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, constantly refers to the fact that they are developing with taxpayers' money. This development which is taking place is a service that is being given and is deliberately being aimed at preventing the financial drain that the Tories have imposed upon the nationalised transport industry in the past. Therefore, I suggest to noble Lords opposite that, much as they possibly detest public ownership, there is surely a sense of justice in their minds and if they accept the thesis of
184
public ownership—and we often hear them say that they do; they accept the question of a mixed economy—and if they are sincere in that, then surely they will be equally desirous of ensuring that the public sector of our economy should be as efficient and as commercially solvent as the private sector. I put this to them clearly, as a reasonable question, seeing that they accept the thesis of a mixed economy. If they are sincere in what they have been saying about matters of this type in the past then surely they will not insist upon these niggling Amendments that are aimed purely and simply at getting the publicly owned sector into financial difficulties and not giving them a desire to expand, and so to assist the economy.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: The game of baiting the Tories for what they may or may not have done is entertaining but it does not really get us down to the heart of the question. In this House we are surely all agreed that we want the railways to be as efficient and as solvent as possible, and indeed that applies to the whole of the public sector. The question is whether these particular clauses help this aim or whether they so expand the area in which this sector works that in point of fact they achieve the opposite effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in his eloquent way, has persuaded me that we should certainly keep in subsections (3) and (4) of this clause. I should also like to see Section 25(3) of the 1962 Act repealed, as he wishes to do. The only thing about which I am still unhappy —and I should like him to answer this point—is why it is necessary to repeal Section 6 of the 1962 Act. All the examples that he has given of why we should have these hotels in places which are not next door to where the railways actually are must surely be covered already by the 1962 Act, which does not say that these hotels shall be next door to the railways but that they shall be in places where those using the railway service provided by the Board may require them. Surely it covers people who are motoring to and from the railway, and also most of what he wants. Therefore I wonder why he wants to repeal this hardly less limiting clause which does not impinge on the argument he is making.
LORD HUGHES: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will permit me to answer this first. I have asked him a question which I think he wants to answer, but I will leave him to wind up. I think the question which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has put, and which I think has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, also, is a perfectly reasonable one and one which I am under an obligation to answer. If the interpretation of Acts of Parliament were left to people like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and myself, I have no doubt we should come to the conclusion that those words in the 1962 Act did not stop British Railways from doing the sort of thing the Government now want them to do. The reason why the Government are taking these words out is that we are advised that these words have a restrictive effect, and do not in fact enable the British Railways Board to put up hotels where they may be helpful for their purpose.
In fact, these words, although to a layman they look as broad as they can be, are restrictive. 'What we are seeking to do is to put in a form of words which is not restrictive and which will enable British Railways to do what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and what, I must confess, I myself, would have said the words in the 1962 Act allowed them to do, but which in fact do not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Can the noble Lord give any case where the railways have wanted to build a hotel and have been prevented from doing so?
LORD HUGHES: I have not yet had access to all the decisions the previous Government have taken in these matters. I do not know whether this has ever taken place or not, but even if it had not, that is no reason why we should seek to place ourselves at risk in future.
EARL FORTESCUE: It is apparent that a large number of Members of this Committee are assuming that running a hotel is a gold mine, more particularly if it is run by a railway company. May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as a good Scot that the railway hotel at Dornoch had to be closed down because it was making such losses.
LORD HUGHES: I have never suggested, and I am quite certain that no other member of the Government has suggested, that to open an hold is a certain way to make a fortune. Some hotels make a great deal of money. Some hotels, either because of their situation or because of the way they are run, would not make money this side of Time, and they go out of business. This could happen with the railways as well as with anybody else. What we will, of course, endeavour to do, and what good manage-merit in the railways (just as good management anywhere else) will do, is to ensure that hotels are opened only where there is a reasonable prospect that direct and indirect profits will provide financial advantage. It may be they are sometimes wrong, just as a private hotel keeper is sometimes wrong. But if the noble Lord wants me to put on record that I do not believe every hotel opened is a gold mine, I am prepared to confirm that I agree with him.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The debate has had an interesting quota, and I now have an opportunity of answering the question which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, put to me. After all, we are in Committee and therefore we can speak as often as we like. The noble Lord asked me whether I thought Canadian Pacific Railways would pay the dividends without the subsidiaries, and the answer is that they would do so because the railways side is normally profitable. The subsidiaries side of course helps their profitability. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye made the really relevant point. So far as I know, although I do not pretend that I have been to all of them, the C.P.R. hotels are certainly in the main all adjacent to their transport services. Of course this is the point. The noble Lord has skilfully made it seem as though we are trying to strangle British Railways, but that is not true. Section 6 of the 1962 Act allows very wide powers of development of hotels, and as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, rightly said, it would cover all the examples the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, gave, including the shipping services; anything in direct connection where their customers would use it. The noble Lord really has not made out a case for extending the 1962 powers and allowing them powers in this Bill.

187
If I may make one point in answer to the noble Lord Lord Popplewell, who came in with his customary warmhearted support for British Railways, I would remind him, when he castigates the Tory Party for what they did and did not do with regard to railways, that they at least financed modernisation of the railways, which is more than he and his right honourable friends did. In 1956, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, would confirm, we provided, at the rate of about £150 million a year over the early years, coming down to about £120 million, something of the order of £1,000 million for modernisation. This could hardly be said to be an unfriendly act to the railways and, of course, we are just as much concerned as noble Lords opposite to make the railways a solvent and viable business and do all we can to help them. I really do not think subsection (2) is going to achieve this, and I must ask my noble friends to press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: May I say that I feel strongly inclined to support the Government. Gleneagles is struggling along and Dornock is closed —both railway hotels. There is a big hotel in Devonshire, Morton Hampstead, built entirely by the W. H. Smith people, which the Great Western Railway Company bought "dirt cheap"; otherwise they would not have bought it. The same comment applies to the hotel at St. Ives. The Great Western did not buy them because they were serving the railways; they were encouraging people to use the railways to play golf. I do not think it will make a ha'pennyworth of difference which way this goes, and therefore I will support the Government.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I say—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: We are in Committee and therefore we may speak as often as we like. May I say this to my noble friend? We are not suggesting in any way restricting the activities of the existing British Railways Hotels subsidiary to which my noble
friend referred. We accept that they are useful, and the effect of our Amendment would in no way restrict them, nor prevent that subsidiary opening further hotels directly in connection with its transport services. All we are seeking to do is to limit the development to that and refuse British Railways powers to build a hotel anywhere they like which is not connected with their services.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot let the matter rest there. I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is completely ignoring the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, which was that the words in the 1962 Act, which appear to open the door wide, are in fact restrictive in their effect. We seek to remove the restrictive effect of those words. The noble Lord chooses to ignore that and to say they are not restricting the activities. He says he does not wish to restrict British Railways activities, yet he persists in continuing to support these words which are restrictive in their effect.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to correct me or confirm what I am about to say? Is it not a fact that to-day British Railway hotels are encouraging opposition to the railways in that their hotels are being used to a greater extent by coach parties, that is, by people who do not use the railways at all?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: We entirely accept what the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, said in answer to the point about the clause in the 1962 Act being restrictive although it might not seem to us to be so. But we still think that by its repeal it is made far too permissive and covers a much wider scale than necessary. We welcome two-thirds of the proposals in this clause, and therefore I would advise my noble friends on these Benches to abstain if this Amendment is pressed.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 142) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Amory, V.

Audley, Bs.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Arbuthnott, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Barnby, L.

Allerton, L.

Auckland, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Belstead, L.

Glentanar, L.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Powis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Blackford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Boston, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rockley, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Burton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Helens, L.

Carrington, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Just, L.

Clithe oe, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Salisbury, M.

Conesford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Savile, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Sempill, Ly.

Cromartie, E.

Loudoun, C.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Margadale, L.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Templemore, L.

Dudley, L.

Mills, V.

Teviot, L.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Molson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Exeter, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Falkland, V.

Monsell, V.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Wolverton, L.

Gage, V.

Newton, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Glendevon, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Heycock, L.

Royle, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick. L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Samuel, V.

Blyton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Segal, L.

Boothby, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Leatherland, L.

Simon, V.

Carron, L.

Lindgren, L.

Snow, L.

Chalfont, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Soper, JL.

Clwyd, L.

McLeavy, L.

Sorensen, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Pargiter, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Walston, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Raglan, L.

Williamson, L.

Hall, V.

Rhodes, L.

Willis, L.

Hankey, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Headfort, M.

Rowley, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Henderson, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move that the House do now resume to hear the statement by my noble friend the Baroness Phillips.
House resumed.

AINTREE RACE COURSE AND THE GRAND NATIONAL
4.22 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement about Aintree and the Grand National Steeplechase which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science in another place. It is as follows:
"This race is one of the nation's great sporting festivals and its continuance is inevitably bound up with the ownership of the Aintree course, since it is clear that the race will completely change its character if it is transferred elsewhere. The Government also believe it to be important for considerations of regional policy to keep as many important events as possible in the provinces.
"With these objectives in mind the Government initiated talks with all the interested parties, and as a result I can now make an interim statement, following discussions with the Liverpool Corporation, the Turf Authorities, the Horse Race Betting Levy Board and Messrs. Tophams, Ltd., the present owners.
"The chief consideration is that of ownership, and Her Majesty's Government have informed the Liverpool Corporation that we are prepared to give loan sanction for the capital sum required for the acquisition of the land. We shall also be prepared to apply the provisions of Section 8 of the 1966 Local Government Act in order to make them a grant, not exceeding 50 per cent., in respect of that portion of the site which is to be kept as public open space.
"I am glad to say that the Liverpool Corporation place great importance upon obtaining full public access for general recreational purposes at Aintree on all days when racing is not taking place. As Merseyside has much less open space than the national average this will be a significant contribution to the social life of the neighbourhood.
192
"It is hoped that this offer will facilitate negotiations with Messrs. Tophams for the purchase of the land.
"If Liverpool acquire the site it is understood that they will wish to lease the race course to a non-profit-making trust body to be established under the chairmanship of Lord Leverhulme. This trust will seek to develop Aintree as a National Hunt Racing centre in the North, a scheme which has the support of the Horse Race Betting Levy Board. By these means the Grand National and racing at Aintree will be maintained and no charge will fall upon the Liverpool ratepayers in respect of them.
"It is believed that at a later date the Liverpool Corporation may wish to establish a Sports Centre on the site, a project in which the North-West Regional Sports Council is much interested, and if so we would expect that there would be the fullest co-operation in the design and provision of buildings of a multi-purpose character between Liverpool, the Racing Trust and the Levy Board."
My Lords, I hope that this announcement will enable negotiations to be brought to a successful conclusion for the purposes that I have outlined.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure the whole House, as well as many outside, will welcome almost with relief this interim statement on the future security of Aintree. I am sure, too, that we are all agreed that on the grounds of almost national prestige, on the grounds of safeguarding the Grand National, on the important grounds of regional policy, the decision permanently to safeguard the race course is a wise and prudent one. Perhaps one's only regret is that it has taken so long to achieve.
There are two brief questions that I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the Statement. May we take it that the loan sanction to be made available by the Government will amount in practice to 50 per cent. of the purchase price of the race course? Secondly, how does it follow from the Statement that no charge will fall on the Liverpool ratepayers, when the Corporation has

193
to find approximately 50 per cent. of the purchase price?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement, which I welcome. I must admit that I am better acquainted with regional development than I am with racing, but may I, for enlightenment, ask two questions? I understand that if Liverpool acquires the site, it wishes to lease the race course to a non-profit-making trust body. I assume that the race course is distinct from that portion of the site which is to be kept as a public open space for which a grant is to be made under the Local Government Act 1966. This open space presumably is in the middle. Will this be kept permanently free and open to the public? Secondly, does the expression "full public access for general recreational purposes" refer to the public open space or to another part of the site?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should not wish to prejudice my right honourable friend in any way by giving the wrong answers. So far as the open space is concerned, I think I would be correct in saying the arrangement will be similar to that at Epsom race course, which is in fact an open space available to the general public when there is no racing in progress.
On the question of loan sanction, I can hardly give a direct answer to that to-day, because this will depend on many factors. A further point raised by the noble Earl, was whether the scheme will cost the citizens of Liverpool anything. This is, of course, a very complex matter, but under what is suggested the Grand National and racing will not involve a direct charge on the Liverpool Corporation.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, may I be allowed, as one who has seen and been thrilled by every Grand National since 1923, to add my thanks to the noble Baroness for her announcement this afternoon, and to welcome also the perpetuation of this great festival which carries great prestige all over the world, for Liverpool and for this country. May I also ask the noble Baroness whether she will recognise that the proposal for an open space in the future is one that is
194
very welcome in that area, and we all wish it well. Finally, will she also recognise that a holding trust such as that which she mentioned in her Statement, presided over by someone like Lord Leverhulme, with his great reputation for public life in that part of the world, is assured of support and success.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his remarks and to endorse all that he has said. This is a national festival enjoyed by all groups in the community—there is little doubt of that.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the race course and the centre have been actually put in price by Messrs. Topham, or is that subject for negotiation?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, at present, that is subject to negotiation.

TRANSPORT BILL
4.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 73, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Since we are in Committee, I will begin by taking back two statements that I made as recently as moving the last Amendment. I suggested that since Amendments 142 143 and 144 all dealt with hotels, but with different aspects of the provision of hotels, they should be moved separately. But since then we have had a long debate on Amendment 142, on the principles lying behind all three Amendments. So, with the permission of the Committee, it might be convenient if we could deal with Amendments 143 and 144 together. We do not propose to press these Amendments to a vote and will treat them as probing Amendments. Second, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was quite right in the reference he gave me. The question of railway hotels was discussed in the House of Commons Committee, so I must withdraw what I said earlier.
Clause 50(3), on page 73 of the Bill, seeks to give a limited power to the Waterways Board, to the National Bus Company and to the Scottish Transport Group "to provide and manage hotels"

195
in places where people who use their services require them. So this is a power analogous to the power given to the railways in the 1962 Act. It was with some relief that I found, on reading this clause of the Bill, that not all the new Authorities are included. Where is the National Freight Corporation? They do not have this power. So we can at least take some consolation that there are to be no State-owned resthouses for tired truck drivers. I believe that there are two small hotels originally owned by bus companies which will pass to the Scottish Group, so some sort of provision is needed in the Bill. But we must ask whether the Waterways Board really needs a power to run hotels? As the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has said, it will of course depend on the use which is made of the powers. But if there is a power in a Bill there is an encouragement for somebody to act in a way in which he might not otherwise act.
The other point I want to put to the Government is the question what is or is not a hotel. This relates to Clause 50(4). Noble Lords who have listened to this debate may have thought that they had a fairly good idea of what a hotel is. But subsection (4) tells us it is not only what we normally understand by a hotel but is
"any other form of residential accommodation or facilities, including caravan and camping sites, for travellers or persons on holiday …"
Here again, we require information from the Minister as to the reasons for such a wide definition. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his opening remarks, and for confirming the correctness of the information with which I was provided. I may say that I did not do my own research on the matter.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord is lucky.
LORD HUGHES: This is a relatively simple matter, I do not think the noble Lord is seriously asking me to attempt to introduce another Amendment on Report to bring in facilities for hotels or transport cafés for N.F.C. drivers. Looking at Amendments 143 and 144, I do not wish to suggest that we are reinterpreting "hotel". A hotel is a hotel,
196
and a caravan site is a caravan site. We are seeking to make it possible for these varied activities, some types of which are more likely to occur than others in particular areas, to be undertaken by the Waterways Board, the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group. The reference which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made to the hotels owned by what will be the Scottish Transport Group is correct. I am not aware that there is any similar by-law for the waterways, but having regard to the recreational use which we propose should be made of the waterways, some facilities for caravans or camping sites might be particularly appropriate. Not everybody who wants to use the waterways will necessarily want to spend all his time on them. People might think it reasonable to be on the waterways part of the time, and at other times to camp or to stay in a caravan, or even in a hotel by the waterways if that was the best way to do it. We do not envisage that there will be any great or sudden expansion of these activities. It seems reasonable that all three industries, the Waterways, the Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group, should have the power to provide facilities of these kinds.
I do not accept the argument that when one gives powers of this kind people will rush to use them. These are bodies which in some cases, to put it mildly, have had difficulties in making ends meet. I think they will look with great caution on any new enterprises and will embark on them only when they are well persuaded that they will be of financial advantage to them. I would say to my noble friends who support this proposal with enthusiasm: Do not expect everything to happen overnight, or that there will necessarily be any great mass of activities under this head. All we seek to do is to make it possible for it to be done where it is obviously the correct thing to do. Inevitably, this must be (it is appropriate for me, as a member of the Fabian Society, to say this) a policy of gradualism.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Would the noble Lord consider for "hotel" inserting the word "spital"? It might make the meaning clearer.
LORD HUGHES: It would be clear to the noble Viscount and myself; I am

197
not so sure that it would help the Front Bench generally.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Does the noble Lord not now think that it is a good thing that your Lordships have brought the powers conferred in subsection (2) into line with the powers conferred in subsection (3)?
LORD HUGHES: If I thought for one moment that it was a good thing, I should feel that I had wasted my time in getting some Conservatives with me, in getting some Cross-Benchers with me, and in getting the Liberals to remain in the sanctuary of their Benches. I do not think I have wasted my time. I just feel that the Front Bench opposite are not prepared to recognise the facts of life.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 73, line 23, leave out ("provide") and insert ("arrange for the provision of")
The noble Lord said: In this Amendment we leave the subject of hotels. Clause 50(5) is concerned with the powers of the Waterways Board and has nothing to do with hotels. Subsection (5) authorises the Board to provide, with the consent of the Minister, road transport services for the carriage of goods. This is an additional power. Under the 1962 Act there is already power to provide road transport for the carriage of goods which are intended to be carried by inland waterways for part of their journey, or when there has been a temporary interruption of the inland waterways service.
It is difficult to envisage what circumstances this subsection is intended to cover. In practice I suppose it is likely to be confined to the incidental carriage of goods not concerned with the Waterways Board's main business of moving goods through the inland waterway network. If this is the case, rather than set up its own road transport undertaking, we believe that there would be advantages in entering into hire agreements with hauliers or other road transport operators to provide this service as and when it may be needed. Otherwise the chances of an under-utilized fleet of inland waterways-owned road vehicles seems a possible consequence of the clause.
LORD HUGHES: This is not a matter of ideological conflict, and I am sure the noble Lord will be satisfied with what I propose to say. An Amendment similar to this was one of a series discussed in Committee in another place, and after an explanation by my honourable friend the Minister of State, to the effect that there was no intention that the Waterways Board should go into the road haulage business, the Amendment was withdrawn. I would emphasise that there is no question of the Waterways Board desiring to embark on road haulage activities of more than a modest scale. Section 10(3)(c) of the 1962 Act has proved to be unduly restrictive in practice. For example, it has had the effect of preventing the Waterways Board from serving with its own goods vehicles some warehouses which were formerly served by the goods vehicles of the waterways division of the British Transport Commission.
The purpose of Clause 50(5) is to modify these restrictions so as to enable the Waterways Board to carry goods by road in its own vehicles, to or from its own warehouses, harbours, docks or ether waterway facilities, irrespective of whether the goods have been, or are to be, carried by the Board by inland waterways. In some cases the goods may be carried by inland waterway for part of their journey; in others they may not. The new proposed provision will make for flexibility in the Board's commercial operations. This is no more than a rationalisation of the Board's activity in this field and it will be expected to operate on sound commercial principles.
The limitation of the scope of its activities will be determined by the requirements built into Clause 50(5) to the effect that the Board must obtain the Minister's consent before providing road transport services. The Board will have to comply with current road traffic licensing procedures. It is envisaged that the Minister will give his general consent to the limited extension of the Board's facilities which I have already described, to avoid numerous specific but essentially similar requests. There may a so be isolated instances where the Board will wish to provide a particular service beyond the limits of the general consent, and the broad terms in which the subsection is drawn will allow the Minister

199
to consider such cases on their merits. These broad terms will also allow the Minister to consider giving general consent to a somewhat wider exercise of these powers if future circumstances should make this desirable. In view of this, I hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: There is no great difference of principle between us here. The only point I should like to press a little further is the question of utilisation. I can see that it might be convenient for the Waterways Board to have its own vehicles for its own purposes. If the 1962 legislation was too restrictive, it makes sense that it should be relaxed. Would the noble Lord look into the utilisation of these vehicles? The Minister has to give his permission, and one would hope he will satisfy himself that there is a real need. This would happen in the railways anyway, because there is a mandatory review of organisation. The McKinsey Company has been called in by the Railways Board, and this is the sort of question they will be looking into. So far as I know, there is no similar obligation on the Waterways Board to undertake any review of this kind.
LORD HUGHES: I will direct the Minister's attention to the question the noble Lord has put to me.
LORD WINDLESHAM: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Subsidiaries and joint subsidiaries]:
On Question, Whether Clause 51 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have two questions to put on this Clause. The first relates to subsection (2) and deals with the compulsory acquisition of land. Section 15(1) of the Transport Act 1962 says:
"Subject to this section, the Minister may authorise any Board to purchase compulsorily any land in Great Britain which they require for the purpose of their business."
200
This subsection in the Bill authorises wholly owned subsidiaries of the Boards and the new authorities, that is the National Bus Company, the Freight Corporation and the Scottish Transport Group, to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of their business, subject to the Minister's consent. The Minister may authorise them to do so, too. I do not know what the intention of the subsection is, but it seems extremely undesirable.
LORD HUGHES: I was not aware that I was to be asked a question on this subsection. I am now under the disadvantage that I have not heard the first part of the noble Lord's remarks, and I have no clue to what he is talking about.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was well aware of that, and I was about to try to hide it discreetly. However the noble Lord has exposed the facts. I was dealing with Clause 51(2), in particular with the power to acquire land compulsorily. This subsection says:
"For the purposes of paragraphs (d), (f), (g) and (h) of section 14(1) of the Act of 1962 … land required for the purposes of the business of a wholly owned subsidiary of such an authority, shall be deemed to be … land required for the purposes of … that authority."
It seems that it is undesirable to have a profusion of different bodies throughout the country with powers of acquisition. Where the Minister authorises compulsory purchase of land will that purchase be carried out by the Board or the new authorities and not through a profusion of subsidiaries? I think this will he confusing to the people and, quite frankly, apart from anything else, very unpopular. So I hope the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance on that.
The second point deals with subsection (3), and this relates to Section 27(1) of the 1962 Act. I touched on this point yesterday in the course of the debate. Section 27(1) says:
"The Minister may, after consultation with any Board, give to that Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Board of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest."
Clause 51 of the Bill says:
"This section"—
meaning Clause 51—
"applies to the following authorities, namely, the Boards and the new authorities".

201
Then, subsection (3) says:
"In section 27(1) of the Act of 1962 (which empowers the Minister or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State to give directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by arty authority to whom this section applies"—
that presumably means this clause—
"of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest)…",
and then it adds further words. Looking through this Bill I have not been able to find any place where Section 27(1) is applied to the new Authorities, and I find this peculiarly confusing. I wonder whether subsection (3) is intended to apply to the new Authorities, and if so, where it is applied. It certainly is not applied in subsection (3).
LORD ST. HELENS: May I ask the Minister one short question on this? Where one of the Authorities or one of the subsidiaries wish to acquire land by compulsion, before they apply to the Minister for compulsion do they have to go through the routine of getting planning permission or not?
LORD HUGHES: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for having gone out when he started to put these questions. It was a misunderstanding on my part. I thought that when I had dealt with Clause 50 I was temporarily "off the leash", but apparently I am concerned with the next ones also.
In reply to the first question—whether it will be the Board or the new Authority and not the subsidiary which the Minister will authorise to do the compulsory purchase—the answer is, "Yes". Unfortunately, it does not take me nearly so long to answer the question as it took the noble Lord to put it, and it takes my friends in the Box longer to write the answers than it takes me to read them. The second one is on the way. Clause 52(3) applies Section 27 of the 1962 Act to the new Authorities. For those of your Lordships who are not accustomed to our way of dealing with these matters, perhaps I may say that I have never felt there was any advantage to your Lordships, when dealing with a Department which is not my own, to pretend that I have everything at my fingertips, because in any event your Lordships would very speedily realise that that was not the
202
case. However, I hope I have provided the noble Lord with the answers he wanted to the questions he asked. I do not have the answer to the question which the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, asked—whether the Authorities have to have planning permission in advance of an application to the Minister—but perhaps he would permit me to pass the answer on to him in due course.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Provisions with respect to Holding Company]:
On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.54 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: I should be glad if my noble friend Lord Hughes could tell us, under Clause 53, what is likely to be the future of Thomas Cook & Son. Having looked at the Bill, it seems to me that practically the only thing that will be left with the Holding Company will be Thomas Cook & Son. Nowhere in the Bill does it appear to be obvious where it is going, or under what sort of conditions it is going to operate. It is a very large organisation, and a very large group of staff is affected. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could tell us what is their future, if it has reference to this clause.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): Yes, I am able to help my noble friend on this matter. At the moment, the future of Thomas Cook & Son, together with three other elements of the Transport Holding Company, is not yet decided. It is, of course, under discussion. Thomas Cook & Son is a very important unit (the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, mentioned it yesterday) and it does not fit easily into any other aspect of the work of the new bodies we are setting up. For this reason, the future of Thomas Cook & Son is not yet certain, and of course the Transport Holding Company must remain in existence until such time as its future is in fact decided.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Supplementary provisions as to certain transfers of property, rights and liabilities]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This Amendment is in fact self-explanatory. Since the original draft of the Transport Bill the Ministry of Labour has been re-baptised, and now for "Minister of Labour" we must read "Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity". Then, when we come to Amendment No. 147, for "Minister" we need to insert "Secretary of State". These alterations are consequential upon changes in legislative procedures. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 208, line 26, leave out (Minister of Labour") and insert ("Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 147.
Amendment moved—
Page 208, line 27, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Secretary of State").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask a general question? I think that possibly a fairly important matter arises here. Can the noble Lord say on what principle the capital debt will be fixed? Will there be any measure of writing off? Could this be done without special Parliamentary sanction, or will the Minister's choice as to what the amount of capital debt in each case should be in fact be pretty well circumscribed by the valuations placed on the assets? I hope I have made myself clear, but I think it is an important matter of principle that when we start off these new bodies their capital debt should be a realistic reflection of their assets and liabilities.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am afraid I am not able to give the noble Lord that information at this moment. With his permission, I will write fully to him on it.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Railway closures]:
5.0 p.m.
LORD HANKEY LORD HANKEY moved Amendment No. 147AA:
Page 79, line 18, at end insert ("users of the services in question and any body representing such users, as well as")
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I speak in effect as a commuter. I should like to say that, because of a closure proposal, we almost lost an essential railway line in Kent and Surrey last year. We were only just able to save it. I believe it is essential that, before any proposal for railway closure is approved by the Minister, the users of the railway should be fully consulted. We had some considerable discussion about consultation with users yesterday, and I was sorry that some of the suggestions made were not approved. But in the case of an actual closure it is important that the interest of the users should be properly considered. In this connection it could be argued—and no doubt will he argued by the Government—that the reference in subsection (1) to subsection (8) and (10) of Section 56 of the 1962 Act covers consultation with the users. But as paragraphs (a) and (b) are now drafted it does not appear to the unitiated that the users are given full consideration. Therefore, I should like to suggest that we insert a specific reference to the interest of the users, even though it is not, in a strictly legal context, vitally essential.
When I say "users" I should like to say that I am thinking not only of the persons who go to London or Croydon, or any other of our great cities, in order to work and to go home at night, but also of the companies affected, the organisations, the institutions, the schools, the schoolchildren or the parents' associations. And I am thinking of the local and other authorities who are not always considered as they might be and who make extensive use of the railways. In the interests of the users of the railways, I beg to move this Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: We believe that this Amendment is unnecessary because of the provisions that exist at present in Section 56(8) of the Transport Act 1962, which subsection (1) of the present clause does not repeal but to which it adds further conditions. Section

205
56(8) provides that where any user or body representing users of a service which is proposed to be withdrawn make an objection to the Transport Users Consultative Committee the closure shall not be proceeded with until the Committee has reported to the Minister and the Minister has given his consent. In the past this procedure has ensured ample time for consideration of users' views, first by the Consultative Committees and then by the Minister. There is no need to give them further statutory protection. That is what we believe, and I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that this strengthens rather than weakens the present position.
LORD ST. HELENS: May I intervene on this subject? The noble Lord will remember that some time ago, when the Conservative Party were in power, it was proposed to close certain sections of the railway. I can assure the noble Lord that the users, through their M.P.s, made a colossal "song and dance" over any section of railway that was going to be closed down; and the M.P.s (irrespective of on which s de of the House they sat) were not reticent in expressing their views very loudly in the House of Commons on behalf of their constituents.
LORD HANKEY: The trouble is that as the Act of 1962 is drafted, the consultative committees can take consideration only of hardship; unless hardship can be proved they cannot recommend that the railway line in question should not be closed. That is a very restrictive interpretation. If the noble Lord can assure me that the reference in Clause 54(1) to "social or economic considerations" does, in fact, broaden the relevant sections in the 1962 Act, I shall be happy not to press this Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am able to give the noble Lord that assurance.
LORD HANKEY: I thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 147AB:
Page 81, line 15, at end insert—
(" () Section 56(7) of the Act of 1962 be amended by the insertion in the second line of subsection (7) after the words 'passenger services' of the words 'or freight service'.")
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment—and I believe it is a substantial one—is to place upon the Railways Board the same obligations in relation to freight service closure proposals as at present apply in the case of proposals for closure of passenger services —the procedure for which come, as the noble Lord knows, under Section 56 of the 1962 Act. Section 56(7) says that any proposal for the closure of a passenger service must, in the first place, be fully advertised, with details of the proposal and details of alternative services. It sets out when and to whom objections to the proposal should be lodged and requires that copies of the notice be sent to the appropriate Area Committee. The objectors state their grievances and the losses they would suffer through the closure—but they are confined to hardship.
But when it comes to closure proposals for freight services no such procedure under the 1962 Act has to be gone through. In fact, the Railways Board at present have complete power to close freight services without any prior notification to either the users or the T.U.C.C. They also have complete power, I believe, to reduce a freight service, again without reference to the T.U.C.C. In this Bill, under Clause 55, for the first time the principle that freight services should be considered by the T.U.C.C. has been accepted by the Government. I am grateful for that; but it confines itself narrowly to the National Freight Corporation and the services that it will operate, and states that in future the quality of service provided for the National Freight Corporation may be considered by the T.U.C.C. This apparently still leaves open, so far as freight services are concerned, the question of the Railways Board's freight services. They are still free to reduce the quality of service, and, indeed, are free to remove that service altogether.
The freight services and the freight tonnage on railways since the war have, as the Committee will know, been a very disappointing feature of the railways. In fact, in other countries from 1939 until now freight traffic has increased. In Japan it has increased by 2,500 per cent.; in Switzerland, by 400 per cent.; in France, by 250 per cent., and in Britain by only 2 per cent. In the last two years freight tonnage has decreased approximately by 5 per cent. a year. One of the

207
reasons for this, I suggest, has been the way that private sidings and their use has been neglected. Their numbers have declined dramatically over the past seven years—from approximately 5,900 to 3,700, a drop of some 40 per cent. In other countries, private sidings are used to full advantage. In France alone in the last five years, there has been an increase of 3,200 in the number of private sidings. Three-quarters of the railway freight traffic in France never reaches the streets; 90 per cent. of it generates from these private sidings.
Many people, I believe, are not happy about the Railways Board's wagon fleet policy; and I understand that it is intended to reduce it even further. I know many cases where the railways have had to turn away would-be users—fruit growers from Wisbech, a brick-making plant in Peterborough, sugar beet producers from King's Lynn, potato growers in Scotland, a tin mine in Devon—all of which business was turned away by the Railways Board because they did not have sufficient wagons. I believe that when the Board either reduces rail freight facilities or removes them altogether hardship is often caused to existing customers, many of whom may be small businessmen. I believe it would do no harm and only good if such cases of hardship were examined by the T.U.C.C. I am sure that what the users would like to see is not an examination in retrospect, but the consideration of a proposal to reduce a service before that actually happened.
I am sure that the Government accept the principle of my Amendment. As I have said, they have gone a few yards in the right direction by the provisions in Clause 55. I suggest, therefore, that it is not illogical that the Railways Board also should come within the examination of the T.U.C.C., as the National Freight Corporation will have to.
5.12 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I wish to raise a rather different point from that raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I support the policy of British Rail of closing branch lines, as they have done and are doing. It seems to me wrong that there should be these heavy losses because of the inadequate use of assets. We all know that a great deal
208
of heat is generated, and emotions raised, when a branch line is closed. Some of this emotion might be removed, and perhaps less heat generated, if what appears to me to be a defect in present legislation were removed. I refer to the procedure now in operation in connection with the closure of branch lines. It seems to me that the discussion on this Amendment provides a suitable opportunity for me to say what I wish to say.
In certain cases—not, of course, in all —I should like to see the operation over short distances of a miniature railway, instead of a full gauge line. Obviously, this could not be done by British Rail because their organisation and set-up is not suitable. Quite a number of branch lines, extending perhaps, up to 12 or 15 miles, could be operated successfully by local interests, perhaps supported by a preservation society. This would be possible because of lower capital costs of equipment and far lower operational costs. If you compare the operation of a heavy vehicle with a mini-car or a motor-cycle you get a reasonable sort of comparison. If a motor-cycle or a mini-motor car can do what has been done by a heavy vehicle, there is no point in running a heavy vehicle. At present, anyone who wishes to run a miniature railway cannot do so until the branch line has been closed. The difficulty is that when British Rail say, "We wish to close this line", there are, naturally, objections. Then there is a big inquiry procedure, and the whole affair may be drawn out, perhaps for two or three years.
I speak from personal experience in this matter. I have wanted to approach British Rail to say: "You are about to close a line. Will you allow me, in collaboration with others, to operate a miniature railway on the line, either by leasing or selling the line to us?". I understand that British Rail have no such powers until they have been through all the inquiry procedure, and then there are certain legal requirements to be complied with. This is not a case of living in "Cloud Cuckoo-land". I happen to be the director of the Ravenglass and Eskdale Miniature Railway. I and others, with a preservation society, took this railway over a few years ago when it was up for sale, and we now operate it at a profit. Last year we carried

209
170,000 people; this year we shall carry 200,000. Until recently we carried quite a lot of freight from certain quarries, but these have now closed.
This miniature railway, operating on a gauge of 15-inches, carries people in comfort and at some 20 miles an hour. A trainload would consist of perhaps 200 people. It is a very satisfactory service, run for ordinary purposes up the Eskdale Valley; and, of course, many people who go to the area for fun and games thoroughly enjoy riding on the miniature railway. I am asking whether it is possible to make provision somewhere in this Bill for people who so desire to run a miniature railway on a branch line which British Rail may want to close because it is too expensive for them to run. Would it not be possible to make it easy for such individuals to approach British Rail and say: "We want to run a miniature railway on this line which you are going to close. Can we enter into negotiations?"? At present such people cannot do that because all this procedure has to be gone through but if it could be done, I think that a good many of the present difficulties, emotions and anxieties over the closing of branch lines would be removed and it would be possible for local interests to run a very satisfactory and efficient public service along such lines to the great advantage of everybody concerned. So I hope that somewhere in the Bill, if it is not covered by this Amendment, it will be possible to alter the present arrangement which makes it so difficult for local interests to run a miniature line, should they wish to do so, and keep a public service going profitably instead of at great cost to the taxpayer.
LORD SOMERS: With due respect I wish to differ slightly from my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal. When a branch line is closed the permanent way already exists. If you are going to have a narrow-gauge railway you would have to lay an entirely new line, and this would raise the cost enormously. There is the other question of the transport of goods. A branch line would presumably be connected to the main line, and therefore a goods wagon could be run from the branch line on to the main line. This could not be done from a narrow-gauge line. I suggest, therefore, that the
210
wisest course would be to retain the present gauge.
I would press the Government t o make it possible for independent bodies to buy these "cast-off" branches. My noble friend talked about emotions being raised, but it is more than emotion. There is very hard feeling and resentment when one's transport is cut off. In thinly built-up areas there are bound to be branch lines that do not pay very well. The great thing is for the rest of the railways to be sufficiently well-off to be able to carry these branch lines; but where they are being closed I suggest that they should be offered to anyone—not merely to the local authority—and sold at a reasonable price.
I have been in communication with a Mr. O. H. Prosser, of Bristol, who is an authority on railways, and he tells me regarding the Clevedon branch, which was closed down recently, that
"It was not possible to make progress with the Clevedon scheme because, first, the price quoted was some £37.000, an outrageous one for 3¾ miles and, secondly, the Ministry were unsympathetic as they wanted to avoid building a bridge to take the projected M.5 Motorway over the line".
If one is going to throw something away in any event, one does not ask an outrageous price if somebody wants to buy it. If I am going to throw away an old chair and someone comes along and wants to buy it, I do not say, "Yes, you can have it for £5,500." That seems to me an obstructive attitude on the part of the Government and I hope that if necessary they will allow these lines to be purchased by individual bodies.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: If the noble Lords, Lord Wakefield of Kendal and Lord Somers, will permit me, I should prefer to answer the interesting points they have raised in conjunction with the next Amendment, which covers these points, and perhaps that will save the Committee's time. In answer to the noble Earl, we believe that the Amendment as at present drafted would place an intolerable and unjustifiable extra burden on the Board's management flexibility. Then I should like to say something, which doubtless I shall repeat this afternoon. A new period is opening in front of the British railway system. It is intended that it should become economically profitable and fully competitive,

211
operating under normal commercial conditions. It will no longer be asked to provide our society as a whole with certain social services free. If the Board are asked to do certain jobs which they know are unprofitable, they will have the right to demand to be paid for those services. So we are hoping that this Bill, when it is completed and all arrangements have been worked out, will give us a fully competitive railway system, capable of working economically in competition with other forms of transport.
After listening to the noble Earl, I believe that that is what he too wishes. He is a friend to the railways and hopes to see them working successfully and profitably. Unfortunately, the carriage of freight from, say, a remote tin mine in Cornwall, as the noble Earl mentioned, or to a sugar beet factory in Peterborough, a case I know well, does not necessarily justify the continued existence of a branch line that is used only at irregular intervals or for limited parts of the year. For this reason we believe that the railways, particularly in the field of freight, must be fully competitive, fitting the rail network to the current need. Their main competitor, road haulage, is not to be subject to these new procedures suggested by the noble Earl. I think that we would all agree that the railways, struggling as they are to make themselves viable, should not carry handicaps which the road transport industry does not carry. We believe that the imposition of these duties and additional considerations before a freight service is closed down would impede the Railways Board's future competitive capability and would not serve any real social purpose.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for the noble Lord's reply, although naturally I am disappointed. I do not wish to press this Amendment but I think that I should say this. I am sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Stonham, are not here, because in 1962 they took a very different view from the one expressed by the noble Lord now. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 147AC:
Page 81, line 15, at end insert—
(" () When the Minister has given consent to the withdrawal of any railway passenger or freight service under the provisions of Section 56 of the 1962 Act (as amended) the Board shall not, without the previous written consent of the Minister first being had and obtained

(a) dispose of any of the works or assets of the said line;

(b) take any action which might prejudice the Board or any other authorised Authority from taking over and resuming operation of the railway passenger or freight service in question.

() (a) In the event of the Minister's written consent having been given as set out in clause 51(6) of this Act, the Board shall, before giving effect to such consent be required to give first refusal of the sale of such works or assets to any person or body corporate who is willing to provide an adequate public rail service over the line of route of the service in question, the price to be charged for the sale of such assets and other terms of sale to be a matter of negotiation between such person or body corporate and the Board;
(b) in the event of such person or body corporate wishing to operate a service being dissatisfied with the terms offered by the Board for the sale of such works or assets, the Board shall be obliged to notify the Minister of such dispute and the Minister shall then refer the dispute to arbitration in the manner prescribed by the Arbitration Act 1950, and the matter shall be decided by a single arbitrator appointed by the Minister under this section, who will then proceed in the manner as laid down by that Act;
(c) the provisions of Sections 51(6) and (7) of this Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to any proposals for discontinuing navigation by the Waterways Board, whether for commercial carrying or for cruising, on any canal or waterway in accordance with the provisions of Section 123 to 128 of this Act.")
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment has largely been discussed already by the noble Lords, Lord Wakefield of Kendal and Lord Somers, to whom I am very grateful. It is to lay down more specifically the duty of the Railways Board in regard to the future disposal of track, equipment and formations following the closure of a particular line. The Committee, I am sure, will recall that in the youthful days of this Government there was a certain amount of indecision about what would happen to disused railway lines. Mr. Fraser, the first Minister, announced that no track or equipment could be taken up without his specific consent. Later Mrs. Castle, his successor, announced that the equipment and track could be sold without reference to her but the Ministry's consent would be required for any sale

213
of railway lard or formation. I think that I am correct in saying that that is the present position regarding this matter. The Railways Board's policy, when they come to selling disused railway land or tracks, is to give first refusal to the local authorities through whose area the railway line goes. This procedure has prevented a number of independent groups who had planned to take a line over and run it for the benefit of the travelling public from doing so, because a vital piece of the land had already been sold to a local authority.
The noble Lord will have noted that under paragraph (a) the Amendment sets out that, where a local group or local authority wish to take over a railway service, such a group may be given by the Railways Board first option for the land. In the event of disagreement over the value of the land, the matter would be referred to arbitration. I think that this is important. I know myself of cases, one in Wales, where considerable had feeling was caused by the Board's deliberately—or apparently deliberately —offering a line at a ridculous price. It may be argued that the Amendment is not practical. It could be asked, "Who on earth would want to purchase and take over a non-viable asset from the railways?" That is best answered by quoting the case of the Southampton—Le Havre ferry service, which the Railways Board closed down in 1963 because they said they could never make this service pay. I believe that over the years prior to that their losses were over £1 million. This ferry was taken over by the Norwegian company Thorensen, which in 18 months is making a profit and the service has proved so successful that it has been expanded. I think that this example emphasises the importance of the assets of the railways being disposed of and used properly. I beg to move.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I am sufficiently acquainted with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to know that he is a pretty good authority on railway matters, and therefore I will try to be careful in speaking to his suggested Amendment. I think that, before this Amendment is accepted, it should be shown that the Railways Board are not going to be subjected to a series of delays in disposing of assets which they
214
regard as non-viable. Incidentally, I suggest that the example of the passenger packet services from Southampton to Le Havre is hardly applicable to branch lines.
In the case of these branch lines there is a serious consideration once it has been decided to discontinue the service, because attaching to them are always a great many maintenance expenses which can be very costly. For example, on many of them there are bridges; across roads which may be a hundred years old or more, which are already too narrow, and which the railway would like to get rid of as quickly as it can. There are also level crossings which have perhaps become a source of danger to the public, and something should be done about them at once. If the procedure is to be made so laborious that the British Railways Board are going to be prevented from dealing with these things, then I think that is a serious matter.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I shall now reply to the noble Earl's Amendment and the points made by tae two noble Lords who have spoken on the last Amendment. I can only agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, speaking as he does with great experience of operating railways. The whole essence of the problem is that we do not want to inflict on the Railways Board further delays beyond those which are already imposed upon them. If consent is given to the closure of a rail service and the Minister agrees that the route formation can be disposed of, the Railways Board are required to give first refusal to the appropriate local authority. It would not be appropriate, after the Minister has examined the need for a service in great detail, after receiving the advice of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, to compel the Railways Board to offer the route to some other body who might or might not eventually be prepared to provide a rail service. Such matters must remain within the commercial management responsibility of the Board.
But I should hasten to make the following point, which is a reply to the noble Lords, Lord Wakefield and Lord Somers. The Railways Board are free, after the line has been closed, to dispose

215
of the route to a miniature railway society after first offering it to the local authority; that is to say, this Bill does not preclude this course of action from taking place. But the miniature railway society has to convince the Railways Board of the economic viability of its offer, and the Railways Board must be permitted to judge the issues in terms of its own commercial interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has pointed out, these commercial interests might lead to its being forced to rebuild certain bridges which are completely obsolete and perhaps dangerous. This is, I think, the answer to the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Somers.
If the Railways Board say, "Yes; we will sell you three miles of track at a very high figure", this really means it is a protective device for them. If somebody is willing to pay a foolish price for the piece of track, they are covered against all risks of future expenditure arising out of this sale. So it may be a blocking response, but one cannot deny the Railways Board the right to make such a blocking response. That is really the reason why we are opposed to the proposals. The Board are under ministerial control in this matter. I think it is absolutely correct that the local authority, which is also, presumably, the planning authority, should have the right to the first refusal of the facilities which will be thrown up by the closing of a length of railway; and when that is all over, if a miniature railway society or anyone else wishes to purchase that length of line, and if they can convince the Railways Board, and offer the proper price, then they can buy it and there is nothing to stop them. That is the reason why we are resisting this particular Amendment.
I might say that paragraph (c) of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl might be more properly dealt with under Part VII of the Bill rather than here, because that Part deals comprehensively with the operations of the waterways. Perhaps a discussion later on this point might be more valuable.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I am fully knowledgeable of the difficulties which the noble Lord has quite correctly described, and to which the noble Lord,
216
Lord Robertson, referred, about liabilities for bridges, railway crossings, fences and all such matters. But I think the noble Lord has it wrong. What I am proposing is not further delay, but to try to speed matters up. What I should like to see is that as soon as a full gauge railway ceases, a miniature railway line is put in operation. When the Railways Board are contemplating a closure, I want them to let it be known, and if any responsible body of people, with adequate finances and full knowledge of the liabilities of the particular line available to it, is willing to run a miniature railway, to make it known that they would gladly negotiate with it for sale, leasing, or whatever is most appropriate in the public interest.
Therefore, I am not suggesting delay but a speeding up of matters. I think the noble Lord must have misunderstood me. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has pointed out the delays that take place; and I entirely agree that the delays which take place in closing a branch line are quite intolerable. But what I want to see is a speeding up in this procedure. If only British Rail, when they are considering closing a line, could let it be known that they are willing to negotiate at once with a responsible body of people, I believe there would be a speed up in getting a miniature railway into operation on a line, and there would be no need to close it. I hope that this question will be looked at again by the Government. Perhaps I did not make myself wholly clear before, but I hope that with this further explanation I have done so now.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, and for the noble Lord's reply, and particularly for the kind remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. My knowledge of the subject is not at all extensive. This was mainly a probing Amendment, but I suggest to the Government that a good reason for the Amendment is the question of amenity grounds and land use, because if you have a railway line already there, and its break up is in question, possibly houses could be put on part of it and farmers could take over other parts. There is a serious problem with disused railway stations—many of them litter

217
the countryside and are proving unsightly —and it is one that the Railways Board will have to face. I do not wish to press this Amendment, and therefore beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL, OF KINNOULL THE EARL, OF KINNOULL moved Amendment ND. 147AD:
Insert the following new Clause—
("Where the National interest and/or important National regional or local interests require it or where the Minister is satisfied that replacement omnibus services are not adequately dealing with hardship arising out of a previous consent to discontinue all railway passenger services from any station or from any line or are contributing substantially to road congestion in a particular area or are otherwise not satisfactorily dealing with a particular problem the Minister may, provided that the line or portion of line referred to and in any consent having previously been given under sections 56(7) and 56(11) of the Act of 1962 (as amended) are still in existence

(a) revoke his consent;

(b) direct the Board to re-open any station or line or to resume rail passenger services on any line from a specified date;

(c) substantially amend any consent previously given under the hand of any Minister of Transport whether under the provisions of the Act of 1962 or any previous enactments dealing with the closure, withdrawal or discontinuance of rail passenger services and whether the previous enactment has since been repealed or not;

(d) direct the Board to provide improved services required by any Ministry of State arising out of any previous consent given by any Minister of Transport, whether under the Act of 1962 (as amended) or any previous enactment;

(e) provide that in respect of any reopening, resumption or improvement of services specified in subsections (a) to (d) above he may, if he is satisfied that the re-opening, resumption or improvement will be wholly, or for a time, unremunerative, invoke the provisions of section 36 of this Act and subject to the consent in that Section provided agree to undertake to make a grant for such period not exceeding three years as he shall think fit and to impose such conditions as he may think necessary.")

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Minister power to reopen railway lines which, owing to a change in the economic and social conditions of any one particular area, become of more benefit to users than they were in the past. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is
218
not present because he has a special knowledge of this. In 1964, before the General Election, the Labour Party made some useful political propaganda about what they would do with all the closures and the closure proposals that were made following the Beeching Report. As I understood it, the gist was that no further closures would take place until a proper integrated survey had been made.
Within a few months of taking office the Government, I think rightly, were asked why they were not keeping faith with their undertaking and why further closures were taking place. The Minister's reply at that stage was:
"I am advised I have no power under the Transport Act 1962 to withdraw consent given or to insist on the restoration of a service already withdrawn."
Later, the Prime Minister was asked a similar question on the subject of a specific line closure and he expressed regret at the lack of powers. He said:
"When this Government took over the decision taken by the then Minister under the terms of the 1962 Act we could not halt the closure which had already been decided."
In order to assist the Government in their dilemma a Private Members' Bill was introduced in another place, and in fact in this House as well, in 1965, which would have simply given the Minister powers to reopen lines. The Bill was rejected by the Government, who then stated—and here I quote the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who at that time was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport:
"The power"—
that is, the power to reopen—
"is not there by Act of Parliament, but not everything is done by Act of Parliament. My right honourable friend is fully satisfied that, if it became necessary to reopen a line, when in fact a consent had already been given, he could negotiate with the Railways Board for it to be re-opened—always provided that the Railways Board were satisfied that they would get their return on it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/5/65, c. 995.]
So the Minister was satisfied that they could reopen a railway line, so long as the Railways Board agreed and that it was profitable.
But what about the socially necessary lines? Under this Bill we have a different concept. It is understood that the needs of transport are changing almost yearly and that there is a need to ease

219
traffic congestion. In my opinion, the policy of closure has never reduced the deficit—in fact it has simply cut away the feeder lines of the main system, so reducing its viability. To give the Minister power under this Amendment to reconsider closures would simply be to acknowledge the changing needs of our transport system and to add more flexibility to the hands of the Minister. I beg to move.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I would ask my noble friend to give very serious consideration to this Amendment. Although it may not be couched in exactly the right terms, I hope he will not completely dismiss the idea from his mind but will consult with his Ministerial colleagues to see whether something can be done to meet the wishes of the noble Earl. Several branch lines have been closed down from time to time. In some cases the rails are still there, because when the branch lines were closed there was the possibility of new thinking taking place. I have in mind particularly certain East Coast resorts such as Bridlington, Hornsea and Withernsea, and the possibility of people in the West Riding being able to go and enjoy the facilities of those seaside resorts.
Some of these branch lines have been closed completely, others are under sentence of death, and only the other weekend one of the lines in the Bridlington area carried traffic amounting to the value of something like £19,000. That line is under sentence of death and has to close down before long. The York-Malton-Whitby line going through Goathland has been closed. The railway lines are still there and there has been tremendous pressure to have the line reopened, particularly from the children living in the Goathland area who have to attend school in Whitby. They are pressing for special trains, particularly in snowy and inclement weather.
This is the type of case where the Minister has from time to time indicated that there is a case for some reconsideration of the decision to close these branch lines. But in the past the Government have always said that they have no authority to overrule a previous Ministerial decision. Now we are seeing the
220
tremendous growth of traffic that has taken place in many of these coastal resorts. Motor cars and coaches are finding it impossible to find parking space anywhere. One has to drive round and round searching for a place to park. The general public feel extremely dissatisfied when, in trying to take the opportunity of getting a breath of sea air into their lungs during their industrial life, they find they are prevented from going by rail because of the inadequate services.
We know that, strictly speaking, from an accountability point of view, the Railways Board can put up a case for their action. Very often the financial provisions on which the Railways Board have assessed their position has been subjected to severe criticism by certain outside authorities. I am not in a position to judge who is right and who is wrong. I know that when the Railways Board investigate these matters they do so most meticulously and carefully, but I think probably they are giving undue weight to the amount of repairs and maintenance needed to keep open some of these lines. Under this Bill, the Government could accept an obligation for certain financial responsibilities in regard to those sections of line which are required for social purposes or for purposes in connection with a development area. In such a case they agree that they will accept the implications involved and reimburse the Railways Board financially. Where the branch lines have already been closed the Minister cannot honour that obligation at all, because of the decision of his predecessor.
Another interesting point is that in addition to dealing with the question of the seaside resorts and the lovely trips by rail which run along some of the Dales, there is the position with regard to the development areas, because when it is wished to extend the scope of industrial areas certain difficulties arise so far as transport needs are concerned. In the Bridlington-Whitby area there is a certain amount of industrial development and at the present time the industrial traffic has to travel on roads which are not suited to it. If we seek to disperse our industries and not just concentrate them on given trading estates, possibly putting them out into the villages where a branch line has been running

221
in the past, there is the possibility that traffic could be best moved by rail. Where a case can be made out the Minister ought to have power to look again at what has taken place in the past, in the light of new evidence that may be submitted to him.
It may be that this particular Amendment is not ideally worded in that particular direction, but I sincerely trust that my noble friend, instead of turning this down completely, will give it some consideration with a view to discussing the matter again with the Ministries concerned to find out whether it is not possible at the Report stage to make certain suggestions that might meet the needs of all concerned.
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has made a valid distinction between the answer given by my noble friend Lord Lindgren and the point that he himself has made. Lord Lindgren made the point that the Board can act if the reopening of a line seems to be profitable, and I am certain that this would he the position to-day. The noble Earl goes on to ask about the situation where there is a change of mind by the regional planning authority and a line is now considered socially necessary. There is an objection to the actual proposal to give the Minister of Transport the proposed powers and to define them in the very clear manner of the noble Earl's Amendment. The trouble is that the introduction of this clause, we believe, would create public uncertainty and might lead to pressure for an impracticable and unrewarding exhumation of hundreds of past decisions at a time when the British Railways Board and the Minister have just stabilised the network and are looking to the future. We believe this might open the door a lot of argument and would cause delay and uncertainty in the planning of the rail network. But in fact Ministers have already assured another place, and I can repeat the assurance to-day, that whenever it becomes clear that passenger services on closed lines are needed, the Minister will ensure that they are provided. This assurance was given in reply to a question by Mr. Henig on August 10. 1966, the year of the noble Earl's own Bill.
There is another factor here to be borne in mind. The Minister's policy for re-
222
quiring preservation of the route for formation whenever there is a real likelihood of future need, and for specific grants, makes it even less likely that services could not in practice be restored if there were a good case for it. But this good case presumably would have to be dealt with by a regional planning authority and not by a group of individuals motivated by limited interests. Finally, on paragraph (e) of the noble Earl's Amendment —the question of passenger services which would be reopened but b known to be unremunerative—the Board would in any event be entitled to apply for a social grant under Clause 39 of the Bill. On that point the noble Earl's Amendment is trying to achieve a situation which already exists in the Bill. We are only rather afraid that to spell it out so clearly might cause unnecessary pressure on the Railways Board to reverse certain past decisions when in point of fact the present position is that there is no real risk of a route with a future potential being closed permanently.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for, but again disappointed with, the noble Lord's reply. The purpose of the Amendment really was to give the Minister what I would call reserve power. It was not a question of pressure on the Railways Board or delay, but simply a reserve power if it should ever be required. There was the case the other day on the Hope Valley line from Sheffield to Chinley which had been closed previously, and now I am advised by the July, 1968, issue of Modern Railways that the decision was rescinded because it was found it would cost more to subsidise a bus service than to keep the trains going. However, the noble Lord did give an assurance, which admittedly had been given in 1966, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Amendments as to Transport Consultative Committees]:
5.55 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment 147A:
Page 81, line 37, leave out r provided by the Waterways Board or".
The noble Lord said: If I have the permission of the Committee I should like to discuss this small group of

223
Amendments together. I think their importance will become clearer if I do so. The object of this group of Amendments is a simple one and I hope not very controversial. Their intention is to bring the consumer back to a position of some influence, and the method they are trying to use is to strengthen and put a little bit of go into the Transport Users' Consultative Committees. With all the controversy which has surrounded this enormous Bill, it must not be forgotten that finally its purpose is to help the people whom the transport serves, and if it fails to do this it does nothing. We have looked at it from this point of view in the Consumer Council. That is our business, and these few modest Amendments are put forward in the belief that this will help the Bill to carry out its true function, which is to provide an efficient service for people.
At the moment there are various omissions regarding what we think the Consultative Committees should have in their scope. In the first place, this Bill cuts out completely any reference to the Waterways Board; it cuts out any reference to the National Bus Company; it cuts out any reference in Scotland of the road passenger users. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out that it gave back something taken away; it allowed the Consultative Committees to be concerned with the National Freight Corporation. But, from the ordinary consumers' point of view, that is not nearly as big a concession as the exclusion of the bus companies. Secondly, the Consultative Committees have been limited since 1962, and this Bill does nothing to put their powers back, and they have been prevented from considering the only things which are really of primary interest to users of transport; that is, charges and the discontinuance or reduction of services.
I would say, at the risk of taking a minute of your Lordships' time, that it is worth looking at what happened to these Committees. They were set up under the 1947 Act to consider, and where necessary make representations in regard to, any matter, including charges, affecting services and facilities provided by the then British Transport Commission which was the subject of representations made by users or which appeared to them to be a matter to which consideration ought to
224
be given or which was referred to them for consideration by the Minister or the Commission; and those services and facilities provided by the Commission, included the nationalised main-line railways, London Transport, much of the road transport, docks, inland waterways and ancillary undertakings. We have no complaint about their position under the 1947 Act. But under the 1962 Act their powers were very considerably curtailed, and they were limited to the consideration of matters affecting the services and facilities of the four newly created Transport Boards, the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board, the Docks Board and the British Waterways Board. And they were excluded from consideration of those matters affecting the services and facilities of the subsidiaries of those Boards, and the services and facilities of the newly created Transport Holding Company, under which latter were placed nearly all nationalised road transport, both passenger and freight, and ancillary undertakings. They were excluded altogether from considering charges made for any services or facilities and any question relating to the discontinuance or reduction of railway services except in respect of the hardship angle of closures.
Your Lordships will see that this left them with very much less to do than they had before. So we think the time has come to ask that something should be done to put these powers back. I do not know what picture your Lordships have in your minds of Transport Users' Consultative Committees. Before I became involved in this clause I thought of them as groups of respected local citizens who used the various forms of transport of their area for themselves, their families and friends, and their businesses, and to whom any local citizen could appeal if he felt aggrieved about overcharging or the sudden cessation of services—or indeed anything else, but those were to be the main things.
This is not in fact the position. If we consider somebody who, to take an example, lives at Steeple Clayton, in my own area, and goes into Buckingham every morning by bus to get there by 9 o'clock, if for some reason best known to the authorities this bus service is curtailed he may go to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee and say to the secretary that this has occurred. The

225
secretary may say, "Well, sir, I am afraid the consideration of bus services is excluded from our particular province, and even if it had not been we could not have considered in any way the discontinuance or reduction of your services. I think probably the best thing you could do would be to write to Mr. Aubrey Jones. He has just done a very exhaustive study of transport charges and services and in a few years he will be asked to do another one; and though the local T.U.C.C.s will not be able to help you, it will be intellectually extremely satisfying—and really this is the only thing we can offer you." This is not giving the consumer any right to ask anybody about anything.
I think we must seriously ask the Government to consider whether or not the Transport Users' Consultative Committees should have restored to them the powers they possessed in 1947, and whether they should not be allowed to look at all forms of transport in their area, and whether they should not be supported in this way through the Amendments which I propose to move. The first Amendment is 147A, which deals with the question of the Waterways Board and prevents the exclusion of the Waterways Board. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his admirable group of Amendments. It seems to me that the Transport Users' Consultative Committees have always lacked teeth and were not very useful bodies to which to appeal, since they had lost most of the powers given to them under the 1962 Act. If these powers could be restored it would certainly be a move in the right direction. It occurs to me particularly on the subject of the railways, where one's complaints have always been ruled out of court owing to the fact that they were not due to hardship, which is a very narrow term of reference. I feel that the Government, in introducing this Bill, have had much more enlightened views on the social use of services and also the connecting of bus and rail services. The Consultative Committees should be empowered to consider a much wider range of questions than has hitherto been possible under the existing powers. So I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on his group of Amendments, though my speech
226
is perhaps an inappropriate one, because it is related to an Amendment concerning waterways. However, he spoke on the general group, and I should like to offer him my support.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I support the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I should like to speak about the whole range of them, the point being that this is an opportunity which will not occur again to put into this very important Bill one aspect of the services; namely, that the consumer of those services should have a voice in the way in which the services are run. Lord Donaldson has said, quite rightly, that originally the Consultative Committees were meant to be stronger than they are to-day, and they have been progressively ignored, if I may say so, by those people who are running these great Corporations and these different services for the public. Since the British public is very long,suffering—it does not protest unless driven to absolute distraction—it is extremely easy to treat the public with less than the respect it should have.
When we were debating that point on another clause, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said how difficult it was to define the consumers, since everybody was a consumer. That is perfectly true. We are all consumers of something. But as regards this particular Bill we are users of the transport system in it widest sense, and I should like to see all the organisations of transport equipped with proper consultative committees and, on those committees, people who know they have the right and the reason to bring their complaints before the Boards.
I should particularly like to support the proposal which Lord Donaldson puts forward in Amendment 147F, that consideration of the charges ma de for any service or facility, and any question relating to the discontinuance or reduction of services provided by any of the bodies named in paragraph (b), shall be included. We are all subject to alterations in cost, whether we go by railway ticket, bus ticket, or any other kind of ticket. We never really know why; and nobody explains to us, except rather vaguely, why these changes have happened. I think it is only right that when the nationalised industries decide these matters they should have the advice of people who represent the buyers of these

227
tickets and the consumers of these services, who can give their views to them and not feel apologetic about doing so or feel that they have no right to do so. I hope the Government will consider this matter sympathetically. It is not a Party political matter, as is obvious from the discussion, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will see his way to accept these Amendments and put them into the Bill, because if we missed this chance I should feel very sad.
LORD BURTON: I also should like to add my voice in support of the noble Lords opposite and of the noble Baroness. I am particularly pleased that the Amendments should have come from the other side. I only hope that we shall not have an entente cordiale between the two Front Benches, because this is something which I know has always been resisted in the past by the Establishment which happened to be in power at the time. I should particularly like to support the right of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees to discuss fares, for when it comes to closing a line on the grounds that it is uneconomic it is obviously difficult to discuss the matter fairly when the Transport Users' Consultative Committees are not allowed to mention fares. Regarding the general discussion, may I add that there appears to be no provision concerning airways. If waterways are being added, would it be possible to add B.E.A.'? There seems to be no means of making complaints with regard to airways.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and perhaps to make my brief comments on my Amendment, which really comes to the same proposal. Perhaps my own Amendment is more ambitious, but probably it is badly drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has of course explained why all of us are worried about the T.U.C.C.s and their hearings, and how many of them have grown into disrepute. I am sure that anyone who has attended a T.U.C.C. hearing would agree that it is rather unsatisfactory when complainants or objectors sometimes instruct counsel to prepare their case and then are very often told that all their evidence cannot be taken into account because it is out-
228
side the scope of the Committee. In addition, the Railways Board can come along with their figures and, most disconcerting of all, the Railways Board are apparently allowed to produce a set of figures to the T.U.C.C. hearing and then produce a different set of figures to the Minister later. I find this very hard to understand. The result of this is, of course, unsatisfactory, and people just do not feel that their cases are being properly heard.
A second weakness of the T.U.C.C. at the present time concerns quality of service. As the Committee will know, objections may be heard in cases of any reductions of service which are related to the quality of service. But the weakness of this procedure, as I understand it, is that a hearing will arise only after the service has been cut, when the damage has been done and when it is difficult to put that damage right. I am sure that what many people would like to see, when a reduction of service is going to take place, is the proposal and not the end result, discussed in the T.U.C.C.
The present Bill does little to restore, or to correct, if I may put it that way, the present weakness of the T.U.C.C. procedure. In fact, all it does is make the Ministry responsible for the expenses of the T.U.C.C.s and the National Freight Corporation subject to the quality of service procedure. I am aware that the proper and right powers of the T.U.C.C. is a matter of delicate balance between, on the one hand, not preventing or delaying progress of management and, on the other, making sure that the views of the users are taken into account. I believe that the users are the lifeblood of the railway, and that their views should be taken into account.
It will not surprise the noble Lord to learn, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has pointed out, that there are many people and societies outside this House who strongly support the idea that the T.U.C.C.s should receive increased powers under this Bill. I know of 200 local authorities who have passed resolutions to this effect. There is the Consumer Council, as the noble Lord has already said, and there are countless users. There are many of the noble Lord's noble friends opposite, among,

229
them the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who I believe in 1962 supported the principle behind this; and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, certainly did.
Then, of course, there is the most interesting view of the T.U.C.C.s themselves who say in their Report of January 31, 1967, in paragraph 15:
"The limitation of reporting only on the aspect of hardship likely to take place following a railway closure had, it was thought, considerably reduced the usefulness of the T.U.C.C.s."
They went on to say, under paragraph 19:
"In collaboration with the area T.U.C.C.s the central committee drew up a list of suggested amendments to the 1962 Act, including examples given above, and this was submitted to you in January, 1967"—
this was to the Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord could advise us what has happened to these Amendments?
LORD INGLEWOOD: I should like to add one brief word in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and his plea to "put a little go into the T.U.C.C.s", to quote his actual words. Surely it cannot be denied that at the present time there is general dissatisfaction with the state of the T.U.C.C.s? When I say that, I do not imply that it is the fault of any one Government, because it is not; the fault is spread much wider than that. I should have thought that the present situation not only was indefensible to-day but had been indefensible for a little time. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, comes to reply he will not be speaking from the same brief as the Department supplied to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, when he replied to the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull in 1966. I have Hansard with me here, and I shall check and see what he says. If in fact he just repeats to the Committee the arguments which were then put forward, with great sincerity, but which at the end were really not convincing, then we shall know what to do with the later Amendments.
6.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think that the noble Lord cannot fail to be impressed by what has been said from all sides of the Committee on this matter. Perhaps I should say that the Amendment stand-
230
ing in my name, Amendment No. 147J, covers the same point as the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, Amendment No. 147H. Therefore, perhaps I may speak to that at the same time. But I think the general point has to he made, first of all, that we aught to be discussing the powers of the T.U.C.C.s not in the light of their present functions and the present functions of the railways, but in the new atmosphere and in the light of the new powers, and new organisations that are being set up under this Bill.
It is important to make this point at the start, because it will be of no use for the noble Lord to say, "Oh, but the previous Government did so-and-so", because the previous Government did not do these things in the light of the organisations that are being set up For example, if I may take the Scottish point first, we have a number of different bus companies and they have been gradually coming together to form the Scottish Bus Group, and now they become the Scottish Transport Group. This Group, together with MacBrayne's, is going to cover virtually the whole country. This means that there is a quite different set of circumstances from that which exist at the present time.
The circumstances after the passage of this Bill will be quite different. We shall have to get the means of getting public opinion, the opinion of the users, to bear upon this vast organisation in a different way, to match the new circumstances. I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is after and it is most important that we should be doing this. The same applies to the National Bus Company in England. Then, with the change in railway policy, the particular limitations on the powers that were placed in the light of what one might c111 the Beeching era are no longer applicable now, with this new change of policy that is coming about.
So I commend this series of Amendments to the noble Lord. I think it was my noble friend Lord Kinnoull who spoke of an unholy alliance between the Front Benches. I have to be particularly careful of that in these circumstances, and I think it would be reasonable to point out, or at any rate to observe in passing, that there are special considerations and circumstances that arise when we are talking about charges. After all, we are

231
placing an obligation on these bodies to make ends meet; and if there were criticisms of particular charges, suggestions that charges in a particular area for a particular service should be brought down, it would inevitably mean that it would be necessary to put up the charges somewhere else to make ends meet. So I think one would have to do something along the lines of what is done in the circumstances of the Electricity Consultative Councils. There, it is a question not so much of particular charges, but of a charge structure that could perhaps be criticised by the Area Councils. But I think that in these new circumstances it is essential that we should re-think the functions and duties of consultative committees.
On the question of my particular Amendment (which is similar to that of Lord Donaldson) for the Bus Company in England, I think it would be strange if there were to be no consultative arrangements for one important passenger transport organisation. It would be hard to justify that there should be no such facilities for road passenger transport when they are there for rail passenger transport. I do not think that one can refer back to the traffic commissioners who, after all, were set up in totally different circumstances nearly 40 years ago. I do not think you can say, "Well, we can rest on the traffic commissioners. If you have a complaint send it to the traffic commissioners." What are the traffic commissioners going to do about it anyway? Are they going to take away the licences of the Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group? I should not have thought so. Clearly there is a very strong case for giving careful consideration to Amendments along these lines even if the noble Lord cannot accept these.
6.20 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: We have had really a Second Reading debate on Clause 55, and I must say that the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that there was an unholy alliance between the two Front Benches—which does on occasion, but very rarely, exist—has been put at rest by the speech of his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who I think in the main supported the contentions of speakers from both sides of the House.
232
He has, however, put his finger on a point on which I think both Front Benches agree; that is, on the financial element of Amendment No. 147F, because this differs from the other Amendments.
As I have said before and will say again, we have charged the railways to operate their services within a strict commercial framework, and their prices and wages structures are subject to investigation by the Prices and Incomes Board. It would be an impossible situation—because the prices structure of the railway system is an extremely complex one—for a group of people who in economic terms are amateurs to enter into an argument with the Railways Board about fares structures. This must be left to the far more expert Prices and Incomes Board. However, I should not have thought it beyond the bounds of possibility for the consultative T.U.C.C.s to give evidence to the Prices and Incomes Board. I cannot see in the Bill any inhibition against this taking place; and this, I think, would meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that a general approach on the subject might be made, rather than a narrow approach on, shall we say, the fare between London and Blackpool. But we must resist the injection of the right to be consulted on charges from among the Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
If we turn to the other points again we have difficulties. There is no doubt that the strength of feeling in the debate today is that these particular committees should be strengthened and better used than they are at present, and there is again the feeling, which has been expressed at earlier stages in the debate, that the consumer—the traveller—and his interests are not considered sufficiently.
Perhaps I may now turn for a moment to the question of bus services—and I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will find that what I am saying has been said before—
LORD INGLEWOOD: I am watching quite carefully.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: —but perhaps he will tell me if what was true two years ago is still true to-day. It is the belief of the Government that the Bill, as it stands, will not and cannot bring the road passenger transport services of the

233
National Bus Company and Scottish Transport Group within the scope of the consultative committees. We believe that the traffic commissioners, admittedly set up some long time ago, as a statutory body have proved very effective at considering representations from users. They have much expertise and experience in this field, while the consultative committees have none.
Perhaps the noble Lord will say that consultative committees should have the possibility of gathering some experience in this field—and I should have thought this a not unreasonable request. I do not know what mechanism we could use to enable complaints to be made both to the traffic commissioners and to the consultative committees, but perhaps this is not beyond the wit of man. If this is possible, and I will put it to my right honourable friend, I will see whether I can give a favourable answer at a later stage in the Bill. I cannot make any promises, but I will try.
Finally, there is the question of service reductions, which of course brings in the element of hardship. The consultative committees can consider the level of train service after a reduction has taken place, but to enable them to have advance information and to advise on future timetable alterations would hinder management on detailed issues and lead to delay in effecting either economies or improvements. Flexibility and vigorous management is essential, we believe, to the widest interests of the industry as a whole, and for that reason we are not willing to agree that consumers shall be consulted in advance. But when decisions have been reached the impact of those decision could well be considered.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: Before the noble Lord sits down, could he refer to the Waterways Board which, I think, is the subject of the first Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. There is, in fact, an opportunity for issues arising on this front to be considered elsewhere. The Board's services are already covered in respect of the amenity or recreational use of both the cruising and the commercial waterways by the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, which is a new body to be set up formally under
234
Clause 108 of this Bill. Of course, commercial users will also have recourse to the courts if there is any serious failure on the Board's part to fulfil their maintenance obligations in respect of commercial waterways. Perhaps we might go into the position of the consultative committees in relation to the waterways on Clause 108.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Before the noble Lord sits down, did I understand him to say that the consultative committees will be consulted only after decisions have been taken? I mean, was this on the matter of charges or on the matter of general policies? I cannot see the point of setting up consultative committees, which admittedly are an additional committee, if, in fact, they are simply to be told that the decision about X Y Z has been taken before they have a chance of looking at it. The whole object of setting up consultative committees is to seek their advice. You need not take it, if you do not want to, but it is perfectly useless to set them up if they are going to deal with a matter only after the decision has been taken. I may be wrong but I thought I heard the noble Lord say that.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Baroness did, in fact, hear me fairly clearly. What I said was that the consultative committees can consider the reductions of services—that is to say, not cancelled services but those reduced in frequency—but only after the reduction has taken place. Now I am certain that the noble Baroness considers this a gross injustice—indeed, she has already said so. But that is how these committees work. We believe that there cannot be a long debate on the subject, not of cancelling a service but of reducing it, before the reduction has actually occurred. The Railways Board or the statutory operator must be able to reach certain decisions; and if the consumer, or the consultative committee approached by the consumer, finds that this is causing real hardship, then of course the issue could well he reconsidered. But commercially one has often got to act fast.
We are trying to get the Railways Board out of the net of all the inhibitions that were placed on them in the past when they had, in fact, a virtual monopoly in transport. They have now to be

235
freed to act commercially, and one of the first freedoms in acting commercially is that they should be able to plan their frequencies of service in the form which they believe commercially suits them best. If, after the Board have reached this decision, a consultative committee persuades them that they are doing something which is damaging to the public, and commercially unwise, then they may change their mind; but they must have the freedom to act with the normal speed of reaction of a private company.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I do not think the noble Lord in his reply referred to my specific question about the annual report of the T.U.C.C. for 1967, in which they said that they thought the usefulness of the T.U.C.C.s had been considerably reduced in their present scope. They went on to say that they had submitted Amendments to the Government. Could the noble Lord say whether the Government understand that the T.U.C.C.s are satisfied in regard to this matter and with the present scope of the Bill?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Earl whether or not they are satisfied. Consultations and conversations have taken place. The T.U.C.C.s themselves suggested Amendments to the Government, and their proposals were carefully considered by the Minister and by a previous Joint Parliamentary Secretary, my honourable friend Mr. John Morris, who explained to them the Minister's attitude in a meeting with the Central Transport Consultative Committee. The Government explained formally to the T.U.C.C.s why their proposals could not be accepted. I imagine that this was not altogether satisfactory to them, but we had to try to meet the points they had put to us.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I hope that the Government will look again at this matter. To set up a large number of committees, and then take all the decisions, and come back and say to the committees, "If you don't like them, you can now protest", seems to be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, or putting the cart before the horse, or any other of the familiar clichés we so often hear. This is a most
236
fantastic proposition. I can understand that you do not want to consult the public at all. All right; do not have any committees at all. But when you set them up, for goodness sake use them! I hope that the noble Lord will say to his right honourable friend, who I am sure is a highly intelligent gentleman, "This is not the way this Bill or any other Bill will appeal to the public." It just is not "on".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord's attention ought to be drawn to Section 56 of the 1962 Act, which says
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Central Committee and of each Area Committee to consider and, where it appears to them to be desirable, make recommendations with respect to any matter affecting the services and facilities provided by any of the Boards which has been the subject of representations…which has been referred to the committee by the Minister or by a Board, or which appears to the committee to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given…"
I thought the noble Lord was inclined to "talk down" the functions of the committees very much lower than they are even at present. What we were trying to do was to say that they should be greater than they are at present. Therefore, what the noble Lord said was, to say the least, most discouraging.
I hope that he will look again at this matter, in concert with his right honourable friend, before the next stage. There is a general feeling that there is no point in having consultation unless it has a reality, unless notice is going to be taken of the advice tendered—and it can only be advice before action is taken—or, alternatively, if representations are passed on, before action is taken or with a view to action being taken. Surely this is the purpose of a consultative committee. Admittedly there are certain circumstances where special considerations apply, but apart from that I should have thought that the various Boards and the new authorities ought to be very glad to have a body to whom they can refer, a body which will grow in experience. It is not always easy for Boards to keep in touch with public opinion, yet their success depends on their doing so. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will look at this matter again.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: There is a French saying that "The tone makes the music". If I put on a disinheriting countenance, it was because I was replying to my noble friend Lord Donaldson as to why a number of his proposals were not acceptable to the Government. I tried to make some encouraging remarks. There is no doubt that the feeling of the debate is running strongly in favour of the consultative committees. I have undertaken to consult my right honourable friend to see if we can say anything more helpful.
One thing which the Bill does is to move the consultative committees out of the clutches of the organisations which they are supposed to advise and to set them up in new premises provided by the Minister and not, shall we say, by the Railways Board. We believe that this may get them into a new atmosphere, take them from under the wing of the Board, and perhaps, as a result, give them greater psychological freedom to express their feelings strongly in relation to the body which they will advise.
Turning to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the Transport Act 1962 was pretty tough. If one turns to the appropriate section of the Act one sees these words:
"Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall entitle any committee to consider the charges made for any service or facility, or to consider any question relating to the discontinuance or reduction of railway services except as provided in the following provisions of this section."
This was also a rather disinheriting section. I will do my best to see whether my right honourable friend can move in any direction to meet the wishes of this Committee. I cannot be very helpful, but in one or two minor points some improvement may be made.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I hope that the noble Lord will take up with his right honourable friend this question about consultation early on in regard to changes of timetable. Timetables take a long time to work out, and I do not think it is the object of anybody that a long argument should be gone into at an early stage. All we are saying is that the present system, in which users are consulted at a stage when so many people are bound up in the decision that it is almost impossible to
238
go back on it, is wrong, and that at some early stage of the cutting down, or even the change of service—such as in the forthcoming shuffle which is probably going to take place in the South-East—the public should be allowed to know, before final decisions are taken, what is going on and to make comment. We are not asking for long public inquiries. We are asking that the public should be allowed to express their views at an early stage.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I am grateful to my noble friend for his very full reply. I am also grateful to noble Lords and Ladies in all parts of the House who have supported this group of Amendments. I am glad that the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches got in just in time. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for avoiding a maiden over in that direction.
I will make one or two brief comments. I had a note, which I did not use, to refer to Hilaire Belloc and the collusion between Front Benches. This has been rather taken away from me, but there was just sufficient between the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and my noble friend over charging to make it worth referring to this point. One can carry the whole idea of charges a little too far. The idea that if you reduce a fare in Norfolk, you have to put it up in Devonshire is not true. That is not the way it works. Surely there is room for a little local dealing. There was just a sniff of Hilaire Bellocry there worth referring to. We squeezed a little blood out of the noble Lord's stone.
The suggestion that the T.U.C.C.s should be allowed to make submissions to the Prices and Incomes Board was one I had down to ask for if I could not get anything else. It was given to us in lieu of anything else. As for the traffic commissioners, they are not consumer supporters. They are in a judicial category between the provider of transport and the consumer. Although they are very fair, we want somebody who is, frankly, partisan. I do not accept that the traffic commissioners are an adequate substitute. However, the noble Lord's suggestion that complaints could, perhaps, be made to the T.U.C.C.s at the same time as to the traffic commissioners

239
to educate them in the kind of trouble that is going on is very helpful. In view of the noble Lord's promise to use what influence he has with his right honourable friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD INGLEWOOD: The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, referred to the debate on the Amendments as a Second Reading debate and that it went very wide. In consequence, I will try not to repeat all that has been said, but I have one or two brief points that I should like to make about the clause. First, although the Minister said he would try to be our advocate concerning a few minor points, his reply was disappointing, in view of the strength of feeling on all sides. If I may say so without wishing to give offence, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, made more of the brief when he spoke to us on this same subject two years ago.
I hope that the Railways Board will not think that this debate is being conducted in any spirit of criticism against them. I think that the Board are doing extremely well in their efforts to maintain services in my part of the country during these days of annual purgatory. Having said that, however, I should again like to say that the Government have missed a chance in the clause of doing something really worthwhile in the Bill, and something that would cost very little money. In different parts of the Bill a great many expensive and heavy burdens are being placed upon the backs of the people. Here was a chance to do something which would be popular and cost very little, either by putting the T.U.C.C.s back on a really effective basis or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, suggested, by doing away with them altogether—because in their present weak and neglected state it is difficult to justify their existence.
Admittedly, the T.U.C.C.s did not have a very good start, and in the 1962 Act the then Government made them even less effective. After the speech which we have just heard from the Minister I wonder whether anybody will want to
240
continue to serve on them. Their work seems to be unrewarding and their influence limited. I do not know whether many noble Lords present have ever had personal experience of correspondence with a T.U.C.C. Some of us, particularly those who represented constituencies in another place, will probably have had considerable experience. Generally, however, it takes weeks to get an answer, and as often as not one is sent a small explanation which has been supplied by British Railways, and only very rarely an opinion by the consultative committee itself.
I should like the Minister to tell us what is meant by "quality of service", which we now hear about. Representations were made to me a short time ago by people in the neighbourhood about the new second-class rolling stock that is being introduced on the Western route main line between Glasgow and London. For those of your Lordships who have not yet sampled those carriages, I can give the assurance that they are extremely uncomfortable. I think the real reason they have been so designed is that by adopting this pattern more passengers can be crammed on each pair of four-wheel bogies. The seats are very narrow and hard and one is crammed behind small tables.
I asked the T.U.C.C. what representations they had made. This was the reply which I received from the Secretary:
"Such matters as replacing the present pattern of second-class main-line rolling stock with open coaches…are matters of policy to be determined by the British Railways Board, and their design would take in many factors quite outside the knowledge of an area committee."
I should have thought that the members of an area committee would be more likely to travel second-class than members of the Railways Board, and were therefore much more likely to appreciate what one hoped to get in return for the ever-rising second-class fare. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will say something about "quality of service". This is not simply a personal view which many of us have expressed. We all know from contact with people in our areas what feeling there is on this subject.
I was interested to hear the Minister's reply. I was sorry that he qualified what

241
he said to a few minor points. I am sure that most noble Lords look forward, not to a few minor points of improvement, but to something substantial. We have plenty of lime to do something substantial and worthwhile. We have the Report stage ahead of us. It is much the best, in these circumstances, that the Government should take the initiative. If, however, they do not, I am sure that there are many noble Lords who are not prepared to leave things as they are.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would like to say a word or two, not to add to the eloquence of my noble friend, but to deal with two or three particular points. First, will the noble Lord confirm that among the services to be dealt with by the consultative committees are the shipping services? There are, for example, Associated Humber Lines and the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, in England and the Caledonian Steam Packet and MacBrayne's in Scotland. MacBrayne's also have a freight service, and a passenger service which often carries freight as well in the remote areas.
The noble Lord has referred to subsections (3) and (4) concerning the power which is given to the Minister to
"provide, or make arrangements…for providing, that committee with such officers and servants, and such office accommodation, as appear to the Minister, after consultation with the committee, to be requisite for the proper discharge of the committee's functions and shall defray any expenditure incurred by the committee with the Minister's approval in the discharge of those functions".
For my part, I should very much welcome this, in the sense that it has never seemed to me to be a good thing that consultative committees should be dominated by the bodies to whom they are supposed to tender advice. I recognise, of course, that there are advantages in such an arrangement, and that from some points of view it can be a matter of considerable convenience. The fact remains, however, that the habit of putting a member of the Board on to a consultative committee and having, inevitably, a secretary who is an official of the Board, lends to curtail the independence of the consultative committee. I think that the new arrangement is a definite improvement.
242
The snag, however, is that it is not mandatory. The next subsection goes on to say that:
"The Minister may…instead of himself providing the officers and servants or office accommodation aforesaid, arrange wilt any of the Boards other than the Waterways Board or with the Freight Corporation for those officers and servants or that accommodation to be provided by that Board or Corporation in return for such payments by the Minister to the Board or Corporation as may be agreed between them."
Therefore, the only outcome of this may be to shift the cost of the advice and the committee from the Board to the Minister. That could easily be the only outcome.
Apart from that, it could be all "eyewash". I hope that it is not so and that we shall have an even firmer declaration from the noble Lord than he has given already that it is genuinely the intention of the Government to detach these bodies from the Boards which they are to advise, so that their independence may be assured.
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: Perhaps my noble friend Lord Champion was more sympathetic because he himself was a railwayman, and perhaps his heart is rather closer to the Railways Board than mine is. I do not say that I hoped to satisfy the noble Lord in my speech, but I hope that at least I made myself plain, which is the best one can hope to do on art occasion like this. I should like to give my noble friend one reassurance on the point of quality of service. Any matter relating to the services and facilities of the Boards, except charges and proposed reductions of service, can be referred to the Consultative Committees. They are fully entitled to consider representations and to make representations to the Board or the Minister on changes in, for example, a type of carriage used by the Board if the travelling public find unsatisfactory. So if the noble Lord wants to protest he knows where to do so, and I hope it is not too late in the day for something to be done as a result.
May I turn to the two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn? I can assure him that the shipping services, which will come under the National Freight Corporation and the British Railways Board, will in fact be covered by the Consultative Committees. It is part of their remit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord whether that applies to the shipping services in Scotland? Do they come under the Area Committee there?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: If I may, I should like to give the noble Lord that reassurance in writing, or at a later stage in the Bill, because I cannot answer his question now. I should think it is highly probable, but I should like to give an answer which I know is correct.
Turning now to subsections (3) and (4), subsection (3) reads:
"In the case of each of the Consultative Committees…the Minister shall provide, or make arrangements…for providing"
the services for them. Subsection (4) reads:
"The Minister may, in the case of any such committee,…"
do a deal with any of the Boards or with the Freight Corporation. I think the most important thing is that the man who pays the piper calls the tune. It is very much better that the Minister pays than that the Board does. This arrangement is purely an administrative one. It is just possible that it would be more practical, and indeed more convenient to the Consultative Committees, to continue to hold the meetings in the places where they have been held until now—that is to say, in part of the office accommodation provided by the Boards—or in accommodation which might be provided in the future by the Freight Corporation.
But I would have said that this is a step which would be taken only with the agreement of the Consultative Committee concerned. I cannot see, under this Bill, that if a Consultative Committee said, "Look here, we do not want to meet here; we want to meet somewhere else. We want to get away from the direct pressures and supervision of the Board. We want to meet on outside premises", the Minister could in fact refuse. I would feel that the position of the Consultative Committee was very strong. Subsection (3) is the intention; subsection (4) is only the administrative detail, which I suspect would operate only if the Consultative Committee agreed.
LORD HUGHES: I wonder whether I might save my noble friend a little work by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Drum-
244
albyn, that the answer in relation to the Scottish Transport group is also, Yes.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Assistance by Minister or local authority towards capital expenditure on public transport facilities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask one question on this clause? It relates to subsection (3), which says:
"No grant under subsection (1)…and no payment under subsection (2)…shall be made for the purposes of the provision, improvement or development of an airfield, a harbour, or"—
and this is the point—
"(except when used or to be used for the purposes of a ferry service) a dock, pier or jetty".
I am not quite certain that that is not a little too restrictive. There are many docks, piers and jetties which are used for many other purposes than the main purpose of transport. I wondered what the intention was here. There is a question of recreational facilities and there is a question of fisheries. I wondered whether that was not expressed in rather too restrictive a manner.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Grants by the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for docks and harbours are provided for in other legislation, but a terminal for a local passenger ferry service would be eligible under this clause. A ferry service is defined in Clause 149 as:
"a transport service by water (including such a service by means of a hover vehicle) which carries passengers and operates regularly between two or more points both or all of which are in Great Britain".
As originally drafted, this subsection would have made grants under this clause mutually exclusive with grants under highways legislation. There may, however, be some types of project which, though intended to help public transport, could be grant-aided from the roads Vote. An example would be a road reserved for buses built as a special road under Highway Act powers but which might more appropriately be financed from moneys voted under this clause. It will make for easy administration if in

245
such special cases there is no awkwardness through a lack of overlap in the powers available, so that the individual project can be built and aided under whatever arrangements are most appropriate to the circumstances. Parts of the original draft of this subsection were therefore deleted in another place by a Government Amendment.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Assistance by local authorities in Scotland for railway passenger services]:
On Question, Whether Clause 58 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a question on this clause? The noble Lord will remember that I raised this point on Second Reading of the Bill, when he told me that this was a power which already exists for local authorities in England and Wales—that is, the power to afford financial assistance towards the provision of railway passenger services. Is the noble Lord able to tell me whether that power has been used in England and Wales; and, secondly, whether it has been asked for in Scotland?
LORD HUGHES: I cannot answer the first part of the question, as to whether it has been used in England or Wales. What I can say is that the application of this power to Scotland has been welcomed by the Scottish local authority associations. The noble Lord asked whether it had been asked for before. I do not think it would be correct to say that the Scottish local authorities asked for it, but having become aware of the Government's intention to do this, they welcomed the opportunity to have this power.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I also ask where the cost of this will fall? This will presumably fall on the rates. Is there any limitation so far as rate poundage is concerned on the amount that can be spent in this way by local authorities? Secondly, is any of the cost eligible for grant assistance in any form, including resources grant?
LORD HUGHES: In the first instance, the powers, as in England and Wales, are permissive, and any expenditure which the authorities propose to undertake would require the consent of the Secretary of State. The power is not intended as a substitute for the power of the Minister of Transport to assist the British Railways Board's unremunerative services under Clause 39, about which I think the noble Lord had some apprehensions, but it would in fact be complementary to such a power. There may be cases where the Minister is not satisfied that there are sufficient social or economic reasons for an Exchequer grant towards the unremunerative service under Clause 39, but in which the local authorities concerned would be perfectly willing to meet the deficit from the rates for the general benefit of the local community; and we think it would be wrong to deny that opportunity to the local authorities in Scotland when it is already available in England and Wales.
These local authority contributions to railway services will not be eligible for a specific Exchequer grant in the same way as contributions to rural bus and ferry services under Clause 34. The circumstances are entirely different, partly because of the provision for Exchequer grants to railway services under Clause 39, and partly because of the special case accepted by the Standing Committee in another place for rural bus and ferry grants. Any contributions made to railway services by local authorities on both sides of the Border will, however, rank for rate support grant in the normal way.
LORD ILFORD: Am I right in thinking that contributions made in these circumstances would be relevant to expenditure for the purpose of assessing the rate support grant?
LORD HUGHES: That was what I said in my last few words. I will repeat them: "Any contributions made to railway services by local authorities on both sides of the Border will, however, rank for rate support grant in the normal way".
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
House resumed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM (DISTRIBUTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 3) REGULATIONS 1968
7.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1968 be approved. With the permission of the House, I propose also to speak to the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations 1968. Drafts of both these Regulations were laid before the House on June 12. I should perhaps remind noble Lords that the levy is imposed and distributed for the benefit of makers of British films under regulations made by the Board of Trade under the Cinematograph Films Acts 1957 and 1966. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise collect the levy, the proceeds of which are distributed by the British Film Fund Agency, a statutory body established under the 1957 Act.
The Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations 1968 consolidate and amend the existing Regulations which were made in 1960 and have already been amended five times. The opportunity has been taken to consolidate the regulations into a single instrument, and this, I am sure, will be helpful to everyone concerned with them. The new Regulations alter the existing Regulations in four respects only. Except for these four changes, they are simply a consolidation of the Regulations now in operation.
The most important of the changes is in the standard rate of levy, which has been since 1960 one-ninth of the excess of each admission charge over 11d. Regulation 3(1) prescribes that from July 14 the rate will be one-ninth of the amount by which each payment for admission exceeds 1s. 6d. In other words, the non-liable portion of each admission charge is increased by 7d. It is estimated that this increase will result in a reduction in yield in a complete levy year of between £600,000 and £700.000. We estimate that, even with this reduction, the levy yield in a full levy year will still not be far short of £4 million. Moreover, since film-hire charges or rentals are paid on box office takings net of
248
levy, the exhibitors will not retain the whole of this amount. The change means, of course, that their takings net of levy will be higher, but so, and as a consequence, will be the amounts paid in rentals. The extent to which British films will earn increased rentals will depend on the extent to which makers of British films produce box office successes.
Another relevant consideration is that, as noble Lords will know, eligible British films receive levy in proportion to their rental earnings in Great Britain. The distribution rate which is given by the British Film Fund Agency in its annual reports, tells us to what extent levy receipts have augmented rental earnings. From 1960 to 1964 the Agency paid levy at rates varying between 40 and 46 per cent. of rentals. Since then the rate has steadily increased to 49 per cent. in 1965, to 53 per cent. in 1966 and to 56 per cent. in 1967. We estimate that at the new rate of collection it is probable that the percentage will still be around 50 per cent.
In determining the yield of the levy the Board of Trade are statutorily required to pay regard
"to the prevailing economic circumstances of both exhibitors and makers of British films as well as the prevailing level of production of such films."
At present, film production is continuing at a high level. The studios are busy. In June, 24 feature films were being made in British studios or on location. The situation in the exhibition sector is less happy. Cinemas continue to close at the rate of 100 or more a year. The decline has continued for a considerable number of years. Since 1960, when the present rate of levy was set, the number of cinemas has fallen from over 3,000 to under 1,800, and admissions from 501 million to 265 million. Although box office takings have progressively declined except for a temporary recovery in 1964 and 1965, the amount paid in levy has gone up. The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association asked that the non-liable portion of each admission charge should be raised from 11d. to 1s. 10d. The Cinematograph Films Council considered this proposal and recommended an increase to 1s. 6d.
There are various causes of the decline in cinema admissions and takings, and of course nobody suggests that the

249
burden of the levy on exhibitors is the main reason. None the less, the levy reduces the income of the exhibitors so that they have fewer resources available for modernisation and other purposes. We believe that the right course, and the course that in the long run will be in the best interest of the producers, as well as of the exhibitors, is to reduce the burden of the levy on exhibitors generally, and accordingly we have decided to adopt the figure recommended by the Council. I hope that the reduced rate of levy will not only save some cinemas from closing but also permit more expenditure on renovation and modernisation which will make cinemas more attractive to the public and more competitive with other kinds of entertainment.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that 24 films were being made in British studios. Can he say how many of them are being financed by British money and how many of them by the owners of the two big circuits in this country who stand to gain most from this remission of levy?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am sorry but I should require notice to reply to that question. I can tell the noble Lord that an average of approximately 75 per cent. of the finance going into some 70 major British films each year is American. In the case of the less expensive films, the proportion of British finance is high—about 50 per cent. I cannot give the precise information for which the noble Lord has asked, but I will try to get it before the debate is over.
My Lords, the next amendment, new Regulation 3(2)(b)(ii), will afford relief to exhibitors whose takings vary widely according to the season of the year. Levy, although paid monthly, is assessed weekly. This is necessary because film rentals are calculated after deducting levy paid from box office takings, and rentals are normally calculated weekly. No levy is payable in any week when the takings do not exceed £400. Weekly assessment of levy liability thus means that exhibitors with widely varying takings —for example, those owning cinemas at seaside resorts—may pay substantial sums in levy during the summer months, even though their average weekly takings
250
throughout the year are below the exemption limit of £400.
The effect of the new Regulation will be that levy will be payable only if both takings in the relevant week and average takings from the beginning of the levy year to the end of that week exceed £400. This arrangement is easy to understand and simple to operate. In calculating the average, any weeks in which films are not shown will be disregarded. It would obviously be wrong for an exhibitor who closed his cinema when the summer season had ended to benefit to the same extent as an exhibitor who kept his cinema open. Since the new relief is related to average takings from the beginning of each levy year, it will come into operation on October 6.
The third change is a very small one, but one which will be helpful to exhibitors. Regulation 4 allows them ten days, instead of five days as at present, in which to pay the levy. Lastly, the provision under which an exhibitor's levy liability is limited to the level of levy plus entertainments duty operative in 1960 (when entertainments duty was abolished) is to be revoked. It has, I understand, never been used and is obsolete.
The new Collection of Levy Regulations are to come into operation on July 14 except for the relief for exhibitors with widely varying takings which will come into operation on October 6, which is the beginning of the next levy year.
The Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1968 make a number of amendments to the existing Regulations. Paragraph (1) raises the rate at which levy is distributed to makers of eligible British newsreels from twice to two and a half times the standard rate. The makers of these films are facing serious problems—in particular, increased costs and the need to produce a greater proportion of their films in colour. Their films play an important part in presenting British news and achievements to audiences overseas as well as to those in this country. The amendment places newsreels on a par with other short films as regards the rate at which the levy is distributed.
Paragraphs (2) and (5) go together. Under the existing regulations the makers

251
of British low-cost films—that is, films with labour costs not exceeding £20,000—receive levy at two and a half times the standard rate until rentals reach the labour cost of the film or £15,000, whichever is the lower. Above these limits levy is paid at the standard rate. Production costs have risen since 1959 when the present limits were set, and paragraph (2) raises the £15,000 limit to £18,750 and paragraph (5) raises the £20,000 limit to £25,000. The increases proposed are not commensurate with the cost increases. The reason for this is that we think it important to retain a powerful stimulus to efficiency and economy. If they are to qualify for levy earnings at this higher rate, producers of low-cost films have to keep a sharp eye on costs.
Paragraph (3) replaces the existing Regulation 6(3)(b). The object of the latter was that makers of non standard eligible films—for example, makers of British 70 mm. films—should be entitled to receive levy for the same length of time as the makers of 35 mm. eligible films registered as British quota films. Regulation 6(3)(a) lays down in effect that the levy life of an eligible British quota film should be the same as its quota life under the Films Act 1960. The opportunity has been taken to redraft Regulation 6(3)(b) to bring it into line with Regulation 6(3)(a). I fear that that is rather a complicated paragraph, and perhaps I can boil it down by saying that the object of that part of the Regulation is simply to bring into effect what was intended when the last Regulations were introduced, though unhappily it was not achieved. There is really no change in intention; only a change in effect.
Paragraph (4) adds a new class of films to those which are ineligible for levy payments. Section 20(3) of the Films Act 1960 states in effect that British films containing more than 10 per cent. of photographs derived from another film will not be registered as quota films except on the recommendation of the Cinematograph Films Council. Paragraph (4) applies this restriction to eligibility for levy payments. Under the existing Regulations a short film shown on television outside the United Kingdom within twelve months of its registration is ineligible for levy. This restriction does not apply to long
252
films and it will be of some small assistance to the short film makers if it is removed. Paragraph (6) amends the definition of "television film" so that the showing of short films on television overseas within twelve months of registration will no longer disqualify them from entitlement to levy payments.
The amendments to the Distribution of Levy Regulations are to come into operation on October 6, except that the redrafted Regulation 6(3)(b) will become operative on July 14.
My Lords, the Cinematograph Films Council have been consulted. They have recommended all the changes in both the Collection of Levy Regulations and the Distribution of Levy Regulations. I believe that the proposed Regulations are in the best interests of the industry as a whole and commend them to the House.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1968, laid before the House on June 12, be approved.—(Lord Brown.)
7.16 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his careful explanation of the purposes of these two Orders. I have no criticism to make of their effect and I recognise at once that it is very difficult to match the interests of the exhibitors on the one hand and the producers on the other. One has to bear in mind that the levy was raised for the purpose of stimulating production of films in this country. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Willis, intervened to point out that the majority of the finance for films made in this country—certainly main feature films—comes now from overseas, which is quite true. That is of benefit to this country inasmuch as those films are made for an international market and are, after all, British exports when they are made. So one has to bear in mind—
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, with respect I should like to point out that I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension there. If a film is made here with American money the profits of that film are paid in America to the American company and do not benefit this country by one dollar, except for the employment given.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, except for the employment given. That is the point. It is giving employment here. Also, as most of these films have a British basis they are making known abroad the British way of life at the same time. So I think there are decided advantages, and we certainly do not want to discourage the production of films in this way.
At the same time, it is quite true to say that the exhibitors have been having a pretty hard time one way and another. As the noble Lord has said their box office takings are down and the levy payments that they have had to make have been going up. In addition to that they have had this extra tax, the selective employment tax, and other burdens to compete with. The noble Lord mentioned the amount of closures that are running at a pretty steep pace. It is only fair that the interests of the exhibitors should be recognised in this way, especially as I think it is reasonable to regard the basic level from which levy is collected—that is, the 11d. at the present time—as a moving base rather than a fixed one. I think we have kept this fixed for rather too long, because the average cost of a seat over the period has pretty nearly doubled. That being so one would have expected the lower level to have been raised more or less proportionately.
I think the Government have reached a very fair compromise in this. The fact that the levy should continue to run at about £4 million is satisfactory. The whole purpose of the levy was to raise something, and originally it was set at between £2 million and £5 million, or between £3 million and £5 million. At any rate, it was of that order. It could have been, of course, that if we had let things run as they are the levy would have gone on beyond £5 million, and it could be argued that the real value of that has changed. But, all the same, I think one has to keep this balance between exhibitors and producers, and I agree with the noble Lord in commending these Orders to the House.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, my comment is in the form of an inquiry. At present the exhibitor is called on to pay a levy in any week in which his takings exceed £400. We have been informed
254
that there will be no change in that provision, with the exception that it will be averaged over the year. I wonder whether my noble friend has any information about what is likely to be the difference in the amount of levy collected by adopting the averaging principle?
7.21 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, perhaps I might answer that question before we proceed further. It is very difficult, as the noble Lord will understand, to make an accurate assessment of figures of this sort about the main result of the action taken to alleviate the position of these cinemas which have variable takings, but the best figure we can quote is about £30,000 per annum.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his clear exposition of these Orders. I do not quarrel with the proposition that some exhibitors in this country, especially among the smaller ones, may be in need of some relief in relation to the imposition of the levy. Nor am I going to say anything about the question whether the producer side of the industry has been adequately consulted or its interests adequately taken into account, because there are those present in your Lordships' House who are far better informed on these matters than I am.
The point I wish to refer to briefly is whether it is appropriate for the Film Fund to suffer a substantial reduction of the order of 15 per cent. without provision at the same time being made for the establishment of a National Film School, either wholly or partly out of that Fund. May I remind your Lordships of a few salient facts? As long ago as June, 1967, a Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, reported to the Government their unanimous conclusion that there was a need to establish a National Film School immediately. This is not the moment to enlarge upon the merits and importance of this project from the point of view of both the film industry and the cultural and economic interests of the country generally. It is hoped that time will be found for discussion of these matters when the Motion which is now down for debate is eventually reached.
All I wish to say now is that this was the unanimous finding of a Committee of

255
17, including leading film industrialists such as Mr. John Davis and Mr. Robert Clark, the Secretary General of the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians, Mr. George Elvin; Mr. John Terry, the managing director of the National Film Finance Corporation, and producers and directors of the calibre of Mr. Carol Reisz and Mr. Carl Foreman. In its Report the Committee stated its view that the annual income of the school should be supported from the British Film Fund, and detailed reasons were given for this. True it is that some members of the Committee thought that only part of the income, rather than the whole, should come out of the Fund, but a substantial majority were in favour of either the whole or not less than 75 per cent. coming out of the Fund. It was also pointed out, on the basis of the Fund then being some £5 million, that even when the school was fully extended under optimum conditions the estimated annual amount would be in the region of £150,000 which represented only about 3 per cent. of the Fund.
It should also be noted that in the Report of the Cinematograph Films Council, submitted as recently as March, 1958, concerning the review of films legislation, the Council, while expressing the view that in their opinion it would be wrong for the annual cost of the school to be met entirely out of the British Film Fund, recommended that the running costs of a National Film School should be met partly from the levy. Be that as it may, here is a clear acknowledgement by an authoritative body that a substantial contribution to the running of a National Film School should come from the Fund.
In the meantime, what has been the position of the Government? Without any unequivocal public pronouncement having been made, though a number of approving noises, if I may so describe them, have been made in another place and elsewhere, indications have been given that the stumbling block is finance. Those concerned with the initiation of this project are, of course, no less mindful of the present financial climate than is the rest of the country. On the reasonable footing, therefore, that the important thing is to get the project started even
256
if this means sacrificing the optimum features proposed in the Report, there has been and it is no secret, a good deal of discussion about how the project might be launched on a more modest financial basis than that set out in the original Report. To this end practical proposals have already been advanced which would certainly reduce the annual cost of the project to less than half of the figure put forward, quite rightly I think, on the assumptions contained in the original Report.
I am not going to weary the House with details of this matter at this stage. I mention these points merely to provide a background for my present complaint, which is that the Government have now seen fit to make a proposal for the reduction of the Fund by something between £600,000 and £700,000 per annum, a sum approaching 15 per cent. of the total amount of the levy, without, apparently, taking a passing glance at the needs for a National Film School and the modest claim of such project on the Fund, or at any rate, indicating how the Government proposed to deal with the situation. What is particularly distressing to those who have concerned themselves with this problem is that a fraction of this very large sum by which the Fund is now to be reduced would suffice to get a film school launched and run for several years.
I quite understand, my Lords, that some exhibitors have been in difficulty, having regard to the general decline in attendances at cinemas, and it is right and proper that their views should be considered. At the same time, it is fair to point out that the present proposals are being made irrespective of the profitability of particular cinemas and, as has been pointed out in another place, it is possible—and indeed likely—that some of the most profitable cinemas will gain the most. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that the opinion of the Cinematograph Film Council on which this Order is based was in itself by no means unanimous, because if one looks at paragraph 12 of the 13th Annual Report of that Council, of March 31, 1968, these words are to be found:
"In view of these considerations"—
that is the decline in attendances—
"some members thought"—

257
I repeat, some members thought—
"that the burden of levy on exhibitors should be reduced."
The Report goes on:
"Against these arguments, the view was expressed that any reduction in the amount of the levy would be inadvisable. The general opinion was that a reduction was desirable."
We are not told in the Report how many formed that view or how general was "general" for that purpose, but clearly there were dissentients.
Also, I would suggest that a picture has been painted of the industry as containing two distinct elements, one of which, the producers, are all doing rather nicely thank you, while the exhibitors are universally suffering. I suggest that this is a rather tendentious view to anyone who knows anything about the real situation of the industry in this country at the present time. Moreover, it tends to encourage that separatist disposition of the exhibitors who are apt to deploy the case that their interests are really quite distinct from those of film production. The fact is that exhibitors depend on the production of good quality films in order to have an appropriate product to display in their cinemas; and without these there would be no business for them to conduct. Their interest is very much the same as that of all other spheres of the industry, which have a common interest in improving the supply and quality of suitable films for exhibition.
It is idle, therefore, to suggest that the exhibitors have little or nothing to gain from a National Film School whose purpose is to improve the quality of the supply of films produced in this country. On the contrary, they have a profound interest in such a development. I venture to suggest that they would have as much to gain as any other branch of the industry by a deflection of the modest proportion necessary for this purpose, from the massive annual sum of nearly £700,000, in order to help to achieve the institution and establishment of a National Film School in this country.
I therefore deeply deplore the fact that the Government, in making their present proposals, have done nothing to recognise the legitimate claim of the National Film School upon a portion of the British Film Fund or to place on record not just their cordial support of such a scheme which, like a vote of thanks to the staff at the annual general meeting
258
of a company, is of little practical worth in itself, but to indicate either that they recognise that, despite the proposed diminution in the overall total of the Fund, that Fund is still quite substantial enough to bear this further modest obligation or, alternatively, that they Ere prepared to finance this project from some other source.
At a time when we are all busy reading and studying the far-reaching proposals of the Fulton Report it may not be irrelevant to mention the immense disadvantage that flows from any proposal which does not fall neatly and squarely within the province of one single Department of Government. One of our difficulties in getting this, as I think, very valuable project on its feet is that it calls for the co-operation not only of the Department of Education and Science, which is its natural parent, but also of the Board of Trade and of the Treasury. I will say nothing now of the stony-hearted third member of this trinity, but I hr ye remarked on previous occasions that one of the unfortunate consequences which have flowed from the fact that the film industry is the concern of the Board of Trade is that that Department is rather apt to look upon the film industry as if it were nothing more than a commercial concern, whose products might just as well be loads of pig-iron as feature films embodied in strips of celluloid.
My Lords, of course, the film industry is a great industry and there are great commercial interests involved. But it is also something more than this. The project of a National Film School is, I think, an imaginative one, which will do much to bridge the unfortunate gap between these two conceptions, as it has succeeded in doing in most other important film-producing countries. My plea to-day therefore is simply that the Government, in the midst of their many other preoccupations, should not lose sight of this very urgent project which could do so much to help resolve some of the most intractable problems of the film industry as a whole, among which I certainly include exhibitors, and at the same time make a serious and inspiring contribution to the cultural life of this country.
7.35 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I have an interest to declare. I am the chairman of a film production company. I

259
debated with myself whether I ought to speak in this debate, and arrived at the conclusion that provided I discharged the onus of extreme moderation, and also made sure that I stated only the facts as I understand them, it would be wrong for one with specialised knowledge to be debarred from speaking just because he had an interest. Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking.
I should like emphatically to support what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, has said. The moderation with which he said it is commendable, and even surprising, because he discharged the task of chairing. An extraordinary Committee of varying talents, representing every form of interest in the industry, and bringing it unexpectedly—for nobody believed that this conclusion would come about—to a unanimous conclusion. And the noble Lord is to be congratulated on that achievement. It must be especially galling to him to discover, after the unanimous conclusion had been reached, and as all of us in the industry believe, that a Film School is and has for a long time been a necessity to the industry, the recommendation should be put on one side, pigeon-holed and totally disregarded by the Board of Trade.
I should be interested to know to what extent the Board of Trade has consulted with the Department of Education and Science, which set up the Lloyd Committee, because it looks as if one Department was pulling one way and another Department pulling the other way. All I can say to the noble Lord is that it seems to be the case for saying: if you undertake onerous duties, make sure you are paid for them. If you undertake these on a voluntary basis, the only effect will be that in the end your efforts will turn out to be completely futile, as many people have already said in this Chamber.
That aside, I think that it is unfortunate that a Committee of this distinction, having arrived at a conclusion of this importance, should then have it completely overlooked, without a side glance at it. It looks as if the only possible source of providing this School is being eroded and encroached upon without any consideration, of, and certainly no refer-
260
ence to, the need for maintaining the Fund in relation to the provision of a Film School. I should have thought that a Film School was a much higher priority than the need for the Fund in relation to the exhibitors' cry to reduce the levy.
I should like to make a few observations on a slightly wider front. This is a difficult question, and this is a Government to which one is very hesitant to make critical remarks about the film industry, because, but for the activity of the Prime Minister in his previous role as President of the Board of Trade, I do not believe that we should have a British film industry to-day. The British film industry is largely dependent on two devices, the National Film Finance Corporation and the Eady Levy, both of which, I believe, are attributable to the Prime Minister when he was President of the Board of Trade. Even so, where criticism is necessary one has to make it. I do not share the view the Minister has put forward, that this proposed change is in the best interests of the industry; nor do I think that he has told us the situation. I am not suggesting that this is from any motive, because he could not have treated the matter with greater frankness; but, perhaps because of pressure of his duties, he cannot be expected to be aware of it.
There are in this country something like 1,900 cinemas. Of those, over 1,000 do not pay levy at all because they do not have the requirement of taking £400 a week. It is left to fewer than 900 to pay levy. The major number with which we are concerned, and those most vulnerable to the possibility of closing, will not be in the least affected or aided by a reduction of the levy. On the contrary, a reduction will be a positive disadvantage to them, because these are the cinemas which rely on the provision of good films to stay open. What we are doing is to make the Fund available for a supply of good films the less by that extent. We are doing a positive disservice to the 1,000-odd cinemas not paying the levy in ensuring that the supply of films that will keep them alive will the sooner dry up.
The second consideration is that of the 900-odd cinemas that remain, something between 600 and 700 belong to two, or at the most three, circuits. I am delighted that these circuits exist, as they are most

261
worthy organisations and render great service to the industry. To-day they are extremely prosperous, for a number of reasons. They have engaged in other activities and have T.V. licences. They are enjoying an era of considerable prosperity. One of these circuits was the subject of an immensely active take-over battle recently. Clearly, the takeover presented a considerable amount of allure to people, and no one was deterred from wishing to take over this vast circuit by the prospect of paying too much levy. If I may say so, not the slightest whisper exists in relation to these organisations that they will shut their cinemas, or ought to shut their cinemas, because of the present levy position.
You will not be assisting the exhibition side of the industry in the least in relation to these cinemas by taking £700,000 from the levy Fund and giving it back in the form of a donation to the industries concerned. I think this is an unthought-out proposal, simply because, unhappily, in the forms of government that exist, many proposals are not thought out: people do not have the time or the opportunity to think them out, or they do not have the knowledge to think them out. But certain it is that I do not believe that this proposal is in the least degree for the benefit of the film industry. The production side of the industry at the moment is precariously prosperous, and this is so, as was rightly said by the Opposition spokesman, because of films that are being made in foreign sources.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, when he intervened, was in the least at variance with the noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Benches. I think they both intended to say that this was a good thing; and I think, from the point of view of the British film industry, it is a very good thing. It keeps our studios occupied, it keeps our scriptwriters occupied, and it keeps our actors engaged. It contributes, as I say, to the precarious prosperity that exists.
What brings people here? I think that there are two major factors, and possibly there may be three. Strangely enough—and this, I think, will be a great comfort to many of us—I think they find the trade union conditions that prevail here in relation to the industry less onerous and less difficult than those
262
in many other parts of the world, and I think this should be said. I think that, more importantly, from a financial point of view, what brings them here is first, the attraction of the Eady levy, and secondly, that they can derive certain fiscal and taxation advantages. But, above all, it is the attraction of procuring easy money on films which they are able to make on British qucta films.
I think it is extremely imprudent, when the prosperity of the production side of the industry is so very much reliant on the provision of this levy, that it should be arbitrarily altered in this fashion, without sufficient thought and consideration being given to the possible implications. I believe the implications can be very serious for an industry which has suffered considerable vicissitudes over the years. It can change almost in a moment. The film industry has suffered enormous hardships and privations. There was a time (perhaps no one knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who has been intimately acquainted with the industry for years) when many people working in that industry had the greatest insecurity of employment, and did not know from week to week whether they would be employed and how long employment would last. We have at long last tried to better that situation and to correct it, but, as I say, it is precarious; and we have tried to correct this largely because of this ingenious device which was introduced by a Labour Government some years back. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to consider whether there should not be fun her reflection on this, not from the point of view of advantaging the producers, not from the point of view of ensuring that some benefit comes to one side or the other, but from the point of view of ensuring that the industry as a whole does not suffer.
I venture to make these concluding remarks. I think it would be quite invidious to say that the production side of an industry is more important than its exhibition side. But the production side of an industry sounds further than its exhibition side. The films made in this country are shown not only in the 1,800 cinemas in this country, but in perhaps 180,000 cinemas thoughout the world. These films produce an image and a picture of the whole country; they are a

263
part of the nation's culture. It is, I venture to think, of high importance, if not of the highest importance, that that culture should be maintained at a high, good and worth-while level. This appears to be a modest change, introduced in most disarming terms with, if I may say so, a brief and perfunctory explanation from the Government, and it would look as though something was being done of no real consequence. I think that something is being done that may be of very real consequence that ought to be avoided, and I would urge the Government, even at this very late hour, to reconsider.
7.44 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in saying that something of great consequence is being done by the Government, but to disagree with him in saying that I support these regulations. Like the noble Lord, I have an interest to declare as I have interests in the film industry on the exhibiting side, but I speak entirely for myself. When this levy was first devised by the Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said —a fact which is often forgotten, and I think the film industry owes a tremendous debt to the Prime Minister for this—it was definitely laid down that the levy should not impose an undue burden on the exhibitors. The rate of levy has remained unchanged since 1960. During this period cinema attendances have halved and the number of cinema licences has been reduced by one-third. On the other hand, since 1960 the levy percentage of box office receipts has risen from 6 per cent. to about 8 per cent.
It is no good driving cinemas out of business by maintaining the levy at an unrealistic rate. If cinemas are forced to close down there will be no levy at all. Therefore, I would submit that it is in the best interests of the film industry that the levy should be paid in this kind of way. I think the Government had a very difficult decision to take vis-à-vis the exhibiting side and the producing side, and I think this was probably the only way which they could decide and I support these regulations for that reason.
I should like to add a few words to the urgent plea of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead for the National Film
264
School. I agree with him that the time really has come when we must decide about this film school—this great project which was so well advocated in the Report of the Committee sitting under my noble friend's chairmanship. Indeed, if I may be personal, thirty years ago, in 1938, my late father asked the Government when a National Film School was going to be established, and I am still asking that question. I must disagree with my noble friend, however, in that I do not think this film school should be financed entirely by the levy. I accept the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that this is a large sum which may in the end be denied to the National Film School; but I do not think that this sum should be used for the National Film School. I consider that the school should be financed partly by the Department of Education and Science, and the remainder as to one part by the exhibitors, another part by the television industry, both I.T.V. and B.B.C., and the third part by the advertising industry.
I realise that this is perhaps not so convenient or so easy to operate as the whole finance coming from Eady levy, but I think it is much fairer. After all, as films and television come closer together, and advertising standards continue to improve, all media are going to benefit by this National Film School. But the main thing is to get it going, and I must urge the Government to make a decision on this quickly, and to tell us what they have in mind so that the matter does not drag on another thirty years and some other noble Lord in the future will be asking the same question that I am asking now.
7.48 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I just want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for making it quite clear that the purpose of my intervention earlier was not to indicate that I object to American investment in British films here. On the contrary, as he has stated, it gives a great many people a great deal of work, and in that sense perhaps I should declare a small interest, inasmuch as I have been working for an American company for the last three months. On the other hand, I very much deplore the fact that while the British film production fund

265
was set up to encourage British production (and I think the original intention was indigenous British production), the fact is that some of the big companies that could, and should, be doing more in this direction have not been doing so much. In fact, the company with which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is associated I think has been dragging its heels in this direction in the last three or four years, and I was pleased to read recently that they have decided to get going and make some British pictures.
I should like to say, also, that I think there is a case for some relief to exhibitors, and in that sense I would partly agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made a powerful case when he pointed out (and this has been overlooked) that 1,000 cinemas which do not come up to a certain level of takings do not pay any levy at all. So that the hardest pushed are not helped at all by this relief. I think some attention may, and should, have been given to adjusting the levy in some way to help the middle grade of cinemas, but the fact cannot be overlooked—and I think it is fair to them to say that they never asked for this—that the majority of this relief will in fact go to the owners of the two big circuits. It is not going to provide the great relief that we have been told about, to hard pressed independent exhibitors. In that sense, therefore, while accepting that some adjustment ought to have been made, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that this is hasty, ill-thought out, ill-contrived, precisely because insufficient thought has been given to it and because there has been insufficient consultation with people in the industry.
I should also like to support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for the National Film School. It is a scandal that not by one whisper have the Government indicated their attitude to this matter. How can they possibly ask busy men to sit round and discuss what they are assured is an urgent and important problem, and then to prepare a report, when absolutely nothing is said or done by the Government? Why was there not, either in another place or here, a word of apology from the Government about the adjustment of the levy and the fact that no attention has yet been given to the
266
film school, in spite of the recommendations made by the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd?
I agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi that it would be unfair to ask the cinema to bear the whole burden of the National Film School. It would help the talents of many young people, and also help two or three industries, and I think my noble friend's suggestions of how it could be financed are important. But some small proportion might have been taken from the levy, and I would ask the Government to give a firm assurance that before any further adjustment is made in the levy they will make a statement about their policy so far as the Film School is concerned.
Finally, I was much amused by the tribute paid by the noble Lore, Lord Drumalbyn, to British pictures and the fact that we export the British way of life. I was speaking to-day to an American producer who told me that two of our pictures which show the British way of life in all its glory—"Poor Cow" and "Up the Junction"—have just "died the death" in America.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am in a condition of disinterested ignorance about the film industry. That is no doubt appropriate in a Legislature. It is only in the Fulton Report that some doubt has been thrown upon its appropriateness in the Ministries. But I listened to what was said about a National Film School with attention and agreement. This was apparently a departmental Committee which was set up at the instance of Miss Jennie Lee. I do not know the precise form of it. The Government have a terrible habit of setting up Committees and then accepting their recommendations only if they happen to suit the Government. Not only this Government but every Government acts in this way, and it is really all wrong. If you are going to have a Committee set up and reaching conclusions, especially on a matter of this real importance, then you can either agree and accept them, as the Government have done with suspicious promptitude over the Fulton Report—and only a "working lunch" is needed; I could tell about that —or else say that the matter can be accepted in part, refused in part or refused entirely. I do not think that a complete refusal is the right

267
course with a Committee that has been set up in this way. Constant delay amounts to a consistent refusal.
I have had a Question on the Order Paper since May 8 asking about the Departmental Committees set up by the Government, and that Question still remains unanswered. I have taken steps to put down five more Questions in order to try to discover what has happened. It must be perfectly clear that if a Departmental Committee is set up and its conclusions are not in accord with the views of the appropriate Ministry, then it is forgotten. The Government must have lost count of the Departmental Committees they have set up, and no doubt they have forgotten about this one. But as one of my noble friends indicated, the position is ten times worse when two Departments are concerned, as in this case.
I still remember with great admiration the speech made at Scarborough by the Prime Minister. One of the things he was urging was a closer link between technical advances, scientific views and industry, and I should have thought that in an industry such as the film industry it was right that everything possible should be done to promote a higher standard in film making. I say this with great respect to noble Lords concerned in the industry. I am merely a filmgoer and all the best films I see are by no means British; they usually come from some other country. In my opinion we need a film school. The fact that we need one is recognised in the Report, and I am ashamed of the Government if they are unable to say that in principle they agree and that they will look into the matter. I hope that somehow or other they will get a National Film School on its legs.
I listened to what was said and I agree with it completely. I am convinced by it, and I hope the Government have not forgotten their own Departmental Committee to such an extent as to have failed to instruct or to remind my noble friend Lord Brown of the position when he moved this Order, because clearly it has a very close connection indeed with the Committee. If he is not able to tell us what the Government policy is on the matter of a National Film School, perhaps he would consider
268
not pressing the Order for the moment but come back with it a little later, with a statement as to what the Government are going to do.
I take no part in disputes between the producers, on the one hand, and the exhibitors, on the other, but I should have thought they were equally interested in producing and showing good films. I should have thought that it was to the advantage of this country, particularly at a time when there is a little more question about our standing in the world than there has ever been before—and I am talking not only about this Government but also about previous Governments—that in a matter of this kind we, who have not been slow in the Arts but who have often not been sufficiently recognised in the Arts, should take care to see that our film industry is improved by every reasonable means, among which I would certainly include a National Film School.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I was rather disturbed to hear my noble friend Lord Mitchison say that he was ashamed of the Government because they had not taken any action to set up a Film School.
LORD MITCHISON: I did not say that, my Lords; I said I was ashamed because they had failed to consider it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Very well, to consider the suggestion. What is the position of the world we face to-day? We face a situation of economic difficulty in this country. We are trying to grapple with that, on the one hand, by increasing productivity and, on the other hand, by trying to regulate wages, profit and dividents, and surely that takes precedence over such matters as setting up a film school.
We are living in a world in which we are confronted with calamities, in Vietnam, in Biafra and in other places, and again in my view the relief of suffering in such places must take precedence over the setting up of a film school. We have heard from some noble Lords who have expert knowledge of the film industry. I would like to look at this from the point of view of an ordinary person who sits in the five-and-ninepennies. My general view is that salaries in the film industry over the years have been far too

269
high. Far too much money has been wasted in paying fancy salaries to starlets and "sex kittens", or whatever you care to call them, and the industry itself should have regulated its procedures much more sensibly and satisfactorily and provided the money with which to undertake this film education out of its own resources.
The British film industry is always telling us that it is a competent industry, and surely it should have been capable, like the other industries that are setting up training schemes of one kind an-another, of taking this matter in hand itself and financing it out of its own resources, even if it needed to accumulate those resources by paying less fancy salaries to the people engaged in the industry. Day by day in the newspapers we see that many of those people have either spent all the huge salaries they have earned and gore bankrupt, or gone bankrupt because they have failed to pay income tax and surtax on their huge earnings, or spend half the year abroad in foreign climes to dodge British taxation to a large extent altogether. I do not think the film industry deserves to be featherbedded, although I do believe it has great potentialities, if competently managed, not only for providing decent entertainment for our people here but also helping in a very big way in the export market.
8.2 p.m.
Loan BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi for welcoming this Bill. It is one of the commentaries one can make on the liberal attitude of this House that most of the criticism seems to have come from my noble friends. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, asked for certain figures with regard to current films in progress. I am sorry I cannot give them but I will see that he is provided with them in writing.
May I come straight away to the question of the Film School. The House has taken the opportunity to debate something that does I think lie a little outside the terms of the Regulations in front of us, but that is their choice. I do not want to say anything in commenting on what they have said or to give any indication at ail of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the
270
formation of this Film School. I do not want to give any indication that the outlook is sombre or rosy, because it is not my duty to-night to give that information. This is a matter for consideration and will have to be a matter of future legislation. The point was raised entirely on the question of finance. I think it would be a great pity if a move in this way with regard to the regulation of the levy as between exhibitors and producers had to wait on every occasion for future thoughts about such matters as film schools.
I think it is not right to say that these Regulations are hasty and ill-contrived, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, merely because they do not take account of something which is still sub judice. Equally, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who I must admit is a wonderful protagonist for the film industry, and for whose interest in the arts I have every admiration. I do not agree when he says the Board of Trade has totally disregarded the Film School, because it is not the object of these Regulations to consider the matter of the Film School—though the question of the levy will have a future bearing. It is not my object this evening to argue for or against the way in which a Film School should in future be started It is another matter and I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to excuse me altogether from giving the undertaking for which he asked, namely that there should be no further alteration in the levy until the matter of the Film School has been decided. I know I must sound very difficult but it is necessary to keep separate the matter of these Regulations which have to be looked at from time to time and other matters which, although they have a bearing in connection with the levy, are separate and distinct things.
Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that the percentage of box office paid in levy under the original Act and ensuing amending Orders has run from 1960 to 1967 at 5·9 per cent. 6·5, 6·7, 6·9, 7·3, 7·5, 7·6, 7·6. I think that any group of exhibitors placed in a situation where there is a rising percentage of their box office takings paid to the producers is entitled to have the situation looked at. In matters of this sort the Board of Trade is rather in the position of Solomon. It is not a matter that is

271
conducive to hard logic, it is a matter of fine judgment. But I would claim that whereas the Board is in a totally unbiased position on this matter, with great respect to many who have argued for a different course they are, with their deep and commendable interest in the film schools and the quality of the films produced, in a somewhat biased position; they want a film school, they want to back producers, they want better films.
Some people are not as sympathetic to the distributors; some are. There is always argument and we are put in the position of having to exercise Solomon's judgment. I think we have come to the best balanced position we could have and we have the backing of the Cinematographic Films Council in doing so. We set them up to advise us and we have taken their advice. They are the correct body to give advice and I think it would be folly for us to turn this advice down. On these grounds I commend these Regulations.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COLLECTION OF LEVY) REGULATIONS 1968
LORD BROWN: I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations 1968, laid before the House on June 12, be approved.—(Lord Brown.)

COUNTRYSIDE BILL
8.8 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments, the Commons Amendment in lieu of another of the Lords' Amendments and the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain other of the Lords' Amendments be now considered.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ANOTHER OF TILE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[References are to Bill (99) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics.]

COUNTRYSIDE BILL

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  [No. 1].
  Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("Country-side") insert ("and National Parks").
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
  Because the shorter title is neater and comprehensive.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed. This was the Amendment carried into the Bill in your Lordships' House which would restyle the Countryside Commission, as it appeared in the Bill, the Countryside and National Parks Commission. I do not think it is necessary at this stage to enter into the argument, which we discussed certainly twice, and I believe three times, and I would simply draw your Lordships' attention to the Reason given by the Commons, which is that it is shorter and simpler to have the inclusive and simpler title rather than the longer one. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House doth not insist on the Amendment (No. 1) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I must, having originally proposed this change, take a moment or two of your Lordships' time to put it on record that I think that in disagreeing with our Amendment the Government have taken

  273
  a mean and, indeed, a spiteful action. After all, what did they do? The first thing the Government did was to sack Lord Strang and his colleagues, who had done excellent work on the National Parks. Now they refuse a suggestion that the good work which the National Parks did should be remembered in the title of the new authority. That was the proposal which was made and which found almost universal favour here before. I must say that I think that is a mean and potty decision, and I would say to Lord Strang and his colleagues that I am sure the country will not forget the good work which he and the National Parks Commission did, and also that they will note, mark and remember the mean action which the Government have taken.
  Lotto BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like in a word or two to endorse everything my noble friend Lord Swinton has said, and most particularly the tribute which he paid to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and his colleagues. The significant history of this matter is that the Government were defeated in Standing Committee in another place on this issue. They were then defeated again on the Report stage in your Lordships' House. They support themselves with the argument that the existing National Parks Commission prefers the shorter name. In fact, the National Parks Commission, in their Report for 1966, said:
  "It is important therefore that the name 'National Parks Commission' should not be withdrawn from public notice or that any question should be given that the cause of the National Parks will be allowed to go by default. The National Parks Commission have therefore strongly advised that the name to be given to the new Commission shall be the 'Countryside and National Parks Commission'."
  We know that since then the Government have managed to bring the National Parks Commission to heel, and the National Parks Commission now say that they would prefer the shorter name. But the Government have not been able to bring to heel the Council of the Society for the Preservation of Rural England; nor, so far as I am aware, all the amenity societies which re concerned with these matters, all of which would strongly prefer the name "National Parks" to be retained for this new body.
  274
  My noble friend Lord Molson, who took a prominent part in our debates on this matter, explained to me a moment or two ago that he had not been able to stay for this discussion because of the unexpected length of time the last business took, but he would wish me to speak for him. Indeed, he asked me to do so, and he said to me in the Lobby outside, a moment or two ago, that he thought this was a flagrant example of the Government's narrow-minded obstinacy.
  LORD MITCHISON: My Lards, if the Government never did anything worse than this—
  A NOBLE LORD: If!
  LORD MITCHISON:—the Opposition would have nothing to complain about. All the Government have done is to call the Bill by what they say is a neater and more comprehensive Title: and I think that is quite right. The Long Title describes it as:
  "An Act to enlarge the functions of the Commission established under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949…"
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: What has that to do with it?
  LORD MITCHISON: What is the complaint? The complaint is that they are giving the Bill a shorter Title. I should have thought this involved no insult whatever, but is a tribute, in which we should all concur, to the Commission established under the 1949 Act. As I have just said, the opening words in Clause 1 are:
  "The functions of the National Park; Commission shall be enlarged in accordance with this Act and in future their name shall be the ' Countryside Commission'."
  Here we have what the Opposition choose to call an exhibition of spite and obstinacy because the Government prefer a rather shorter Title and do that by explaining that they are enlarging the functions of that Commission. With great respect, if no one can think of a better case against the Government than that then they are on very strong ground indeed.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: That is not saying very much.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I must emphatically reject the words that were used: that this was a mean, spiteful and

  275
  petty action on the part of the Government—words endorsed, to my surprise and regret, by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in his observations on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, regretted that the Government should refuse that the good works done by the National Parks Commission should be remembered in the title of the new body. There is no need to remember them, either here, there, or elsewhere, because the Commission are continuing and they will continue. The new Countryside Commission will continue to be responsible for the National Parks, as the former National Parks Commission were.
  I differ from everything that has been said by Lord Swinton and Lord Brooke, with the one exception of their tributes to the work of Lord Strang, in which on behalf of the Government I most heartily join. Good work was done by that Commission. It is now time to enlarge their functions, and it would be totally unrealistic and (I say this after consideration) sentimental to insist on the retention of a lot of extra words giving rise to a whole mouthful of initials, the C.N.P.C., for the new body set up by this Bill who are to look after —and no-one has really doubted it, including the noble Lords who have just spoken—the entire countryside, including the National Parks.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said the National Parks Commission had strongly advised against the change of title. I communicated to the House in Committee, on Report and, I think, probably also on Third Reading, the present attitude of that Commission, and I now have the opportunity to communicate the fact that the Chairman has again written to the Minister of State in the Ministry of Housing, expressing the Commission's view on the Lords Amendment which has now been rejected by the Commons. He wrote:
  "It is the Commission's considered view that the short title, ' Countryside Commission' is preferable to ' Countryside and National Parks Commission'".
  My Lords, I never heard such strong words about such a small point. We all agree that good work has been done and continues to be done.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  [No. 2]
  Clause 2, page 3, line 27, leave out ("with the approval of the Minister")
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
  Because the Minister must retain his responsibility for ensuring that the terms of any proposed loan of officers, servants or consultants are not to the disadvantage of the public purse.
  LORD KENNET: I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed. This is the one which said that the Countryside Commission might lend their officers to local planning authorities without the need for the Minister's approval of the terms on which they do so. The point about this Amendment is that if these words were deleted it could give rise to a false impression that the Commission would be able to lend their officers without the Minister's approval. In fact, they would not. The staff of the Commission come, for establishment and all administrative purposes, under the control of the Minister of Housing. Whether or not these words are present in the Bill, the Minister will have to approve the terms on which the Commission can lend officers to anyone else. This being so, it was the view of the Government, endorsed by the House of Commons, that it is better to say so in the Bill and so avoid any possible doubt.
  Moved, That the House doth not insist on its Amendment (No. 2) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
  8.20 p.m.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the issue is whether or not, under the powers given to them under the Bill, if the Countryside Commission wish to lend a member of their staff for a fortnight to a local planning authority they must get the Minister's approval for the financial terms. It is of course an absurdity that that should be necessary. It is necessary because—and I am sorry to say this—my old Department has not moved with the times and still insists on keeping over the work of the National Parks Commission, a vice-like financial control which it proposes to extend to the new Countryside Commission.

  277
  I think one of the factors which swayed your Lordships' House in carrying this Amendment was the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, against the restrictive effects of this close financial control by the Minister over the work of the Commission. I accept of course that this Amendment is symbolic. It makes little difference in practical effect whether the Amendment is in the Bill or not. The fact that the Government are insisting, and are coming out into the open to insist, on this continuation of a detailed financial control which is not conducive to wise spending of Exchequer money affords me the opportunity of expressing once again my most urgent hope that this Department will one day soon wake up to modern ideas about financial control, and will at last realise that it is not reasonable to call upon people, and to appoint people, to do a thoroughly responsible job throughout England and Wales yet treat them in matters of finance as children.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Department is really fully alive to modern ideas and has no intention of treating the Countryside Commission or its staff like children. The point is, whether or not these words are in the Bill, the people concerned remain on the Vote of the Ministry, and of course all arrangements for their future, or their services, on loan or in any other way, must remain under the control of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament for them. Since there is no real issue of whether these words are or are not there, I should like to repeat my former point, that it will be for the general understanding of how things work if they remain in the Bill; but there is no intention whatever on the part of my right honourable friend to administer this in any narrow or pettifogging way.

  LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
  [Nos. 3 and 4]
  Clause 25, page 26, line 29, after ("contributions") insert ("of such amount in each case as they shall, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable ")
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
  Page 26, line 28, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
  ("() The highway authority shall contribute not less than a quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred in compliance with subsection (1) above, and shall have power to make further contributiotis of such amount in each case as they shall, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable.")
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed. With the leave of the House I should also like to speak to No. 4, which is a drafting Amendment to make the Government intention clear. It is intended that highway authorities shall be under an obligation to contribute 25 per cent. of the expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out maintenance (I think all noble Lords here present will remember from our earlier discussions what I ant talking about) and that they should have discretion to make such further contributions as, in regard to the circumstances of each case, they consider reasonable.
  Moved, That the House doth not insist on its Amendment (No. 3) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment (No. 4) in lieu of the Lords Amendment (No. 3) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)

  LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENT THERETO
  [Nos. 5 and 6]
  After Clause 26, insert the following new clause
  Riding of pedal bicycles on bridleways
  ".—(1) Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.
  (2) Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws.
  (3) The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the bridleway, and this

  279
  section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridle-way by cyclists.
  (4) Subsection (1) above shall not affect any definition of "bridleway" in this or any other Act.
  (5) In this and the next following section "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1960.
  (6) It is hereby declared that sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the said Act of 1960 (offences connected with riding of bicycles) apply to bridleways as being highways which are "roads" within the meaning of that Act.
  (7) Section 12(1) of the said Act (prohibition of cycle racing on highways) shall have effect as if the expression public highway "included a bridleway, but without the exception for a race or trial authorised by regulations under that section."
  The Commons agreed to this Amendment, hut proposed the following Amendment thereto:—
  In subsection (5), line 1, leave out ("and the next following")
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to the Lords Amendment No. 5. This is the question of the wheeling of pedal bicycles on footpaths. The way it comes back to us from the Commons, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing, is based upon the recognition of the fact that if you go on footpaths there is nothing to prevent you from wheeling a bicycle or pushing a pram, or taking anything along with you that you may normally take anywhere. In the words of the House of Commons, there is not a reason for any special detailed provisions on this matter which has exercised both Houses for so long.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment (No. 6) to the Lords Amendment (No. 5). —(Lord Kennet.)
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I do not blame the noble Lord at all for having found it so confusing to move the right Motion and I trust, in the light of what he has said, that we can also allow the short debate to roll forward on to Amendment No. 7, for which Amendment No. 6 is a paving Amendment.
  The substance here, of course, is in Amendment No. 7. There appears to be a difference of opinion as to whether cyclists have a legal right to wheel their
  280
  cycles on a footpath, and I was endeavouring to remove that legal doubt when I suggested to your Lordships that we should insert this new clause. This all goes back, like so much else in this whole field, to the Hobhouse Report of 1947 on Footpaths and Access to the Countryside. What that Report said was that there is no legal right for cyclists, either mounted or dismounted, to use footpaths. That Committee went on to recommend that wheeling a bicycle, dismounted, on a footpath shall not be illegal in the absence of a by-law to the contrary.
  What your Lordships were seeking to do was to implement in legislation that recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee made 21 years ago. However, the Government will have nothing of it, and so the law will remain unamended; the legal doubt will persist, and cyclists will still be seen carrying their machines along footpaths because of a fear that, if they wheel the machine, they may be stopped and prevented from using that path.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  [No. 7]
  After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause
  Wheeling of pedal bicycles on footpaths
  ". Any member of the public shall, subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws, have the right to wheel a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any footpath."
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
  Because of lack of evidence of need for legislation on this subject.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment (No. 7) to which the Commons have disagreed. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said, this hangs together with the last two Amendments.
  Moved, That the House doth not insist on its Amendment (No. 7) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  [No. 8]
  Clause 45, page 41, line 15, at end insert ("except that Parts III and IV of Schedule 3 shall come into force on such day as the Minister may by order, made by statutory

  281
  instrument, appoint and such an order shall not be effective until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
  Because it is desirable that all the provisions of the Schedule should take effect as soon as possible.
  LORD KENNET: I beg to move that the House doth not insist on its Amendment (No. 8) to which the Commons have disagreed. This was an Amendment introduced by Lord Chesham, I think for the main purpose of enabling consultations to take place between himself and myself about the interests of the motoring organisations in the "roads used as public paths" provisions of the Bill. These consultations have now taken place, and I believe I am right in saying that all difficulties have been removed.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment (No. 8) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  [No. 9]
  Schedule 4, page 51, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() At least one of the members of a joint board or joint advisory committee or a planning committee or sub-committee of a planning committee referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, who is appointed by each county council, shall be a county district councillor from a county district wholly or partially included in a National Park.")
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
  Because adequate representation of county district councils can he and is arranged under the provisions of existing legislation.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment (No. 9) to which the Commons have disagreed. This was the Amendment to require representation by county district councils on National Park planning committees. It was fully debated at an earlier stage, and I do not think I need go through the machinery of the matter. Again the Commons take another view.
  Moved, That the House cloth not insist on its Amendment (No. 9) to which the Common s have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in this case I must ask the noble
  282
  Lord, Lord Kennet, a number of questions arising out of the Commons Reason. The Commons Reason is here printed as
  "Because adequate representation of county district councils can be and is arranged under the provisions of existing legislation."
  "Can be," certainly. The question arises whether it is true to say that adequate representation of county district councils is arranged under the provisions of existing legislation. When we debated this matter on May 13 the reason this Amendment was carried was that your Lordships were satisfied that at present adequate representation of county district councils is not arranged under the provisions of existing legislation, and if this Commons Reason is valid there must have been radical changes in the last two months.
  We all know that the Dartmoor Park Planning Committee makes wise arrange-merits for representation on the Committee of both the urban district councils and the rural district councils. But in view of the Commons assurance, that adequate representation of county district councils is now arranged under the provisions of existing legislation, I should like to ask the noble Lord these questions. How many county district councillors serve on the Northumberland Park Planning Committee? How many serve on the Yorkshire Dales Joint Advisory Committee? How many serve on the North Yorkshire Moors Park Planning Committee? How many serve on the Lake District Park Planning Board? How many serve on the Peak District Park Planning Board? How many district councillors serve on the Snowdonia Joint Advisory Committee? How many on the Brecon Beacons Joint Advisory Committee? How many on the Pembrokeshire Coast Park Planning Committee? How many on the Exmoor Joint Advisory Committee?
  The Commons Reason says, in terms, that there is adequate representation of county district councils on all those planning bodies. What is that representation now which did not exist on May 13? It was because of its non-existence at that date that your Lordships passed this Amendment.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, the Commons Reason does not say in terms that it is arranged in respect of all these

  283
  bodies. It says only that adequate representation
  "can be and is arranged under the provisions of existing legislation."
  The question therefore is what is adequate representation? It would not have been true if the Commons had said, or indeed if anybody had said, "adequate representation can be arranged but is not in any case." It is arranged in some cases and in the judgment of the Government the arrangements for representation are adequate when left to the agreement of the National Park Planning Board and the local authorities concerned.
  I think perhaps the noble Lord is dwelling excessively on words. The issue here is whether or not we should write it into the Statute that there must be district council representation on every National Park Planning Board, rather than leaving it to the arrangements and the will of those concerned in each case either to arrange it, as has happened in Dartmoor, or not to arrange it, as has happened in other cases.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If I had the right to speak again, I would say that that explanation is absurd.
  LORD KENNET: I think one has the right to speak again.

TRANSPORT BILL
8.36 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 60 [Users of certain goods vehicles to hold operator's licence]:
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 147L:
Page 85, line 35, after ("a") insert ("public")
The noble Lord said: I am confident that there is a small drafting error in this case, but one that could have substantial repercussions. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment or, failing this, will give a satisfactory definition of "road" which we can add to the Bill when we reach Clause 149. At the moment in this definition Clause there is no definition of "road". One of the most recent Acts on licensing is probably the Vehicles Excise Act 1962. This
284
Act repeats the word "public" in defining "roads" in very many places. One of the largest Acts on vehicles licensing and roads is probably the Road Traffic Act, 1930. This refers to "road" but defines it as any highway and any road on which the public has access; and in another place I find that the definition of "highway" is roads which are repairable at the public expense.
If the Bill is allowed to pass as it stands, I can see endless complications. For instance, what is to prevent fork-lift trucks in factories or builders' yards requiring supervision by someone with an operator's licence? Cranes in sawmills and certain agricultural vehicles are subject to various Amendments which follow and which I hope will be pressed. It may be that some wording could be devised to confine the operators' licence requirements to vehicles requiring licences under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962, and if this were the case I dare say that some alteration could be made. Meanwhile, as it stands, the Bill is not satisfactory and I believe that this small Amendment would improve it. I, therefore, beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid that this Amendment is misconceived. The phrase "public road" has no defined or precise meaning. One meaning which does attach to it is a road which is maintained at public expense. It certainly is not a definition of a road as that type of road to which the public have a right of access. So that if we were to include it in the Bill as is suggested it would create uncertainty in place of present certainty in the use of the word "road". The word "road" is defined by virtue of Clause 91(1), page 121, lines 19 and 20, as in the 1960 Road Traffic Act. Section 257(1) of that Act defines a road as:
"any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes."
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has in mind a point which is already covered by this definition, and that is that licences should be required for all vehicles used on roads to which the public has access. This is a principle with which the Minister would agree, especially when the emphasis of licensing is being charged to ensure higher vehicle safety standards.

285
I know that the noble Lord also has in mind the question of roads in forests and on private estates. It is not possible to generalise about this: each case would have to be examined separately. If the road were a highway—that is, if it were a road which the public can use as of right, or one to which the public has access—then licences would be needed for the use of pods vehicles on that road for hire or reward, or use on own account. If difficult cases arose in practice the Minister would, in appropriate circumstances, consider whether an exemption ought to be made.
I might also add that the word "road" has been used in a similar context in relation to the existing carriers' licensing system since the passage of the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act, and in all that time it has not given rise to any difficulty whatsoever. If we did what the noble Lord is asking us to do, we should definitely be exchanging for the present certainty attaching to the word "road" the uncertainty which must inevitably attach to the use of the words "public road".
LORD BURTON: I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's answer. He referred to the 1960 Act, but if we were still going on the 1960 Act why is the position so different in 1962, since the Vehicles (Excise) Act makes constant reference to "public road"? If it is valid for that Act, then it is surely valid for the Bill which we are now discussing. I am afraid that I cannot follow the Minister's reasoning. I have searched through the Bill, but I can find no definition of "a road". Could the noble Lord help me?
LORD HUGHES: It is defined in Clause 91(1), on page 121, in lines 19 and 20, as in the 1960 Road Traffic Act. Section 257(1) of that Act defines a road as
"any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes".
8.42 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for trying to elucidate the position, but I think that my noble friend has a point. I have been looking at the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 which is, of course, subsequent to the 1960 Act to which the noble Lord
286
referred. I agree that the 1960 Act is very clear in its definition of road ", but Section 24 of the 1962 Vehicles (Excise) Act defines "public road" as being
"a road which is repairable at the public expense."
My noble friend may have a point when he says that these definitions in the Acts of 1960 and 1962 may not necessarily completely coincide. Cm the noble Lord clear up this point?
LORD HUGHES: I pointed cut that the definition of "a public road" is a road which is maintainable or repairable at the public expense. There are roads on which the public have rights, and roads to which the public have access, which are not repairable at public expense. If we use the term "public road", we confine the operation of the Bill to those roads which are repairable or maintainable at public expense. That is all that the 1962 Act concerns itself with in this definition of "a public road". A road, in the sense in which the word is being used in this Bill, is a road where it is important that safety provisions shall apply, and it is a wider definition that "a public road" is in the 1962 Act.
Nothing would please me more than, just for the sheer fun of it, to accept that the Conservative Government had been inconsistent in what they did in 1960 and in 1962, but I must acquit them of any such defect. They knew what they were doing in 1960 when they defined "a road", and they knew what they were doing in 1962 when they defined "a public road". They were perfectly well aware then what the position was. I appreciate the motives of the noble Lord in seeking to make the matter clear since one would have thought that "public road" was a better definition than "road", but, because of the way these things work in law, it is not so.
LORD BURTON: This is a licensing operation, and the 1960 Act is not. The Vehicles (Excise) Act definitely relates to licensing. The noble Lord has said that it is reasonable for licensing in one sense. Surely it is reasonable for licensing in another sense. I cannot follow the arguments on this. I know that there is a good deal of difficulty

287
over public roads. It also applies where district councils have to repair roads. This is a great difficulty because there is no definition. It is probably time that there was a strict definition of what "a public road" is.
LORD HUGHES: All I can add is that the 1962 Act is an excise Act. Excise is traditionally raised on roads which are maintained at the public expense. It is because of that that the term "public road is used in that Act but is not used in any of the other Road Traffic Acts. The word" road "goes back to 1933, and has presented no problem whatsoever during all these years. We should be foolish to abandon something which has worked when it is quite unnecessary to do so.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Can the noble Lord think of a type of road which is not covered by "public road" in this definition to which he would wish to extend the implementation of this Bill? My noble friend's point sounds very reasonable to me.
LORD HUGHES: There are many of them. In Scotland we talk about a road which has not been taken over by the local authority, and we call it a private road. There is a totally different term in England and Wales, which escapes me at the moment. But where the local authority have not taken over the road responsibility for its maintenance remains with the frontagers, although the public may have right of access to that road. That is not "a public road" in terms of the 1962 Act; it is "a road" in terms of the 1930 Act. It is a road on which it is necessary that this definition should apply. In my home town there is a road of this kind which has not yet been taken over by the local authority and on which buses run. This can happen in many places, and is one example of the sort of case which can arise.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I would advise my noble friend Lord Burton to accept the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as it appears in Section 257 of the 1960 Act. The 1960 Act makes its definition in terms of a road "to which the public has access" —that is the test; and the 1962 Act "a road repairable at the public expense", and that again is the test. But as the
288
noble Lord rightly says, a road to which the public has access is the wider definition. Although I realise that there will be certain roads in some places where it will be difficult to determine whether the public has a right of access although they use it, this may have to depend on the merits of each case. The general definition is one we should now accept.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Would the noble Lord consider whether, for the avoidance of doubt, it might not be a good idea to put a specific definition of "road" in Clause 91? At present it is covered by the curious omnibus clause at the end which does not refer to roads at all.
LORD HUGHES: But it refers to a definition in another Act which is quite specific. This is quite common practice. Where Parliament has defined something, we do not redefine it in the same terms in every succeeding Act in which it is necessary to make reference to it. We refer to the statute in which it has been defined. The definition is as wide as it could possibly be. We could not improve on the situation by altering the definition. All we could do is to repeat it in this Bill. That has not been the practice up to now.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not think that the noble Lord has looked at Clause 91 recently. The point is that "road" is not mentioned in Clause 91. The definition is covered by an omnibus provision which says:
"…any expression not defined above which is also used in the Act of 1960 has the same meaning as in that Act."
It seems to me that it would be for the avoidance of doubt if there were a definition of "road" in the clause.
LORD HUGHES: What I will certainly undertake to do is that if the Bill does not include a proper reference to the definition as it exists in previous legislation, I will ensure that there is a proper reference back to this wide definition. If it is not clearly in the Bill at present, it ought to be and I will ensure that it is put in.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is right. It is referred to only in these general terms:
"…any expression not defined above which is also used in the Act of 1960 has the same meaning as in that Act."

289
Perhaps, in all the circumstances, it would be just as well if "road" did have its own definition by direct reference to the 1960 Act.
LORD BURTON: I should like to thank the noble Lord for at last conceding a little on this, and I hope that when he is drawing up this definition, as I hope he will, he will look at the broader definition of the word. I think he gave two different definitions. This being a licensing matter it is tying people down, and the broader we can make it the better. As regards his remarks about Scottish roads, if in fact such a road as lie mentioned was to be considered the district council would have a right to spend money on it. It may not be taken over by the county council, but they would in fact have that right. Therefore, I think it would be a road on which public expenditure could be legally made. Consequently. I think that argument is not quite valid, but in view of his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.52 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved Amendment No. 147M:
Page 86, line 3, at end insert—
("() to the use of tractors and machines registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962, at the agricultural rate of duty and used within the conditions specified therein; or
() to the use of any mechanically propelled vehicle exempted from the duty chargeable under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 in accordance with the provisions of section 6(6) of that Act; or").
The noble Lord said: We are now on Part V of the Bill, the clauses on quality licensing, and we on these Benches open with an Amendment in fact far less complicated than it reads in the nature of things on the Marshalled List. I should make it plain, as has been done before, that we on this side approve of quality licensing in principle and where it contributes to road safety. We have certain differences with the Government as to some of the methods they have selected, and sometimes as to the extent of the measures they propose to bring in. We do not oppose in itself the idea of an operator's licence. The effect of this Amendment would be to exempt from the requirements of an operator's licence
290
certain vehicles which scarcely ever use the public roads. They scarcely do so, either because they cannot be usefully employed on a road or because they are strictly limited already by existing law as to the distance they are permitted to travel on public roads.
These exemptions would be, of course, in addition to those listed, in equally and inevitably complicated form, under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (4) of this clause, and in addition to any others which might be brought in under the present paragraph (b) of this subsection. I also have with me a copy of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, which we have quoted this evening. I trust no noble Lord will wish me to quote extensively or descriptively. The first class which we would wish the Government to exempt under this Amendment is described in the Third Schedule of that Act. Those vehicles which are not purely and exclusively useful as working rather than travelling machines—digging, hauling, threshing, mowing, lifting and other earthy activities—are only permitted to travel a maximum of 15 miles along a public road to another property, normally another farm in the occupation of the vehicle's owner. These pay a £5 tax, and they are in a clearly defined category. They cannot sensibly be equated with the types of vehicles for which an operator's licence is designed.
The second class of vehicles referred to in this Amendment comprises those which might use the public roads with somewhat greater frequency but which are also strictly limited to passing from one piece of land in the owner's occupation to another and for a distance not exceeding a total of six miles in any one week. The owner already has to satisfy the county council under Section 6(6) of that Act that this is the purpose for which the vehicle is used. If it should be otherwise used, the exemption from road licence is withdrawn, and with that withdrawal would come also the withdrawal of the exemption conferred by this Amendment.
This may appear at first sight to be mainly for the benefit of farmers, but in fact it wilt also assist other types of vehicle—dumpers and cranes, for instance, crossing a road from one construction site to another. This would seem a sensible and natural alliance. I

291
cannot think that the Government will have any great objection to it, and I do not suppose the Committee would therefore wish me to argue it any further. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: This Amendment, of course, is in two parts. May I just add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said? The sort of agricultural vehicles to which the noble Lord has been referring and which are over 30 cwt. unladen are most of the tractors of the large manufacturers—Massey Ferguson, David Brown, Fordson and Nuffield; certain four-wheel drive tractors, which are generally conversions; and, indeed, crawlers, just before they become (I think it is) 7¼ tons and become a locomotive. It is true that under subsection (2)(b) of this clause the Minister has power to exclude certain vehicles, but the Thirteenth Schedule of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, excludes agricultural vehicles from carriers' licensing, so I feel the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has been consistent in proposing this exemption from the new licensing.
We are not attempting to write an exclusion into the Bill for farmers' goods vehicles, although it is to be hoped that the Minister will consider them favourably for regulations. But agricultural machines, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has pointed out, really are an exception, and their exclusion would not jeopardise the real aim of quality licensing as outlined in the White Paper, paragraph 44—namely, road safety. The maximum speed of tractors is low; the distances travelled compared with the rest of the motoring public are short; and these vehicles, although not subject to the Ministry of Transport test, are covered by an absolute host of Construction and Use Regulations. This latter point is a small one to which the noble Lord did not refer.
The second half of the Amendment, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, takes on a considerably more serious attitude in the light of what has just gone before on Lord Burton's Amendment. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. I cannot imagine that the Government wish to include vehicles exempted from licensing in Section 6(6) of the 1962 Act in quality licensing. We shall only know this
292
now if the noble Lord will kindly give us some kind of assurance from the Government Front Bench about it. It would mean, if this was not accepted, that a farmer with something like a mobile slurry tank for pumping out pig and cow houses would require the whole paraphernalia of an operator's and transport manager's licence. I suppose a combine would be included: it has a goods carrying capacity.
The acceptance of this part of the Amendment will, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said, help not just agriculture but forestry, horticulture and industry. To my great surprise. I discovered about two days ago (I believe this is correct) that of the major interests availing themselves of Section 6(6) agriculture makes the fewest applications. This Amendment really would not alter the Government's main objective in quality licensing—road safety—and perhaps in this spirit the Amendment may be acceptable.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: The Government are aware that when this Bill was in another place, and when it left another place, there was very much concern among farmers and timber growers, even more than in other industries, that Parts V and VI would add seriously to the costs of their operations and to the movement and delivery of their produce. Many representations have been made to the Government by organisations on their behalf, stating clearly how this would be and the effect on costs and prices and on competition with imports from overseas. I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have fully considered the various objections and recommendations which were submitted to them, and whether they are able to give an assurance on this Amendment and on this Part of the Bill which will be helpful to the industry.
On the matter of obtaining licences to own and use vehicles for farm and forestry requirements and production, I should like to know that the Government agree that individuals will be put to much more trouble than before—and to trouble which seems to be needless; and to trouble for people who are already very hard worked on all the details of their businesses and in keeping within the laws which already affect them. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee on Parts V and VI; but I

293
think that at the beginning of the discussions on them it would be helpful if we could have some recognition from the Government of the serious anxiety among persons in agriculture and forestry and if they would give some assurance about modifications in the Bill.
9.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: The Government are very conscious of the fact that there is anxiety on the part of farmers and others engaged in agriculture about the possible effect of this clause, although I would submit, having regard to what was said in another place when an Amendment similar to this was discussed, that there is no cause for that anxiety to continue on the scale that it does. When this was discussed in the Commons Standing Committee on March 27 (cols. 2233 to 2237) the Amendment was withdrawn after an assurance had been given by my honourable friend the Minister of State to the effect that representations for exemptions would be considered when regulations under Clause 60(2)(b) were being drafted.
I would not quarrel with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, stated the classes to which his Amendment would apply. It is true, as has been said, that both of these classes of vehicles have been exempted from carrier licensing: the first under paragraph 1 of Schedule 13 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 and the second class under the Road and Rail Traffic Act Exemption Regulations 195'7. But it by no means follows that they should be exempted from quality licensing; for this is a different thing from carrier licensing. Quality licensing is related to safety, which is different altogether from the provisions from which exemptions were given in the past.
I would re-emphasise, for it has been pointed out already, that all those vehicles which do not exceed 30 cwt. unladen weight, or 3½ tons gross, will be exempted under the Bill. Secondly, despite what has been said, some farmers' vehicles are used to carry goods substantial distances to market. It is at least doubtful—we ought to look at the question—as to whether there is justification for excluding such vehicles from quality licensing. It may be that few or none of these would be covered by the Amend-
294
ment proposed by the noble Lord. Lord St. Oswald.
But, finally, I would point out that quality licensing will not apply to specialised farm vehicles unless they are goods vehicles. If some of the specialised pieces of farm equipment are in fact being used to carry goods—a purpose for which they are not designed—then there can hardly be argument if in so doing they place themselves in the position of being regarded as goods vehicles. But so long as they are being used for their primary purpose, the purpose for which they were designed, they are not covered by quality licensing at all.
I would repeat what my honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place: that the question of the exemptions from quality licensing which should be given to farmers' vehicles is a matter for consideration in the light of the factors to which I have referred, and in connection with the drafting of any exemption Regulations, for which there is ample provision in subsection (2)(b) of Clause 60. I will give this definite assurance: that in preparing these regulations account will be taken of representations made by organisations representative of the users, including farmers. Beyond that, it is not possible for me to go; beyond that it is not reasonable for me to go; because the regulations are the place where this should be done and not the Bill.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord for the answer that he has given to us, and for referring us to what was said in the Committee stage in another place. I am bound to say that I did not myself feel satisfied by what the Minister of State said there. I feel that these categories that are dealt with in our Amendment No. 147M really should be in the Bill, as, indeed, they have been in previous legislation. The kind of assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, gives us, with regard to quality licensing not applying to agricultural vehicles unless they are goods vehicles, really does not get us out of the difficulty; because many agricultural vehicles, like agricultural trailers or dung-spreaders, are carrying goods; they are being used as trade vehicles; and they may run on the road for a short dig Lance. The kind of exemptions to which my noble friend Lord St. Oswald referred and

295
which occur in the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 are really essential for the working of the farms.
The other point the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to was about farmers' vehicles going to market. This is a different point. If the vehicle is under 30 cwt. then we are not concerned with its exemption; if it is larger, say, a vehicle of 3½ tons plated weight or over, then, in my judgment, it should come in as any other road vehicle comes in. We are concerned here with taking out of the Schedule to the 1962 Act the farmers' vehicles going about the business of the farm or, as my noble friend mentioned, working several holdings. This is, after all, on the Statute Book now; and for the sake of certainty it should be on the Statute Book here. It is not good enough to ask the farming world or the forestry world, or the world of builders and contractors, who are governed by these matters, to wait and see what the Regulations say because the Minister has power to give them exemptions. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has had to say, the Minister could not permit himself—and the noble Lord could not permit himself—to do more than to say that these things will he considered and representations from farmers and others will be considered when the Minister is drawing up the regulations. I must say that I do not think that is good enough. In previous Acts this has been a provision. It has been recognised that these categories of vehicle need this exemption. Many of these vehicles could not begin to conform with the safety considerations of the quality licensing that we are concerned with here. We are really in a special category. For that reason, we feel that this ought to be in the Bill.
I recognise the noble Lord's difficulty that these are what he told us are the limits of his brief; but we feel strongly about this. For the sake of certainty and for the sake of the clarity of the Bill, it ought to be in the Bill. That would be better than waiting for it to be put in regulations afterwards, with all the uncertainty that goes with it. I would ask the noble Lord to take this away and discuss it with his right honourable friend in another place and point out the cogency of this case and how strong the precedents are. This should not be left to
296
regulations but should be in the Bill. If the noble Lord would say that he will do that, then I would advise my noble friend Lord St. Oswald that we should return to this on the Report stage.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, about this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, betrayed a slight inconsistency in his case. He seemed to be relying too much on the necessity for applications for exemption under the regulations. I could see the logic of his case if there were not considerable exemptions in this Bill already. The mere fact that small goods vehicles, very intricately defined, are excepted seems to strengthen the case, where you can find two classes of vehicles, such as are in this Amendment, which seem to me would come equally clearly into exemption clauses, as to why they should come into the Bill and not just be liable to representations from interested parties and the will of the Minister. I sincerely hope that we shall be able to have this put either by the Government or by ourselves at Report stage.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has put forward what I admit is a reasonable plea. If I thought there were any prospect of my being able to say something different at Report stage then I would certainly take it back. But I would be misleading the Committee it I were to have you believe that it would be any different at Report stage. Having had this discussion, if noble Lords feel strongly, then the Committee might as well divide now as do so later.
This is a matter related to quality licensing, and the Government believe that the primary consideration is that of safety. They will have regard to that primary consideration, and in doing so will so seek to frame regulations as to exempt anyone who can properly be exempted. Under past Acts that has been done frequently. This is a matter which is better done by regulation, with the flexibility of regulations, than by being included in the Bill itself. I do not think that if I were to wait until the next stage, and were to attempt to persuade noble Lords again that this is the case, I should have any better success. They will still be of the same opinion as

297
now. If they feel strongly about it, then we might as well save time by dividing now.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the kindness with which he has treated my Amendment. It has really been rather an unproductive form of kindness from our point of view. I think that his firm and quiet refusal to accept the Amendment would
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.18 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 86, line 14, at end insert ("or is a dual-purpose vehicle with an unladen weight not exceeding two tons").
The noble Lord said: This is another exempting Amendment. It is designed to
leave the owners of these categories of vehicles with a quite unnecessary and heavy burden on them. I think that, almost on the noble Lord's invitation, I should like to divide the Committee.
9.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 147M) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton, L.

Airedale, L.

Falmouth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrier, L.

Oakshott, L.

Amory, V.

Foot, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Gage, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Redmayne, L.

Auckland, L.

Glentanar, L.

Rochdale, V.

Audley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Sackville, L.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barnby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Barrington, V.

Harcourt, V.

St. Just, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Headfort, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Selkirk, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Ilford, L.

Simon, V.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Inglewood, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Buckton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Latymer, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Carrington, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swinton, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mills, V.

Verulam, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wade, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ward of Witlcy, V.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Arwyn, L.

Heycock, L.

Rowley, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stonham, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Peddie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hall, V.

Plummer, Bs.

Walston, L.

Raglan, L

Winterbottom, L.

complete one which was moved by the Government at the behest of the Opposition in another place. The concession made then was to describe a small goods vehicle, inter alia, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this clause, as having a carrying capacity not exceeding 3½ tons and an unladen weight of not more than 30 cwt. My noble friend and I had considered widening this Amendment to raise the carrying capacity

299
to 4 tons, in addition to the concession on unladen weight which we are seeking. But in view of the Government's earlier help in another place we agreed between us not to touch the laden weight but to restrict ourselves to making one consistent with the other, in a way which we think the Government themselves would wish. At the moment, under the concession granted the 30 cwt. limit excludes certain farm vehicles which, because of the nature of the land over which they work and the type of work which they are designed for have to be more heavily built and include a capacity not required on the open road. At the moment on the market there is, so far as I know, only one obvious category of such vehicle, the long wheelbase 109 ins. or 110 ins., or forward-drive Land Rover. This is a fine vehicle, we all know, of British manufacture, which has proved its worth and won popularity in far rougher and more exotic terrain than we find in these Islands. But it is extremely popular, and indeed essential, among farmers in Britain, for its dual-purpose character enables it to be used in mud and mountain and also on the main road for general runabout purposes.
There is a legal definition of dual-purpose vehicle already, so that this need not be written into the interpretation clause. It means a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage of both passengers and of goods or other burden. The legal definition in fact goes a great deal further than that in narrowing the description, but it does in fact also set a ceiling of two tons unladen weight, which we are repeating here. I have said that there is probably only one make of dual purpose vehicle now on the market which falls obviously outside the 30 cwt. limit. In this I may be understating certain others, including the Bedford range of 30 cwt. vans, the Morris 11-ton van, which may all benefit from our Amendment, especially if they have adaptations for special work or heavy work. There have certainly been others in the past, such as the Humber Snipe conversion, once extensively used on farms, and some of which may well be used still to-day. Also other models may be developed and brought on to the market in future of an equally good export potential as the Land Rover. All these vehicles are at present caught by
300
the 30 cwt. limit, and one cannot suppose that this would be the Government's intention, having brought in the previous concession. I therefore beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: I should like to add a word or two to what my noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, has said. He has dealt exhaustively with the vehicles which form the basis of our hopes and fears on this Amendment, but perhaps a brief word on the Government's dividing line of 3½ tons basic weight and 30 cwt. might be in order. It is, I think, perfectly understandable to anyone, on whichever side of the Committee he sits, that the Government are not keen on writing exemptions into the Bill which would upset the dividing line which was described by the Minister of State, Mr. Stephen Swingler, in another place as an equation of 30 cwt. unladen equalling 3½ tons gross which equals 2 tons carrying capacity.
This Amendment would not upset this equation, because a dual purpose vehicle will not carry over 1½ tons. Putting it another way, if a dual purpose vehicle were to be plated, which it will not be, no dual purpose vehicle of 2 tons would be plated at over 3½ tons, because among goods-carrying vehicles dual purpose ones have this unusual construction which puts them over 30 cwt., or, at least, it puts the Land Rover and the vehicles my noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, was talking about over 30 cwt. unladen. But I assure your Lordships that below 3½ tons plated, if they were to be plated, these are the most deserving exceptions, and their exclusion would not give many other interests the opportunity to clamour for exemption as well.
Noble Lords will realise that there would be merit in this exemption. My noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, referred to the fact that the whole idea of quality licensing is to improve road safety. The White Paper referred to excluding light delivery vans and tradesmen's vehicles. This Amendment seeks to help the Government to achieve this, since the goods carrying capacity of dual purpose vehicles does not exceed that of light vans.
Also there is one social reason behind this Amendment. For many people the Land Rover, the old estate car and other vehicles mentioned by my noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, is their sole vehicle,

301
subject to the Ministry of Transport tests and to the provisions which the Government make for construction and use, safety and roadside checks, and indeed everything resulting from road fund licensing. I respectfully suggest that this Amendment does not upset the aims of the Government and that it would remove many well founded fears throughout the country.
9.31 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the reasonable way in which they have put forward these proposals. It is really a matter of regret to me that I cannot agree with them, for the reasons I stated on the previous Amendment. The Government firmly believe that the place in which this should be done is in the regulations. We are not in fact asking the Opposition to do something in this Bill which they have not themselves clone in the past. In fact now we have come to this Amendment it gives me the opportunity to point out that the existing exemption for dual purpose vehicles—these are dual purpose vehicles, used by commercial travellers for the carriage of samples, or vehicles used for tools, apparatus and so on required by the driver or the passenger for his trade, business or profession, or vehicles used by farmers for agriculture or ancillary purposes—were not defined in an Act of Parliament but in regulations made by the Government in 1957. For the life of me I cannot see why, if it was proper for a Conservative Government to make these definitions subsequently in regulations, it is essential that in 1968 they must be written into this Bill.
LORD BELSTEAD: With great respect to the noble Lord, possibly before the Conservative Government made the regulations, they gave some assurances.
LORD HUGHES: I have given some assurances too. I cannot give an assurance that any particular vehicle will be exempted, and I doubt very much whether any Government in the past gave a firm assurance as to what was to be in regulations. I am certain that the most any Minister would have done previously is what I am doing now, to give a firm assurance that this is the sort of case that would be considered. But it
302
would be wrong for me, particularly when the primary purpose is safety rather than carriers' licensing, to give a firm assurance. I am taking it as far as I can honestly take it, and if I were to go further than that I would cease to be honest with the Committee. We are sympathetic with the objects of this Amendment but I cannot go further than to say that this is the sort of thing which will be considered for exemption in due course.
My main point is that the proper place for exemption is in regulations, and I found that similar regulations which exempt for this particular type of vehicle, were made by a previous Government.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Can the noble Lord say whether in fact any vehicle will be exempted?
LORD HUGHES: I do not think we would have gone to all the bother of making provision for exemptions if in fact we had not intended that there should be exemptions. Governments may be accused of being devious in their ways but surely the suggestion is not being made that we are just plain daft.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The precedent which the noble Lord quoted with approval, of the 1957 Act, does not really quite meet the case here. What we are asking for is something more than that. We are asking for a slight adjustment in the starting point of quality licensing for the purposes of the operator's licence. This is really something of more fundamental importance than actual regulation-making matters to which the noble Lord has referred. This operating licence which we are now discussing in Part V of the Bill is a completely new concept. Noble Lords have not yet had the chance to have a general debate on the Motion, That the clause stand part or any such occasion, but as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would agree, there are great implications for all trade vehicles in the operator's licence. While we accept the gener21 principle as being a wise one and one which will promote road safety, we still think it is extremely important to set the de minimis level at the right point, and we are not far out, as my noble friend Lord Belstead said, in accepting, as we are willing to do, the 3½ ton plated weight.

303
After all, if the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place are capable of making a concession, which they did in translating the 30 cwt. unladen into 3½ tons laden, it seems to me not beyond the bounds of possibility that they might make a further concession here. We are not asking for increased carrying power. What we are asking for is an increase in the unladen weight, to the scope of the vehicle; in other words, it covers such an immense range of vehicle, and it does include quite a number in the 30–40 cwt. range.
My noble friends Lord St. Oswald and Lord Belstead dealt with this very effectively and showed that this is a real practical problem. We are really asking for something more than exemptions on regulations; we are asking for a slightly different definition of the starting point, and this is something of rather more fundamental importance than is normally covered in regulations. We do not want to press this Amendment to a Division, but we do want the noble Lord to take this back to his right honourable friend in another place. We are not asking for concession on weight here; we are asking for concession on construction, because we know what a very wide range of vehicles exists in this field. I hope the noble Lord will be willing to look at it in those terms.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Might I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a question? The noble Lord made great play about safety; it has really been the cornerstone of his argument. Has he got any great evidence that a vehicle of unladen weight of 2 tons is so very much more dangerous than a vehicle of unladen weight of 30 cwt.? I really cannot understand that such a vehicle of 2 tons unladen weight, and particularly a dual purpose vehicle, as regards its goods carrying capacity, is in reality any different from a 30 cwt. vehicle in this connection. I cannot see where the argument of safety comes into it all.
LORD HUGHES: It is not a case of my making great play of safety. This is the primary purpose of this part of the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has been good enough to say on more than one occasion that in this aspect the Opposition are at one with the Government. So it is not
304
a question of just making use of the argument for the purpose of answering Amendments. I must admit the validity of the part of the argument that is put forward in which noble Lords seek to separate the two things, the unladen weight and the laden weight. As I understand it—I have no extensive experience in these matters at all—the 30 cwt. unladen weight is a figure which has existed as a sort of dividing line now for many years.
In another place this has been tied up with the gross weight of 3½ tons, and I presume that the 30 cwt. vehicle will normally be capable of carrying a load of approximately 2 tons of goods. At that 30 cwt. level almost a million vehicles are exempted because they are 30 cwt. or less. But I accept the point which I think is being made, that this particular type of dual-purpose vehicle also having an unladen weight of more than 30 cwt. is not capable of carrying a load of anything like 2 tons, and that to take it up to 2 tons for this particular type of vehicle would not take it beyond the other limit of 3½ tons gross.
What I am not in a position to satisfy myself about is whether there are any perils in raising it at the one end, and whether we would in fact create an impetus for manufacturers to design vehicles so as to bring them in at less than 2 tons, when in fact it would not be the proper thing to do, simply for the purpose of bringing in something which would get through the regulations. I do not want to avoid a Division on this any more than on the previous Amendment by giving any false promise, but I think it would be wrong, without committing myself in any way, if I refused to look at the question as to whether or not this can be done without creating problems in other directions. If it can be so done, then obviously there is a very special onus on the Government to look at it and to produce, if they so wish, at least some valid reasons for refusing to do it. If, on the other hand, it cannot be done without unwelcome repercussions in other fields, and I so advise the reasons for this, then I certainly would not expect noble Lords opposite to seek to pursue this at a later stage. I think the obligation is definitely on me, if this Amendment is withdrawn, to write to the noble Lord,

305
Lord St. Oswald, about the matter in ample time for him to consider it at Report stage, and then if we are in disagreement I do not think it would be necessary to waste any time in re-arguing the matter then. We could have a quick Division.
LORD ST. OSWALD: In the light of the noble Lord's remarks, I think it would be extremely churlish of me to do anything but withdraw the Amendment. What we were trying to do was to offer the Government an opportunity to be consistent with what was done in another place, and if the noble Lord finds in the light of the proviso referred to that this is not as reasonable as it looks to us I shall quite understand. I am grateful to him for what he has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 88, line 25, after ("centres") insert ("or an applicant with operating centres in more than one licensing authority area shall be permitted to make application to one licensing authority in respect of all his operating centres")
The noble Lord said: I appreciate this may be a somewhat more controversial Amendment in the eyes of the Government than the previous two I have put forward, but I think it is necessary, to conform with good commercial practice. For that reason, I do not see it as an issue of principle though it may be a contrast in approach. As I see it, Clause 62(1) of the Bill requires an operator to apply for and obtain a licence in each of the areas in which he has an operating centre and an operator's licence. Here is a measure which affects only the larger companies, those with a number of branches and depots, and who for efficiency and administrative convenience, have most of their transport work, and in particular their licensing work, handled within a centralised transport depot. This is what most of them do at present because they find it, logically enough, most efficient.
Under the new system and the "new look", this is to be frowned upon. They are to be prevented from operating as they prefer to do at present, that is under the present system, applying for one central "C" licence. Here, unless we can alter the Bill, they will have to go
306
separately to each licensing authority in whose territory they have a depot. I understand that the Government's case is that licence applications may require investigation by the licensing authority on the ground and that this precludes one central application. But does this make sense? My understanding is that the factors governing the granting or refusal of a licence are not geographical, or are very seldom so. They depend far more on the reputation, the standards maintained, the ability and the record of the company concerned. Such factors can best be investigated, not in widely scattered depots across the country, but in the area of the central depot, where the organisation of command and control is best.
As I have said, this is not an issue of principle; nor is it an issue of practicality. So far as I know, there is nothing to prevent the internal mechanism of a licensing authority from functioning outwards, even if investigation is required, even if it is called for. The issue, I submit, is different. It is a question of whether all administrative work and inconvenience and onus, here created, is to be borne by "officialdom" or unloaded upon trade or industry. This is a sad thing which the Government must watch out for and deny with deeds, not words, if they disagree. It is suspected, even assumed, that if there is going to be extra work imposed by the central Government, as much as possible of that work will have to be done by those on the receiving end of the new legislation, often enough, as in this instance, by those who deem it unnecessary in the first place.
I suggest that a Government which really looks for the co-operation of trade and industry should have regard to their interests. If the Government really require a system, a network to carry out widespread investigation, then let the Government provide the wherewithal, the specialists to do it. We do not consider that it is necessary; but if it is, it could be made a responsibility of Government servants, not an extra chore laid upon the industry. It is because we consider the application methods for transport operators' licences as they stand at present in this clause to be wasteful, and even disruptive, that we have set down this Amendment which I beg to move.
9.47 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to support my noble friend with regard to this Amendment, and in particular to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to the case of an existing "C" licence operator and to the problems of one industry, the construction industry, where new sites are constantly being opened and existing sites closed as work is completed. I feel that possibly the Government might be able to see their way to accept this Amendment, in view of their definition of "operating centre" and because of their allowance in another place that three months may elapse before an application for a new licence may be made by an operator who is moving into a new licensing authority area.
While this latitude of three months is helpful, I feel that it does not go far enough. Let us take the case of a temporary building site which, in effect, for the purposes of the Bill becomes a permanent operating centre. In this case the contract may last ten months. In that case, will the contractor need to apply for a special licence in respect of the lorries on that site, despite the fact that his main operating centre may be in a completely different part of the country? I understand that the particular point I am raising was not satisfactorily replied to in another place, and I thought it appropriate to raise it here again in the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can answer the specific point.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: Again and again, quite rightly, the Government have stressed the importance of increasing productivity in the country. But here again in this Bill we have another example of the Government acting contrary to the way they urge again and again upon the country. The clause we are now discussing does exactly the reverse, as we have just heard from the noble Lord who has just sat down and who has quite clearly pointed out how, if the Bill remains as it is, productivity will be not increased but decreased. So I urge the Government to have a really good look at this Amendment and see what can be done to stop increasing administration costs, to stop decreasing productivity, and to try to help industry carry out what the Government are again
308
and again urging them to do, namely, increase productivity. If the Government can do this they will then be carrying out in legislation what verbally, quite rightly, they have been urging the country to do.
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, asked whether information could not be interchanged between licensing authorities, as is done with "C" Licences on some occasions now. I think it is worth following that point for one second and looking at the Bill and seeing whether, in fact, this can be done. In Standing Committee F in another place, column 2301, the Minister of State said:
"We cannot have a system whereby licensing authorities on a local or regional basis are given responsibility which would compel them to go ranging on a nationwide scale in making their inquiries and investigations."
If one looks at Clause 62 and at the sort of things which the licensing authority may look into, one sees there are particulars of vehicles and trailers, a statement about the transport manager, purposes of the vehicles, particulars of the servicing, and how drivers' hours and normal loading will be complied with, past history of the applicant, and particulars of financial resources. I presume these things will be notified to the licensing authority on paper—on a form. Surely it is not too much to ask that this form should be a standard form, and that it can be done through one licensing authority. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, put the difficult point to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that perhaps his answer may be that there is something of a geographical nature, a local nature, which needs to be inquired into. One realises on looking at the Bill that the appointment of a transport manager, perhaps the most obvious thing that springs to mind, is one of these difficulties. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will point this out if he thinks fit.
I do not think it can be said too many times that this Amendment will not upset the procedures which were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that there must be different licences for different licensing areas. All we are trying to do is to reduce bureaucracy and expense for both applicants and licensing

309
authorities, and possibly, in those circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may look on this Amendment with favour.
LORD FERRIER: I am tempted by what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said to take part in the discussion on this Amendment, especially guided by what the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, said over this question of productivity. I am lot sure that this Amendment goes far enough, although indeed we may have an opportunity of going further with the point I am going to make when we come to Amendment No. 207. My point is this. There are industries—and there are two in my native city of Edinburgh—which produce products which are very tricky ones to transport. They are products which the producers would on no account agree to send by rail. They are products which —I am talking about pharmaceuticals—are of a delicate character. They are dangerous, perhaps poisonous, and subject to problems which cannot be dealt with properly by rail travel. The other is the bronze wire industry connected with the paper trade, which produces very heavy and very costly and extremely precise material for the paper trade, and is sent all over Britain. I have no interest in either of these business. I am not in the pharmaceutical industry now, and I have no interests in the bronze wire industry, but I am informed that it would be out of the question to permit such products to go otherwise than by road.
This point should be carefully considered in term; of the productivity to which the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, referred if proper facilities are to be given to the delivery of good order of a delicate, expensive, heavy product. If consideration is to be given to that, then the conditions of this clause which we are endeavouring to amend interfere with that element of productivity. I should be delighted if the noble Lord in his reply would clear my mind on this matter. This is a point which should be considered in the whole context of what we are discussing.
LORD HUGHES: The point which is being dealt with here is relatively simple. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said, that there is no difference in principle between us on this
310
matter. I must disagree with him when he went on to say that there is no difference in practicality. The complete objection to this is on grounds of what is and what is not practical. It is part of a licensing authority's duty to be satisfied that, among other things, adequate maintenance facilities exist at the base or bases of the applicant. The licensing authority cannot fulfil his undertaking because he is not able to do this job at bases throughout: the country for himself. It ca mot be delegated to someone else in some other part of the country. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that on this aspect I cannot accept the practicability of this Amendment. One must remember that the requirement to make a decision is placed upon the licensing authority. He has to be satisfied as to whether or not the licence should be granted. If it is argued, "You have refused this because the base is not satisfactory, and you have not even seen the base", it would not be accepted as reasonable to say, "I have been told by someone, who did this on my behalf somewhere else, that he is not satisfied that it is a proper base". It is as simple as that, and I cannot accept this Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, spoke about the difficulties of building sites, as also did the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. It is true that I used to be a builder. I am tempted to remember that, but even so it does not help me to accept the Amendments. The Government have gone a fairly considerable way to deal with this situation by allowing the temporary base to which the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, referred. The three months is about as far as we can go. The Government are constantly being exhorted by noble Lords opposite and by Opposition Members in another place to cut down the number of civil servants, and that is quite reasonable. I am not arguing that this is a case where we are seeking to save civil servants by transferring responsibility somewhere else. It may have that incidental effect, but that is not the purpose. The purpose is that the job is required to be done where the base is, and not that we are seeking to transfer the cost of the operation to the transport operator rather than to the licensing authority and to the people who will be required for that purpose. I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has given thought to this matter. He thinks it is simple and I think it is simple, but in fact we see simplicity in different lights. He seems to ask: how can the central licensing authority involved be satisfied that the maintenance facilities are satisfactory in all the depots? I suggest that the standards maintained by the central company should be a touchstone of some kind, and if, in spite of those standards,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE): I must point out to the Committee that the Marshalled List makes it appear that the Amendment that has just been decided is an Amendment to Clause 60. It is, in fact, an Amendment to Clause 62. I have omitted to put the Questions, That Clause 60 stand part and Clause 61 stand part. I must now put those Questions to the Committee.
the central authority is not satisfied, then there must be means of finding out. But, unhappily, I do not think the noble Lord and I are going to agree on this to-night, and I think I am none the less, despite his persuasion, inclined to divide.
10.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 149) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Falmouth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aldington, L.

Ferrier, L.

Oakshott, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Gisborough, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Glentanar, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Redmayne, L.

Audley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Barnby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sackville, L.

Belstead, L.

Harcourt, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boston, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Helens, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Ilford, L.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Inglewood, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Buckton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Latymer, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Carrington, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs,

Conesford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mills, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Verulam, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Headfort, M.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Rowley, L.

Beswick, L.

Heycock, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Bowles, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Simon, V.

Collison, L.

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hall, V.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: Although we have not reached nearly as far on with Part V as we might have hoped earlier in the proceedings, I do not think the responsibility for that can be laid on the Committee. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
DURBAN NAVIGATION COLLIERIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

SAINT JAMES AND SAINT PAUL, PLUMSTEAD BILL
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.