Lords Sitting of 23 October 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CANCER AMONG ENGINEERING WORKERS
LORD AMULREE: 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 number of men working in the engineering industry have been reported as suffering from cancer of the scrotum during the last five years, what number have died of this disease during the same period, and what steps are being taken towards its prevention.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, during the years 1963 to 1967, inclusive, 38 cases of cancer of the scrotum were notified among men in the engineering industry. In the same period 31 deaths from scrotal cancer have been identified where there is presumptive evidence of occupational exposure to oil in engineering work. The steps that should be taken to prevent occurrence of this disease are described in a special chapter in the Chief Inspector's Annual Report for 1967. These include substitution, where practicable, of safer oils or a modification of process to avoid contamination of the skin; the provision of suitable protective clothing and good washing facilities; medical supervision, and the education of the worker to recognise the hazard, to take precautions against contamination of his skin with oil and to seek prompt medical attention where necessary.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his not particularly encouraging reply. Is he not aware that this is an almost
1470
entirely preventable disease, a disease which, if treated promptly and efficiently, should have practically no mortality? The points which he has mentioned were brought forward in a report by Dr. Henry, of the Factory Inspectorate Department of the Home Office, in 1946. Can the noble Lord say when we can expect some sort of progress from what Dr. Henry said in 1946?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am aware of the point the noble Lord has drawn to my attention. If the steps which are indicated in the Answer are taken the problem will be kept in check and diminished. After all, the number of people at risk is believed to be of the order of 300,000, so if you relate the figure which I have quoted in the main Answer to this figure of 300,000 as risk it brings the matter into proportion.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord once again for his reply. Does he not think that the fact that a certain number of people—though it may not be very many—die unnecessarly is something about which one should not be too complacent, particularly when the answer was really given in 1946 in the Report which I have in my hand?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this condition is scheduled as an industrial disease?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say who is responsible for taking these protective steps, and what action is being taken to see that they know they have this responsibility?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, most, if not all, of this action is a responsibility placed on the employer, and the responsibility for bringing it to his notice and seeing that so far as possible it is carried out—because there are no compulsory powers in this matter—is a matter for the factory inspector.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will use his good offices to see that this condition is scheduled as an industrial disease in order that at

1471
least the dependants of these men should have some protection?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to convey to my right honourable friend the representation which my noble friend has made.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will my noble friend extend his inquiries to see whether this same trouble affects the engine room staff of merchant shipping?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords.

U.N. AND TREATMENT OF CIVIL CONFLICT PRISONERS
2.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 action has been taken at the United Nations to support the recommendation of the United Nations International Conference at Teheran that the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners should be extended to those engaged in legalistically civil conflicts.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the United Nations Conference on Human Rights held in Teheran earlier this year proposed that the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be invited to study the application of international legal rules in all forms of armed conflict and the need for additional international conventions or possible revision of existing conventions. The United Kingdom delegation to the Conference voted for this particular resolution as a whole, but pointed out that difficulties would arise in trying to extend prisoner-of-war treatment to those who, in the words of the preambular paragraph of the resolution, struggle against minority, racist or colonial regimes. We shall make this point again in the United Nations General Assembly but we shall support the proposal that the Secretary-General should study the whole question. I trust that my noble friend will agree that we should now await the Secretary-General's report.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while greatly appreciating the reply of my noble friend, may I ask him two questions? The first is, whatever may be the nature of the conflict, does not the Geneva Convention lay down minimum conditions for humane treatment of prisoners? Secondly—and I find it rather difficult to express this—have we not now to adjust ourselves to a situation in world affairs where the deeper issues—democracy, racial equality, freedom of peoples—are no longer expressed in the conflict of Governments but are expressed in the conflict of peoples across the frontiers for those ideals; and in that new situation in the world have we not to look again at this definition of prisoners-of-war?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think certainly we have to look at this subject again, and the intention to do so is implicit in the Teheran resolution. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is about to look again at this problem. So far as the Geneva Convention is concerned, I think we can confidently expect that that will be covered in the Secretary-General's Report. The main difficulty here is in identifying the forms of armed action that might be protected under the terms of this resolution. I think noble Lords will agree that it would be no kind of contribution to the rule of law to turn every organised breach of law and order into a recognised movement protected by law. Of course, there would also be in some of the cases to which my noble friend has referred the very practical difficulty of enforcing any law of this kind, given that the people involved would most often be nationals of the very State to which they were opposed.

POST OFFICE AND BANK GIRO SYSTEM
LORD REDESDALE: 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 why the Post Office will not accept payments of bills by the Bank Giro system but state that they will accept payment by credit transfer; and what they consider is the difference between these two titles.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the Post Office will accept payment by the Bank Giro system or by credit transfer, where this term is still in use. Both titles relate to the same method of payment, and the instructions on the telephone bill for payment through a customer's account are intended to cover all transfers by the use of bank credit forms.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, I am afraid I have been informed by the Post Office that they will not accept payment of telephone bills by Bank Giro. I have this in writing and I have had telephone conversations with them. So although I am grateful to the noble Lord, I cannot agree with what he says. Would the noble Lord be good enough to look into this question of how it is that the Post Office are informing customers that they will not accept Bank Giro payments, especially systematised payments such as through the Kalamazoo systems?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am quite surprised at what the noble Lord says, and no doubt he will let me have the letter from the Post Office as soon as he can after Questions. The position is that the Bank Giro system, or credit, has started fairly recently, I think in about the last year. It is advisable, when we are at the beginning of a new system like the present National Giro system, it is advisable not to have the word "Giro" twice on the payment instructions on telephone accounts. Therefore the Post Office decided not to put one of the four ways of payment on the notes on payments until a little later on, but it is going to be done quite quickly. The fact remains that the Post Office will accept Bank Giro credit payments. Perhaps the noble Lord will let me have his letter.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA
LORD BARNBY: 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 total of the unfavourable balance of trade with the U.S.S.R. over the past five years.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, over the five years, 1963–67, imports from the U.S.S.R., measured c.i.f., averaged £112·3 million a year and exports and re-exports, measured f.o.b., averaged £53·2 million a year. The difference between the figures overstates the unfavourable balance of trade because of the differences in valuation.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, and in view of the substantial sums which the Government spend in helping exports through the National Exports Council, Fairs and so on, is the noble Lord able to give, any indication that the Government art, contemplating any proceeding whereby, in cases such as the one he has just quoted where the balance is for all time so much against this country, guidance will be given to bring imports from those directions where the balance of payments is less unfavourable?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I do not want the House to be misled as a result of my Answer. The figures I have given indicate a five-year crude balance of trade to the extent of £295 million in favour of the U.S.S.R., but it should be remembered that the difference in valuation may account for as much as up to 10 per cent. In addition, there is a considerable entrepôt trade done in this country in importing furs and diamonds and other materials which are resold elsewhere. This might account for as much as about £25 million a year. So the overall balance-of-payments figure is nothing like as great as this crude balance of trade would suggest. I do not think the suggestion from the noble Lord that we might begin to tend to influence the source of many of our imports to redress this balance would be helpful. For example, our crude adverse trade Mance with Canada. another country which in many respects complements the supplies coming from Russia, is over £200 million per annum. To tend towards this form of adjusting adverse balances in this way would be against the general policy of the British Government. We are at all times anxious to increase our exports to, countries where we have adverse balances, and it may interest the House to know that in the eight months of this year our exports to Russia totalled £68 million as

1475
against £64 million for the whole of last year.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that most informative reply. Would he be able to make any comment now on the further adverse effect which is occurring, it is understood, by Russian shipping entering into distant routes and disregarding Conference rates, much to the disadvantage of British shipping?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, it would be much too early to make any comment on the possible results of Russian competition with our shipping on certain new routes. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord an answer at this stage.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Its purpose is to enable the Covent Garden Market Bill to continue its progress through Parliament in the next Session. The Bill received its Third Reading in another place on Friday last, October 18, on a day when this House was not sitting. Therefore it could not come up to this House earlier than yesterday. It is for this reason that I am asking your Lordships to agree to this Motion at rather short notice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be read the first time
1476
pro forma in respect to which no new fees shall be charged and shall stand referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: Ordered, That a Message he sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, the Commons Reasons, and the Commons consequential and other Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, the Commons Reasons, and the Commons consequential and other Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, on this Motion we have before us the schedule of Commons Amendments and Commons Reasons, and the Bill returns to us in this form from another place where the Government have used their majority to restore a number of the points which your Lordships had removed from the Bill. We now have to decide whether we should again amend the Bill or whether we should accept it in its present form. This is a decision of great difficulty and magnitude for us on these Benches, and my noble friends and I have given long and earnest consideration to it. This, I should say, has not been assisted by the Government's attempt to influence our decision.
Last week the Government "leaked" to the Press a minatory warning. We have been told that if we decide to insist on our earlier Amendments the Government will retaliate by dropping the agreed version of the Lords Reform and introducing a stiffer version. Your Lordships may agree with me that this is a curious threat to make. In so far as it has any significance, it implies that noble Lords on these Benches have a greater sense of responsibility on Parliamentary reform than noble Lords on the Government Benches. This may

1477
well be right, and it is a compliment that we are willing to accept. But as a threat it really is as empty as the threat made by poor old mad King Lear, in threatening his daughters, when he said:
"I will have such revenges on you both,
"That all the world shall—I will do such things,—
"What they are, yet I know not; but they shall be
"The terrors of the earth."
Well, no one was much frightened by the old man's rantings. Nor, I think, will noble Lords here be by this ill-judged threat. Those who live in political life live too close to the woods to be frightened by the hooting of owls.
The reform of this House is of such major constitutional importance that surely it can be successfully and lastingly achieved only with the agreement of all three Parties; and I would suggest that in view of the complexities of the reform, the scope for choice of action is so limited that it is difficult to see how it could be used as a bargaining counter in the concluding stages of this Bill. Could we, for instance, bargain quantity licensing against the retention of some of the hereditary Peerage—perhaps on a ton-mile basis of vehicles against the ton mile basis of Peers? My noble friends from Scotland would, of course, count most! Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will tell us how he thinks this might be done.
May I just add in passing that I believe that public opinion has high expectations from this reform. No longer do our people wish to see this House swept away as an effete bastion of worn-out privilege. To-day they wish to see this House retained and strengthened as a safeguard for the national interest. This may seem a dramatic transformation, my Lords, but it is a very small thing compared with the Prime Minister's achievement in transforming the "Gnomes of Zurich" into the "Cherubs of Basle", now our chubby friends. In short, I think we can dismiss the reform of the House of Lords from our minds as something which requires such precise handling that it really cannot come into this, and consider the Bill on its merits.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): Hear, hear!
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I can understand the noble
1478
Lord, Lord Shackleton, feeling a certain sense of relief as my discussion on this matter comes to an end.
There are two major questions to be considered. First, is there a major issue of principle still at stake? And in this context, of course, to what extent have the Government modified the Bill in response to our Amendments? Secondly, what is the limit of our powers with regard to the Bill now? On the first point. on Third Reading the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was good enough to say that we "have given responsible attention o the task of improving this Bill". In the light of our debates the Government have wholly or partly met 30 important points which we have pressed. A substantial job of revision has been done hertz, if I may say so, with credit to the Government as well as to noble Lords in all parts of the House. The Bill is to-day in a very different shape from what t was twelve months ago.
My Lords, I believe that the Government have agreed to the amendment of the Bill on this scale for two reasons: first, because they have had time for second thoughts—it is nearly 12 months now since the Bill first appeared—and, secondly, because we have been able to present reasoned Amendments based on the majority of informed opinion in the country, and argue them constructively with the great weight of authority of noble Lords in all parts of this House. No doubt our ultimate power to delay was a factor also weighed in the balance. But we have to recognise here—and noble Lords with far longer experience than mine will know this better than I do—that this House cannot be the source of power; its strength is that it can be and is the source of reason, which will have its influence on the course of government. There is an ultimate truth somewhere which we all of us know we shall ignore at our peril.
In assessing the value of the Government's concessions, I think there will be a disposition to give the Minister of Transport credit for trying to restore the shaken confidence of industry and to make the Bill a practical measure. Indeed, he has daily evidence of the depth of the feelings that still exist in the industrial world, but we here all under stand that the political commitment which the

1479
Minister has inherited from his predecessor cannot be openly dumped overboard where, in my judgment, it ought to be. The Party gods, and indeed goddesses, have to be treated with respect.
Within the limits of these political commitments the Minister has come a long way to meet the practical objections which we have advanced against the two main Party political features in the Bill. These are, my Lords, Clause 48, which gives unlimited powers of extension of State trading by the nationalised industries; and, secondly, quantity licensing. On the first, the Minister has restored Clause 48 to the Bill in this schedule of Amendments, but he has given us Clause 134 which requires that all subsidiaries of nationalised industries shall operate as a company engaged in commercial enterprise, instead of the Bill's original requirement only to break even. If this is fairly administered it will not only limit the development of such subsidiaries to a few exceptional cases, but will also eliminate industry's complaint of unfair competition.
Secondly, on quantity licensing, our Amendment to postpone the appointed day until the end of 1971 has been removed by the Commons, but the Minister stated last month that his timetable provided that the introduction of quantity licensing would come in later in 1970. As it must be odds on that there will be a General Election in the Autumn of 1970, the end of this Parliament's life being in the Spring of 1971, I would think this can be regarded as a gesture of some practical value.
I conclude that although these two major objectionable features remain in the Bill. Government action both within and without the Bill has modified the practical effect to the point where, in my judgment, they are no longer points of major principle. The remaining points on which the Commons have disagreed with your Lordships are of secondary importance, and seen in the context of the many points which the Government have conceded certainly do not add up to a major point of principle.
Let me now turn to the second major question, the powers of delay which this House has with regard to the Bill. We have, of course, at this minute the power to resist the Commons Amendments, if
1480
a majority of noble Lords wish to do so, either all or severally, or alternatively we can, if we wish, make further Amendments. However, I must add—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will agree—that the Government have the last word in this, because they have the power to prorogue Parliament when they wish to, and in the new Session the Government can then reintroduce the Bill in the form they desire as soon as twelve months have elapsed from the date of the original Second Reading—which was on December 20 of last year. After the Commons have passed the Bill a second time—and presumably all stages could be taken in a day—the Parliament Act operates to enable the Bill to be presented for Royal Assent even if your Lordships continue to object.
My Lords, there are various combinations and permutations of procedure which may be followed, which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with now. The practical result of them all is that the Government would have no difficulty in getting the Bill on the Statute Book by the beginning of February. This means that the limit of our powers at this stage of the game is only three months delay. No doubt this would be a nuisance to noble Lords opposite and to the Government generally, but I really could not say that it would be long enough to bring about any significant change of outlook, even if the Government do lose another couple of by elections in that period. A twelve months delay is altogether a different matter and this, of course, is what I think the outside world thinks we have. A twelve months delay is long enough for circumstances and personalities to change, and, indeed, policies to be substantially modified. If that is the scope of our power to-day, I might well feel myself that it is justified for us to invoke it, even if it imperilled my future in this noble House.
I therefore conclude that neither the measure of difference remaining between us nor, on the other hand, the measure of delay which we can impose, is sufficient to warrant us further opposing this Bill. Nor do I think that it would be in the perspective of what has been achieved, or the spirit in which it has been done, to invoke this mighty constitutional machinery for such a brief delay.
3.0 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the House will have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, with great interest, a considerable appreciation of his constitutional common sense, some disbelief about his ideas of the merits of certain parts of the Bill, and, I must say, a little bewilderment at the excursion he made into Lords' reform. I am sure that we all found absolutely delightful the noble Lord's declamation from King Lear; and we shall all look forward to other occasions when he can give us the benefit of similar declamations from Shakespeare. But I wonder whether this is the right place for it, and I feel that he was mistaken in applying that quotation to the situation to-day. I assure him that we on this side are not responsible for what the Press may say, and if any warning had been necessary such a warning could have been made, and would have been made, quite straightforwardly in the proper place, which is in this House. I felt that the noble Lord's words were not quite in keeping with his general attitude on this Bill. Although the voice was the voice of Nugent, I wondered whether the words were the words of someone else. But I leave that part of his speech at that.
There has been a certain amount of "brinkmanship" in the way the Opposition have considered their attitude towards this Bill, but all will agree that they have come down on the right side. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, this is a better Bill in many respects because of the consideration given to it in this House. I am glad that the noble Lord emphasised this point again to-day. The Bill has been substantially amended as a result of discussions both here and in the Commons. It is not for me to talk about the work of Members of the Commons, but I think that Members on both sides of this House have done, and done well, the job which a Second Chamber in a democratic system is expected to do.
The noble Lord had some further words to say about certain clauses which have aroused particular controversy. I accept his comments on Clause 48, and possibly we might say another word about it when we reach that Amendment later this afternoon. Possibly I could answer now something of what he said on Clause
1482
71, because the way in which the clause has been considered is typical of the general attitude of both sides in their consideration of the Bill. The noble Lord himself said that my right honourable friend had made a gesture of practical value, but I hope that the noble Lord, who is very fair minded, will agree that the Minister, and indeed the Government, have been practical throughout in the way they have deals with Clause 71.
As I said before we sent the Bill back to the Commons, and as my right honourable friend has stated specifically and emphatically since, it is not intended to rush prematurely into widespread licensing. The White Paper itself made clear that:
"The Government intend to be satisfied that the new freight liner service has proved itself in practice before quantity licensing is introduced."
If these conditions are met before the date which the noble Lord and his friends have put into their Amendment, which the Commons have rejected, then clearly there will be no point in postponing the introduction of this revised system of quantity licensing. Let us be clear about this, my Lords. It is only a revised system. The "A" and "B" licensing arrangements now in force, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would agree, are a system of quantity licensing. In many respects the old arrangements are out of date, and the new system will be appropriate to modern conditions.
Despite all the furore stirred up in the country by the expert publicity campaigns, the truth still remains that the new quantity licensing proposals in this Bill are in fact a substantial simplification of the existing system. They will apply to only some 40,000 public haulage vehicles, as compared with the 220,000 to which quantity controls now apply. And, out of the 400,000 vehicles over 30 cwt. under the old "C" licence system. only some 60,000 vehicles of over 16 tons will be concerned. This therefore is not a matter on which in any professional examination of the situation we should get unduly excited. We have simplified a procedure which has now been accepted in principle over the past years, and we should keep this matter in proper perspective.
When we come to look at the effect of the new system of licensing, again there

1483
is a rational and moderate advance only. The White Paper, Transport of Freight, estimated that by the early 1970's there will be some 4,500 million ton-miles of traffic moving by road which would be suitable for carriage by freight-liner. This traffic, though representing only 10 per cent. of road freight movement, represents 30 per cent. of total rail movement. Certainly it is true that much, if not most, of this traffic would be attracted across to the freight-liner service sooner or later. The function of the licensing system introduced by this Bill is to help transfer the traffic sooner, rather than later, so that the nation as a whole can get the benefit of a proper return from the investment of national resources which is being and will be made in this new and efficient rail capacity.
The noble Lord made a great point about flexibility. I agree with him that both technical and commercial considerations call for proper flexibility. I do not propose to go into detail, but it is a fact that the new legislation provides for flexibility, and, moreover, the consignor's interest will be paramount. I do not propose to go more into detail about this at this stage, and if it is so wished we can go into this matter in greater detail when we come to particular Amendments. But I hope that when one looks at this most controversial of all the clauses—the one on which the noble Lord has said he thought it was essential to accept his Amendment—outside of the propaganda campaigns, the publicity exercises, and so on, I feel that the overall attitude of the noble Lord in his approach to this Bill justifies the decision which he and his friends have come to in their attitude to the Bill this afternoon.
I agree with the noble Lord that we have improved the Bill. I am pleased to think that it will not be unduly impeded. Quite apart from the constitutional issues, it would have been absolutely intolerable if this wide-ranging Bill, warmly welcomed for the greater part, had been held up for reasons which commend themselves to a minority in the democratically elected House of Commons. I hope that we can now go on to consider the remainder of the Commons Reasons.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, for convenience of reference, the Marshalled List contains not only the Commons Amendments which this House has now to consider, but also the original Lords Amendments to which the Commons Amendments relate. I shall call the Commons Amendments only. As there are several noble Lords dealing with this Bill from the Government Front Bench, I shall not call any names after the Amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS
[References are to Bill (140) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 1]
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert "by reference to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods".
The Commons agreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
[No. 2]
Line 1, leave out "by reference to" and insert "and in discharging their duty under subpargraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of".
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1. In considering Amendment No. 1, introduced into the Bill on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, the House of Commons accepted a further Amendment moved by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport which I suggest preserves the substance of the original Amendment and, indeed, strengthens it. I am convinced that the clause as finally amended will preserve the substance of your Lordships' desire to bring in, at this point of the Bill, a strong reference to users' needs, while at the same time not distorting the prime duty of the National Freight Corporation, which is to provide an integrated road/rail service and to evaluate the efficiency and economy of road and rail, or a mixture of the two, in the light of the particular consignment.
The clause, as now amended, will read:
"... it shall be the duty of the Corporation—
(a)...

1485
(ii) to secure that, in the provision of those services, goods are carried by rail whenever such carriage is efficient and economic;
and in discharging their duty under sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods."
I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1. —(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as the mover of Amendment No. 1 in Committee, I should like to express my appreciation to Her Majesty's Government for not having completely rejected it in another place. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that verbal support was given to this Amendment by a number of noble Lords on this side of the House. Therefore Her Majesty's Government have had second thoughts on the question of consumer choice in the carriage of goods, though the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said on June 24 last that they supported the intention behind the proposal. I also welcome the support kindly given in the Division Lobby, when there was a two-to-one majority.
The noble Lord went on to say in Committee that if the wording of the sub-paragraph were extended the additional burden placed on the Freight Corporation might have an inhibiting effect on their work. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government no longer feel that to be the case. As I understand the position now, should any person for whom goods are to be carried indicate a preference and draw attention to the nature of the goods, the Freight Corporation will have to pay due regard to that notification. I am not sure that I went all the way with the Minister when he said in another place on October 16 last, at column 414 of Hansard:
"the vast majority of people are concerned merely with transporting their goods".
Further on he said:
"They do not care what mode of transport their goods go by".
I think that the users will care.
In conclusion, I again thank Her Majesty's Government for having agreed that a provision should be written into
1486
Clause 1 of the Bill whereby the user can be assured that each time there is notification of a preference for a mode of transport and notification of a particular type of goods warranting a particular mode of transport, due regard will be paid by the National Freight Corporation to the needs of the user, an the understanding that the needs of the user are paramount. I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for what they have done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3–29]
Clause 4, page 4, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).
Clause 4, page 5, line 2, leave out from "subsidiary" to end of line.
Clause 4, page 5, line 5, leave out from "subsidiary" to "by" in line 6.
Clause 4, page 5,line 8, leave out from "subsidiary" to "to" in line 9.
Clause 4, page 5, line 29, leave out "or (b)".
Clause 5, page 6, line, 6, leave out "respectively".
Clause 5, page 6, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
Clause 5, page 6, line 14, leave out from "of" to end of line 15 and insert "the carriage of freightliner containers and other high capacity containers".
Clause 5, page 6, line 17, leave out from "of" to "the" in line 18.
Clause 5, page 6, line 18, leave out '(b)".
Clause 5, page 6, line 22, leave out from "in" to end of line and insert "aforesaid".
Clause 5, page 6, line27, leave out "two" and insert "a".
Clause 5, page 6, line 28, leave out "subsidiaries" and insert "subsidiary"
Clause 5, page 6, line 28, leave out from "Board" to end of line.
Clause 5, page 6, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).
Clause 5, page 6, line 33, leave out "the other"
Clause 5, page 6, line 36, leave out "(b)"
Clause 5, page 6, line 37, leave out "those companies" and insert "that company"
Clause 5, page 6, line 38, leave out from "consultation" to "with" in line 41.
Clause 5, page 6, line 47, leave out "the freightliner company and"
Clause 5, Page 7, line 1, leave out "respectively"
Clause 5, Page 7, line 3, leave out from "in" to "subsection" in line 4.
Clause 5, Page 7, line 8, leave out from beginning to second "the" in line 9.
Clause 5, Page 7, line 26, leave out "(b)"
Clause 7, page 10, line 24, leave out from "Act" to end of line 28.
Clause 8, page 11, line 21, leave out "or" paragraph (b) of subsection (4)"
Schedule 3, page 206, leave out lines 10 to 13.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
[No. 30]
Because these Amendments would impair the ability of the Freight Corporation to discharge the duty imposed upon them by the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendments Nos. 3 to 29 to which the Commons have disagreed. The Government felt unable to accept the Amendments introduced into the Bill in your Lordships' House, which would have had the effect of preventing the transfer to the National Freight Corporation of the freightliner activities. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport made it clear in another place that he still regards it as an absolutely fundamental part of his transport policy that the Freight Corporation should take over from the railways the two parts of their activities which are essentially a combination of road and rail; that is to say, the sundries activities and the freightliner activities.
I do not propose to spend long on the arguments that have been deployed about the damage which might be done to British Rail by this transfer of the freightliner activities. The Government remain convinced that it is better for the railways to concentrate upon the problems of railway operation and upon the task of "wholesaling" full train-load services to industrialists. The Railways Board will be able to play a full part in the future of freightliner activities, and will secure a proper share in the profits, through the 49 per cent. holding which the Bill provides for the railways in the freightliner company. But the marketing of freightliner services can best be done, in the Government's view, by those already used to retailing road transport. If we allow the boundaries between road and rail to remain fixed in a way made quite out-of-date by the development of through trans-
1488
port in containers, we shall be failing to seize the opportunity of integrating road and rail in the interests not of railwaymen or road hauliers, but of the industrial customer and the nation. For that reason, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon its Amendments Nos. 3 to 29 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I intervene with a brief word on this set of rejections and on the Government's decision that they wish to stick to the transfer of the freightliner services from the railways to the new Freight Corporation? I do not propose to repeat at length the earlier debate that we had during the Committee stage, but just as a parting comment I should like to say this. I am not convinced by the noble Lord's argument about the advantages which will be obtained—and there certainly are advantages—by transferring the freightliner services to the new Freight Corporation. But I am convinced that it will be most disheartening if British Rail have this most important part of their services taken away from them. The previous Chairman described it as the jewel in the crown of British Rail, and, in fact, it is really the one winner that they have had this century.
Apart from any human feelings one may have in the matter, it seems to me that we are still basically concerned with the railways as a whole. There is this vast organisation turning over £400 million or £500 million a year and losing £150 million, and still its major problem is management. Yet here we are about to take away from it the most interesting, exciting and best growth point in the whole business and, inevitably, there will go with it the most enterprising, able younger men—men who are in the market. Generally speaking, it does not provide a sound structure in any industry to separate off the marketing function from the production function. So I feel the cost is much too high. But I certainly wish it well. I am sure the freightliner service is going to be a success, and I hope it goes ahead at a great rate. But I feel it is being done at the expense of a most regrettable weakening of the management of British Railways itself,

1489
and that is something for which noble Lords and their right honourable friends in another place have to take responsibility.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 31]
Clause 9, page 12, line 32, after "If" insert "after local government has been reorganised in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 32]
Because it would cause an unnecessary and undesirable delay in the constitution of the first Passenger Transport Areas.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment 31, to which the Commons have disagreed, and the effect of which would be to postpone the setting up of Passenger Transport Areas until after local government has been reorganised following the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. The House of Commons disagreed with this Amendment because the problems of the major conurbations are already critical, and the P.T.A.S need to be set up to deal with them as soon as possible. It may be five or six years before local government can be reorganised, and it was considered that the reorganisation of public passenger transport in the conurbations was too urgent a need to wait this time.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment No. 31 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 33 and 34.]
Clause 9, page 13, line 30, at end insert "and shall send a draft thereof to every such local authority, and if any objection thereto is made by one or more than one such local authority the Minister may if he thinks fit order a public enquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 5."
Schedule 5, page 216, line 20, at end insert—

PART IV

  PROVISIONS FOR HOLDING A PUBLIC ENQUIRY
  1.—(1) Any order under clause 9(2) of this Act shall be subject to a notice published:—

  (a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the scheme affects England, Scotland, or both; and

  1490

  (b) in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned,

  and shall specify a place where the draft of the order may be inspected, and copies thereof obtained at all reasonable hours, and he time (not being less than forty days from the publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, any objections to the draft may be made to the Minister, and the Minister shall consider any objections made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice:
  Provided that the Minister shall not be required to consider any objection unless it comprises or there is submitted therewith a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds for any amendments, additions or modifications asked for, or any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.
  (2) Any such objection as aforesaid nay ask for amendments, additions or modifier to or of the order which amount to amendments, additions or modifications to or of the scheme.
  2.—(1) If there are no objections which the Minister is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn, the Minister may make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications, if any, as he thinks fit, being amendments, additions or modificatiors which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the draft as published.
  (2)Where any such objection is made and is not withdrawn, the Minister may cause in the case of a scheme under Part II of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto, and the Minister may, after considering the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit.
  (3)The amendments, additions or modifications referred to in this paragraph may amount to amendments, additions or modifications to or of the scheme.
  3. The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay out of moneys provided by Parliament to any person appointed to hold an inquiry for the purposes of this Schedule such fees and allowances, and to persons giving evidence such allowances, as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine."
  The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
  [No. 35.]
  Because they alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons; and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient
  LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth no insist upon its Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. The House will remember that the effect of No. 33 would be to give the Minister power to order a public inquire if he

  1491
  thought fit to do so before designating a Passenger Transport Area. Amendment No. 34 would add to Schedule 5 a comprehensive set of provisions governing the procedure for such an inquiry. I may say that it gives a different criterion for the circumstances in which an inquiry is to be held; for example, by widening the scope of objection beyond local authorities, which is all the Amendment to Clause 9 mentions. So these two Amendments are not quite consistent, and if left in they would leave the law in a state of confusion.
  The Commons disagreed to these Amendments on the grounds that they were unnecessary. Amendment No. 34 also infringes Commons privilege in referring, in paragraph 3, to the provision of funds for the conduct of the inquiry. Clause 153(1) already empowers the Minister to hold an inquiry for the purposes of any of his functions under the Bill, except those in Part V (headed "Regulation of Carriage of Goods by Road.). This provision would allow the Minister to hold a public or a private inquiry. But in practice I can give an assurance that any inquiry which the Minister decided to hold before designating a Passenger Transport Area would be virtually certain to be a public inquiry. In giving this assurance the Government are going further than this Amendment, which is by itself simply an enabling power and would not oblige the Minister to hold an inquiry.
  The Amendment would also require the circulation to all the local authorities concerned of a draft of the proposed Designation Order. It is the Minister's intention to acquaint all these local authorities beforehand with the regulations it would be proposed to include in the Designation Order, so that this matter also would be covered in practice.
  Schedule 5, Part III, details the various subjects with which the Designation Order would be concerned, apart from the proposed Area and representation. The procedure set out in the Amendment to Schedule 5 was taken almost word for word from the Transport Act 1947. Since then, a great deal of experience has been gained in the running of public inquiries, and the Minister may be relied on to conduct such an inquiry with full propriety in the light of
  1492
  the individual circumstances without requiring the procedure to be set out.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 to which the Commons have disagreed. —(Lord Hughes.)
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in this case the Commons have seen fit to stand, as they are perfectly entitled to do, on the technicality of their financial privilege. The noble Lord has been good enough to add some of the reasons which the Commons did not give, and among them we are very glad to hear him say that, in effect, the Government are conceding what we really asked for here, in that where the Minister judges it to be appropriate an inquiry will be held into the setting up of a Passenger Transport Authority. That being so, my Lords, while regretting the Reason that the Commons have given (which did not seem to show very great imagination, if I may say so), we would not dissent from the Commons on these Amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill (140) as first printed for the Lords.]
[No. 36]
Clause 10, page 16, line 30, leave out paragraph (xi).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 37]
Because it would impair a Passenger Transport Executive's ability to contribute to the effective implementation of traffic and parking policies.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment No. 36. The effect of this Amendment would be to prevent an Executive not only from selling petrol, spare parts, et cetera, and providing car servicing facilities at their car parks, but also from making arrangements with others for the doing of these things. The Commons disagreed with this Amendment because the provision of car parks at strategic places is likely to help persuade car owners to leave their cars and carry out the remainder of their journey—for example, into the city centre—by public transport, thereby reducing congestion and assisting in better traffic management, and so on. If the car parks can be made more attractive by enabling

1493
the motorist to buy petrol, spare parts, and so on, there, and to have his car serviced during the time he is away in the city centre, then they are more likely to be well patronised and their objectives are more likely to be achieved.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 38–43]
Clause 36, page 55, line 20, leave out "and places outside"
Clause 36, page 55,line 24, leave out from "within" to "their" in line 25.
Clause 36, page 55,line 30, leave out "cease" and insert "continue"
Clause 36, page 55,line 30, at end insert "except insofar as they are affected by section 31 of this Act"
Clause 36, page 55,line 41, leave out "to and from"
Clause 36,Page 56, line 9, leave out "to and from"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
[No. 44]
Because they would unreasonably restrict the economic use of their transport undertakings by local authorities.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the agreement of the House I would suggest that Amendments Nos. 38 to 43, inclusive, be taken together. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on these Amendments. The purpose of Clause 36 is to provide local authorities with general powers to run contract carriages both inside and to or from their districts. The intended effect of the Lords Amendments was to remove the power to operate outside the district. The Government remain of the view that municipal undertakings should not be restricted in this respect; they should be given the opportunity to compete, under safeguards and on fair terms, with non-municipal operators for a share of this profitable traffic. It is a reasonable extension of a trading activity which is already being carried on by responsible elected local authorities, it will enable them to use vehicles and staff which are otherwise idle except at peak traffic periods, and it will be for the economic benefit of their undertakings and in the interests of their passengers as a whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 38 to 43 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 45]
Leave out Clause 48.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
[Nos. 46–51]
Page 69, line 1, after first "person", insert "and to sell to outside persons petrol, oil and spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles, and for that purpose to purchase any of those things".
Page 69, line 3, after "and", insert "the Waterways Board shall have power to sell goods of any description to outside persons, whether or not persons using their waterways, at any place where persons using those waterways may require facilities for the purchase of those goods, and for that purpose to purchase any such goods; and".
Page 69, line 8, leave out "or subsection(6)" and insert "and other than the provisions of this subsection relating only to the Waterways Board".
Page 69, line 39, leave out subsectitons (6) and (7).
Page 70, line 20, leave out "or (6)".
Page 70, line 29, leave out from beginning to first "to" in line 31 and insert "subsection (2) (which relates to the powers of the Water-ways Board".
3.28 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 45 to which the Commons have disagreed, and I suggest it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Commons Amendments Nos. 46 to 51. The Government have considered the various points which were made by noble Lords in Committee, but they still feel that in the public interest these publicly owned undertakings could be enabled to use to the full the resources which they have. We still believe that they must be freed from the unreason able, as we think, restrictions of the 1962 Act. The Government intend, however—and I am glad to make this clear—that the competition with the private sector shall be fair, that all the activities under Clause 48 shall be conducted on fully commercial principles and that there shall be no unfair subsidisation with public money.

1495
And there are ample safeguards, I suggest, in Clause 48 to ensure that these intentions can be put into effect.
I am suggesting, therefore, that the House agrees that Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill, but there are two points to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. First, the duty of an authority, when it engages in activities under these new powers, to act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise has, by Amendments made in another place, been deleted from this clause and inserted instead in the new clause on this subject which we introduced in this House on Report. Secondly, there is one important change in Clause 48 as it was restored in another place, and this change has been made in accordance with the statement made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd at the Committee stage in this House.
In Clause 48, as it then stood, subsection (4) required the Boards to submit proposals to the Minister from time to time as to the manner in which they intended to use the new powers of manufacture and repair in subsection (2). This obligation, however, did not apply to activities under subsection (6). The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, sought to apply subsection (4) to activities under subsection (6), and it was said by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, on behalf of the Government, that we accepted the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was suggesting. Therefore, we did take this into account. The former subsection (6) has been omitted and its substance incorporated in subsection (2). As a result, subsection (2) now contains the entire range of new powers in the clause and all the safeguards in the clause apply to all the powers. There are a number of small changes to other parts of the Bill consequential upon the restoration of Clause 48. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 45 to which the Commons have disagreed, but doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 to 51.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining the effect of these Amendments to Clause 48 and, in so far as they introduce an additional safeguard
1496
with regard to the point on subsection (6), I should like to thank him. Perhaps I should say that I do not think it necessary for me to make another half-hour speech on this subject. I think the requirement in Clause 134 in the new Bill, that the subsidiaries shall operate as commercial enterprises, will be a substantial safeguard. I should have preferred to see Clause 48 removed altogether from the Bill, but I recognise that its application is likely to be much narrower than I had originally expected. To that extent I feel that it is less objectionable. For those reasons we do not propose to dissent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 52 and 53]
Clause 50, page 72, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 50,page 73, line 7, leave out "subsections (2) and "and insert" subsection"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
[No. 54]
Because they would continue an unreasonable restraint on the powers of the Railways Board which might hamper the proper development of their undertaking.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 to which the Commons have disagreed. Under the Transport Act 1962, the Railways Board are limited to providing hotels only in places where those using the railways services provided by the Board may require them. The purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 50 of the Bill as it came to this House was to remove this and other restrictions, so as to enable the Board to provide hotels anywhere, but subject to the Minister's consent if outside Great Britain. The intention is that thus the railways should be allowed to make the best of their longstanding and considerable expertise in this field. We considered carefully what was said both in the other place and in your Lordships' House, but we still feel that it is right that the Board should have this power.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 55]
Clause 55, page 82, line 3, at end insert—
"() shall include consideration of the charges made 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) above, thereby deleting the relevant reference in section 56, subsection (5) of the Act;"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 56]
Because it would confer on Transport Users Consultative Committees a jurisdiction which they are not properly equipped or qualified to exercise.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 55 to which the Commons have disagreed. The same principle is involved as on the previous Amendment, and I therefore hope that this will be acceptable. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 55 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I think it is a very great pity that the Government have not made some gesture here. Clause 55 will affect all users of public transport in this country, a class of people who have had very little attention and consideration given to them recently, except by way of increases in charges and diminution in services. During the debates on this clause Ministers speaking from the Box had the miserable experience of not having one single supporter from their own side during any of the Bill's stages. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is grinning now; but I think he will remember that he largely agreed with us at the end of the first long debate; he absented himself from the second; then came in and voted, apparently in a different way from what he had led us to believe his convictions were. I think there is little cause for smiling.
The noble Lord has just referred to the long-standing and considerable expertise of the railways in certain fields. It is just this long-standing and considerable expertise that the T.U.C.C.S ought to be encouraged to look into on a wider scale than their present limited powers allow. Since noble Lords on both sides of the
1498
House agreed on this point during the different stages of the Bill, I want to put it on record that I think it deplorable, if Parliament is worth anything at all, that the Government have not come any way at all to meet us—even if they do not meet us in full on this particular Amendment.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS BRIDGE: My Lords, as the original mover of this Amendment I am naturally disappointed that the Government are not able to meet us; but in particular I am puzzled by the Reason given:
"Because it would confer on Transport Users Consultative Committees a jurisdiction which they are not properly equipped or qualified to exercise."
In the long discussions that we I had we never asked for jurisdiction over anything. All we asked was that the T.U.C.C.S should be consulted about the interests of transport users, which we took to include the quantity, quality, prices and amenities of the services rendered. However, I think that there is nothing more to be said and that we must, with regret, accept defeat.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think I did less than justice to this Amendment when I moved it—to be honest, I had gone one ahead. But the noble Lord has called attention to the fact that there was a good deal of support in this House for greater powers for the consultative committees. I did go so far on that occasion as to say that I did not believe the Government, of which I am a member, had so far reached the standard they ought to have achieved in this respect. I should like to make it clear, despite the few words that I said a few minutes ago, that I still hold the view that I expressed when we were considering the Bill at an earlier stage. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Donaldson would not, in my judgment, have fitted into the set-up which is embodied in this Bill. I think we have a long way to go and that there is still a great deal of thinking to be done to ensure that the consumer has adequate representation. But this way is not the way; and this was the case that I made. The contrary case was forcibly and moderately put, and I should like to pay tribute to it. Nevertheless, I still lope that your Lordships will not insist on this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us any indication as to what processes are in view to put his noble sentiments into operation? He said that a good deal more thought was required, and so on. But the present Government have not a very great deal of time left to do it; and when we hear Front Bench spokesmen talking about long thoughts, then the time is apt to run into decades rather than months. I hope the noble Lord will give some assurance that he is going to press on his colleagues that there is at present a hiatus in the system and that something ought to be done about it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 57]
Clause 60, 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 Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 58]
Because it introduces exemptions which can already be given under the Bill in a more flexible manner.
3.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist upon its Amendment No. 57 to which the Commons have disagreed. My noble friend Lord Beswick, in his intervention just now, did not do himself justice when he said that he had moved one ahead. If he had done so, I should not have this fairly long story to give your Lordships. But I would only briefly draw attention to what was said both in this House when we were debating our Amendment and in another place when they were considering our Amendment.
The Amendment would exempt from the system of operators'—that is, "quality"—licensing farm tractors and machinery used on and around the farm, and certain other goods vehicles not used for more than six miles a week on a public road. The Government have never been unsympathetic to the principle of
1500
this proposal. I gave an assurance to the Committee that representations for the exemption of these particular classes of vehicle would be fully considered when the time came to draft regulations under Clause 60(2)(b), as it was undesirable as a general principle to write exemptions substantively into the Bill because of the inflexibility and confusion which might result.
Nevertheless the Committee was not disposed to accept that assurance from me. It may be that to a certain extent it was justified in not doing so because in another place on October 17 the Minister of State gave an even more categorical assurance when he said that, subject to the usual consultations, the Minister proposed that the categories of vehicles mentioned in the Amendment should be included in exemption regulations under Clause 60(2)(b). This was sufficient to persuade the other place to disagree with the Amendment made in this House. I hope, therefore, that my repetition of this assurance here will be equally sufficient to persuade your Lordships in turn not to insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 57 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for repeating the assurance of the Minister of State given in another place. This of course gives us substantially what we had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would have been able to give us last time. It would have sounded very well in his mellifluous tones if we could have had that assurance, but we are glad to have it now and for these reasons we shall not dissent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 59]
Clause 62, 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 Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 60]
Because it would prevent the proper regulation of operating centres by the licensing authority for the area in which they are situated.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 59 to which the Commons have disagreed. This Amendment allows an applicant for an operator's licence, who has operating centres in the areas of more than one licensing authority, to make a single application to one authority for a licence to cover all the centres, rather than to make separate application to each authority concerned. All I wish to do is to mention again the reasons why the Government must ask the House not to insist on this Amendment, which has already been discussed in our Committee and, more recently, in another place.
First, there are genuinely local elements in quality licensing. There is the assessment of past records of operators, for example—can it be achieved solely by reliance on papers? A licensing authority's own knowledge of operations in his area, often built up over a period of years, can be vital. Disciplinary control frequently tends to take on local aspects. When things go wrong with the operations of a multiple company, it is usually in respect of one local depot and not nationally. Maintenance arrangements need to be assessed by reference to the position locally at each depot. So the local licensing authority will be the right body to examine and control these matters.
Secondly, great play has been made with the administrative inconvenience to operators which it is alleged that the regional system will involve. It is said that paper work will multiply and there may be inconsistencies between the standards applied by different licensing authorities, so that some depots of a national undertaking could be put out of action by the refusal of one licensing authority to grant a licence. I would ask your Lordships to consider these arguments carefully. They are advanced mainly on the part of those operators running now under "C" licences who can at the moment apply centrally for a licence covering depots in several areas. The argument does not arise in respect of "A" and "B" licence holders because they already have to apply on a regional basis.
1502
I admit at once that applying for an operator's licence, whether centrally or regionally, must involve rather more work than applying for "C" licences. The question therefore so far as "C" licence operators are concerned is not whether operators will have more work than they have now, but will the amount of extra work be affected by whether or not central application can be made in future? Here we must be quite clear on a fundamental point. Operators will have to give to the licensing authority separate information about each of their operating centres; about the licensed transport manager there; about the maintenance facilities and arrangements there and about the vehicles stationed there.
It makes very little difference in terms of the total work load whether all this information is filled in on one form and sent to one licensing authority or whether it has to be done on separate forms and sent to different licensing authorities. After all, the firm can still do the work at one central office if that has been its practice. The Bill says nothing about applications having to be made by the regional offices of the applicant. In short, the Government do not believe that any convincing argument can be made out for a centralised system. Rather, the specifically localised character of quality licensing demands the system of local application which the Government advocate.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 59 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, we have listened carefully to the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, justifying the rejection of the Amendment. We can only say again that national industry fears that this will increase costs and paper work, and only time and experience will show who is right. The noble Lord made one point the force of which I have to recognise, that licensing officers build up local knowledge which is of course relevant in this context. I also know that this proposition of operators' licences has been thought about very closely in the Ministry of Transport for some years.

1503
There are some "bad actors", as they say, in this field, and it will be the job of the licensing authorities to cope with them. Therefore, the last thing we wish to do is to weaken the effectiveness of a system which we think will, on the whole, be beneficial.
The only point I should like to make, in conclusion, is that my noble friends and I are still apprehensive about the possible additional cost to nationally operating firms. I ask that the Government watch this system in operation to see how it works out. If these fears are justified, perhaps in due course an amending Bill—possibly not quite so long as this one—may be brought in and the matter put right. I grant the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that he has a point about the necessity for effective control by the licensing authority and that the importance of local knowledge is considerable. For these reasons we do not dissent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[No. 61]
Clause 67, page 95, line 15, leave out "shorter" and insert "longer"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu:
[No. 62]
Page 95, line 15, leave out "shorter" and insert "other"
[No. 63]
Clause 67, page 95, line 25, leave out from "made" to end of line 29.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu:
[No. 64]
Page 95, line 20, leave out from "section" to "in" in line 27 and insert—
"(a) shall be a period shorter than five years?

(i) if the applicant for the licence so requests; or

(ii) if the application is made by a person who does not hold an operator's licence when the application is made;

(b) shall be a period longer or shorter than five years if the licensing authority is of opinion that it is desirable so to direct."
The Commons made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
[No. 65]
Page 101, line 22, leave out "(c)" and insert "b".
3.48 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 61 to which the Commons have disagreed. I suggest that it would be convenient to the House to consider also the Amendments listed as Nos. 62 to 65 since they form a coherent group. Perhaps I should remind the House that the effect of the four Amendments, Nos. 61 and 63 and the two consequential Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, made here in Committee, is to remove from Clause 67 the original provision that a licensing authority may, for its administrative convenience, grant an operator's licence for a shorter period than the normal five years duration and substitute a provision that in these circumstances the licence may be granted for a longer period. The Amendments carried in another place, in place of these Amendments, would change this arrangement to one which would allow the grant of a licence for the licensing authority's administrative convenience for a period longer or shorter than the normal five years. The Government consider that the proposals from another place represent a reasonable compromise on the question of what discretion the licensing authority should have in this matter.
When we debated the point in Committee there was no disagreement on the general proposition that the licensing authority must have the facility to spread his work load where necessary in order to make the best administrative arrangements for the efficient use of staff and other resources. As I pointed out, this becomes particularly important when one considers the transitional period from carriers' licensing to operators' licensing. Within a very short time virtually all existing licence holders will be issued with operators' licences under the terms of Clause 93. If all these licences were of the normal 5-year duration, they would all be due for renewal within a short space of time five years later, thus placing a disproportionate peak load on the licensing authorities and their staffs and probably leading to delays, which would inconvenience operators. The Government's original view was that this could best be avoided by giving the licensing authorities the same discretion as they have under the 1960 Act to shorten the

1505
duration of licences for administrative reasons.
Noble Lords opposite argued that the same end could be achieved by allowing the licensing authorities to lengthen the licence and that that arrangement would be more convenient for operators themselves. While understanding the motive underlying this argument, the Government cannot agree with it. Although normally licensing authorities will have little, if any, cause to alter the duration of licences for administrative reasons, they will have to do so in a large number of cases during the initial transitional period to avoid later peaks of work. This means that very many operators will need licences for periods other than five years. It would be unacceptable on safety grounds if the only variation could be to extend the period. It was therefore proposed in another place to allow the licensing authorities to have discretion in this matter. They will know the particular administrative problems of their area and will be able to decide how best to overcome them. It is this proposal accepted by another place which I now commend to the House by asking the House not to insist on Amendments Nos. 61 and 63.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 61, to which the Commons have disagreed; that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62 in lieu of the Lords Amendment; that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64 in lieu of Amendment No. 63 and that this House doth agree with the consequential Amendment No. 65.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for explaining the combined effect of these Amendments. I recognise that these substantially concede the point which we were striving for here. It will give flexibility to the licensing authorities to make the period longer or shorter according to their discretion and—this is most important—they must be able to phase the period of licensing in order to get the licences coming in in succession. We were concerned that the licensing authorities and at that time the Government themselves should not study
1506
solely their own administrative convenience but should also study the costs of the operators. Therefore our Amendment required that if there was to be a period different from five years, it should be longer. But I am not opposed in principle to its being shorter on occasion. I hope that in using their discretion the licensing authorities will be inclined, where other factors are suitable, to be generous, simply to avoid excessive costs in the matter. But we accept the general principle and for that reason we accept the Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[No. 66–72.]
Clause 52, page 76, line 5, leave out "section 48 or"
Clause 55, page 81, line 39, leave out "48 or section 50(2) or" and insert "50"
Clause 67, page 95, line 17, leave out "the next following subsection" and insert subsection (3A) of this section"
Clause 67, page 95, line 29, at end insert—
"(3A) If in the opinion of the licensing authority it will assist his administration he may extend the duration of the licence"
Clause 152, page 201, line 27, leave out "section 48 or"
Clause 152, page 202, line 26, leave out section 48 or".
Clause 152, page 202, line 43, leave out "section 48, or"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
[No. 73.]
Because they are purely consequential on one or more of the following other Lords Amendments disagreed to, namely, Nos. 45, 52, 61 and 63.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 66 to 72 to which the Commons have disagreed. There are Amendments consequential on Amendments of which we have already disposed.
Moved, That this House cloth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 66 to 72 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 74]
Clause 71, page 102, line 11, after "section" insert "which shall not be before 31st December 1971"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 75.]
Because it removes the Minister's discretion to decide when the clause should come into force in the light of the development of the freightliner network.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I had intended to speak at some little length on this point, but in view of the fact that the arguments for and against were stated so much more eloquently and concisely at the beginning of our discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and by my noble friend Lord Beswick, I think that the House will forgive me if I formally move this Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 74 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 74 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the exposition of the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, this afternoon of the reasons for revising the decision of your Lordships' House on this point. I must say that it did not persuade me, and I do not think that it would have persuaded any of my noble friends on these Benches. We still maintain that the introduction of a procedure, whereby the ordinary entrepreneur is regarded as incapable or unwilling to decide fairly by what means he wishes to send his goods, is totally improper in a Bill of this kind. We had hoped that by the Amendment made by this House this might have been defeated. We still hope that either in the course of time—we now have the assurance that it will be some time before this provision is introduced—or even by later action after it has been introduced, this particular side of quantity licensing will be altered.
I should like to make it abundantly plain that we are not objecting to quantity licensing as such—indeed we find this is a considerable improvement—but it is just this particular point of setting up tribunals to decide for the entrepreneur which is the quickest, cheapest and easiest way of moving his goods, and not allowing him to judge. This is the part of the Bill which sticks most in our
1508
throats as it now goes through. But, like noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, we do not regard it as an important enough constitutional point to invoke the Parliament Act. Therefore, with considerable regret, we will not vote against this Motion.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, perhaps I should add that I listened with attention and with respect to the arguments of the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, in favour of Clause 71, but even his arguments failed to convince me that he was right and I was wrong. I still feel that this is a very bad provision and I hope that we shall see the end of it before many years are out. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have stated. we do not intend to vote against it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can only say I am sorry that I did not persuade the noble Lords. I take it that it was because I endeavoured not only to be fair in what I said but also to be concise. I had several pages of other detailed arguments which I did not think were appropriate then, and I do not think that I ought to inflict them on your Lordships now. I accept what the noble Lords have said about accepting this decision of another place, and I leave it at that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 76]
Clause 91, page 121, line 9, at end insert "but construction sites shall not be deemed to be operating centres unless a licensing authority considers it expedient for the purposes of Part V of this Act that an operator's licence shall be applied for in respect of vehicles based or centred on that site."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 77]
Because it would perjudice safety by excessively relaxing the system of operators' licensing in relation to construction sites.
4.0 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment 76 to which the Commons have disagreed. The Amendment excludes construction sites from the definition of "operating centres" and therefore makes it extremely difficult in practice to apply quality licensing to vehicles based there unless

1509
the licensing authorities decide that an operator's licence should be required for a particular site. I draw attention to the Reason that the other place give for the rejection of the Amendment. That is the essence of the Government's objection to the Amendment. We feel that safety would be prejudiced if it remained in the Bill.
The Government fully understand the special position of the construction industry in this respect. They are continually moving vehicles about and setting up new operating centres. We certainly do not want to burden the industry with unnecessary controls. This is why Clause 61(2)(b) will provide that vehicles can operate on a site for up to three months without the site becoming an operating centre or a transport manager being required. This provision is in fact a concession made at an earlier stage in another place, and was welcomed at that time by the Opposition, and I would mention it particularly because of the assistance which the construction industry will get from that concession.
My Lords, there is an even more important concession from the point of view of the building industry, which is contained in Clause 65(3). This provides that, while the licensing authorities will start from the premise of one transport manager for each operating centre, they will have complete discretion to allow one manager to supervise several centres if the operator can show that this would not be an unsafe arrangement. Licensing authorities will doubtless have the problems of the construction industry very much in mind when application is made to them for the nomination of one transport manager to take responsibility for more than one operating centre. But the licensing authority must be free to take this decision in the light of individual circumstances. We believe that these arrangements are capable of meeting the special needs of the construction industry. We believe, also, that any further relaxation would prejudice safety. For those reasons, I ask the House not to insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Winterbottom, for explaining to us why this Amendment was disagreed to in another place. The Amendment only a change of emphasis. All the Amendment does is to put into positive foam the licensing officer's discretion to allow more than one construction centre to come under one transport manager, whereas the clause as now drafted puts it the other way round and say that, unless in any case the licensing authority in its discretion otherwise determines, it shall be one for each.
The point here, my Lords, is the very simple one that each additional transport manager will, of course, cost money. You will have not only the transport manager, but he will have a secretary, an office, a telephone and so on. All this adds to the building costs. Building costs have been rising most alarmingly in the last few years. It is in everybody's interests to try to stop them from rising. Although we want the system of transport managers—we recognise that it is a good thing, and certainly in some parts of the building industry it will be particularly welcome—what we are concerned with here is to avoid unnecessarily increasing costs while giving the benefit of the innovation.
My Lords, what I would ask for here is that when the Minister decides the appointed day for introducing transport managers, he should tell the licensing authorities that, while they are to interpret Clause 65(3) with the utmost responsibility and caution, a large construction firm, or even a small construction firm, which has a number of construction sites can permit one transport manager to look after more than one site if the licensing officer is satisfied that this will be a safe arrangement. I think it usually will be safe to do so. I just want to make sure that we do not add unnecessarily to costs. There is no great difference between us in principle, and for these reasons we do not dissent.
On Question, Motion agreed to

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 78]
Clause 95, page 126, line 15, at enc insert "Provided that he may drive an extra hour on not more than two days in a working week."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu:
[No. 79]
Page 129, line 30, at end insert "either generally or with such exceptions as may be specified in the order"
4.5 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 78 to which the Commons have disagreed. I am, however, moving Amendment No. 79 in lieu. The effect of the Amendment which was carried in this House on Report would be to allow a driver to be at the wheel for 11 hours for two days a week during stage 1 of the new rules, which fix a normal maximum driving period of 10 hours. In stage 2 it would permit 10 hours driving on two days a week, while the normal maximum is reduced to nine hours.
In effect, my Lords, what we are proposing here is that the Amendment should not be applied to stage 1. but virtually we accept the argument of noble Lords on stage 2. As I explained when we considered this matter before, had we accepted the arguments on stage 1 it would have meant that long-distance lorry drivers who are not concerned with loading and unloading would be trying to achieve 11 hours actual driving a day, which really is quite unacceptable. The objections which we had to the application of this Amendment to stage 1 do not arise on stage 2, because there is not a target date at this stage, and there will be an opportunity of discussing the matter again when the necessary Affirmative Resolution Order is laid. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lords will accept the Motion, and that then they will be able to accept Amendment No. 79 in lieu.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 78 to which the Commons have disagreed, and agrees with the Commons in their Amendment No. 79 in lieu.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining to us the purpose of the Government's Amendment and the Reason for disagreeing with ours. The additional hour two days a week is not overall—it is still within the 60 hours limit which the Bill lays down—and I still
1512
feel that in order to give flexibility to allow the extra hour on two days a week, and therefore on other days of the week less, would have been wise when introducing a new measure, when we have heard from many sources that there is a great deal of anxiety about the possible effects.
However, I recognise that the Amendment which the Government have put down and which has been approved in another place gives this desirable flexibility at the second stage. I would urge that the second stage really should not be contemplated until we have had a good deal of experience of the first stage, because, if even a fraction of the apprehensions of industry and commerce are justified, it is going to take quite a long time to digest the first stage. But perhaps it is something that our Amendment has been recognised, in principle, to be valuable, and to that extent the Government have agreed. I think we must be thankful for small mercies, and for those reasons we do not disagree with the Government's Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 80]
Clause 95, page 129, line 45, at end insert—
"Provided that the appointed day for the purposes of section 95 of this Act shall not precede the appointed day of section 96 of this Act."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 81]
Because it would produce undesirable inflexibility in the reduction of permitted driving time and working hours for drivers.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 80 to which the Commons have disagreed. This Amendment would have had the effect of preventing any reduction of drivers' hours until tachographs have been introduced into the cabs of lorries and public service vehicles. But I emphasise that, as I have said before, there will be full discussion with both sides of industry on the question of when tachographs shall be introduced and what information shall be recorded on them. I say, therefore, with all due respect to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and others, that the Government do not consider that this is a matter on which their hands

1513
should be tied by legislation, although when they have these consultations no doubt they will bear in mind the sort of considerations he put to us in the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 80 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 82]
Clause 104, page 139, line 34, at end insert—
"() Subject to the provisions of this Act

(a) it shall be lawful for all persons holding a valid licence from the Board for which the prescribed fee has been paid to use the commercial waterways and the cruising waterways with any ship or boat in the manner and for the purposes prescribed in the licence:

(b) the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of a licence for the use of any commercial or cruising waterway by any person;

(c) the term licence shall mean and include any authorisation issued by the Board for the movement of any vessel in return for payment."

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 83]
Because part of it is unnecessary and the remainder creates a duty of uncertain extent which conflicts with section 43 of the Transport Act 1962.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 84]
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:
Section 104 not to affect Attorney-General v. Waterways Board
". No provision of section 104 of this Act in so far as it operates to exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts or to modify the public rights of navigation or the duty of the Board as regards maintenance shall apply to proceedings now pending in the Chancery Division between the Attorney-General as plaintiff and the Board as defendants in relation to the Ashton Canal and that part of the Peak Forest Canal the subject of those proceedings:
Provided that on the determination of those proceedings this section shall cease to have effect save for the purpose of enforcing compliance with any order made in the proceedings."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 85]
Because the fact that litigation under the existing law is in progress cannot be allowed to defeat the object of Parliament in amending that law.
4.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 82 to which the Commons have disagreed; and perhaps I may be at liberty to deal at the same time with Amendment No. 84. I think that we water ways enthusiasts have to consider that we have really done very well. Your Lordships made 34 Amendments to Part VII of the Bill, and 32 of them have been accepted by the other place; so only two remain. The first, No. 82, was fully considered by the other place for something like, I think, an hour and a half, and there were many speakers. The arguments, inevitably, were very much the same as they were here.
It was said, of course, that subsection (a) has no effect at all. I think everybody agreed that that is right, and the whole question was whether a statutory duty should be imposed on the Board to act reasonably. As here, on the one side it was said that if you are going to act reasonably there is no harm in making it a statutory duty, so that if you do not then writs can be taken out against you and you can be brought to the court; and on the other side it was said that the Boards were in the same position, that if the clause was passed it would be directly in conflict with Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962; that nobody would know what the effect of that was.
I was glad to read that it was again agreed by everybody that nobody could point to a single case in which the Board, acting under Section 43 in the last six years, had acted otherwise than reasonably. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, saying last time that he did not agree with the Act of 1962 to which I replied privately, and I hope courteously, "You were here then and I was not, so it is not my fault". But, of course, the argument of the Conservative Government then was, "If you want these Boards"—and of course the section applied to all the Boards—" to pay,

1515
or to pay as nearly as they can, they must be commercially free ". That argument may be right or it may be wrong, but there is no case at all for separating out the Boards and saying, "The others shall be commercially free, but this Board, and this Board alone, is going to be able to be taken to court". If, for instance, the Railways Board declines to provide a special train because previously, with a particular football club, a train has come back cut to ribbons, it is a matter of commercial judgment. Why not say—. there is a case for saying—that all these Boards should be under a statutory duty to act reasonably and that anybody at any time can take them to court or the Transport Tribunal? But it cannot be right that it should apply to this Board only and after a very long discussion the other place rejected this Amendment.
Then we have heard a great deal about these two special canals. I do not want to go into this matter again. The Commons have decided as their Reason that Parliament cannot be stopped from altering the law, if it ought to be altered, by somebody issuing a writ after a Bill has been introduced. In fact, it cannot be prevented from doing so even if there is a pending action. I remember a case a few years ago where, at the date of the issue of a writ, a landlord was undoubtedly entitled to possession. Then came the Rent Act, which affected him. By the time it came to the trial, he was no longer so entitled. But that is a case where the writ had already been issued before the Bill was introduced. This is a case in which, as your Lordships will remember, the writ was not issued until after.
I think I should perhaps just tell your Lordships what appeared in the other place; namely, that there has now been a meeting between the Chairman of the Board and the various local authorities interested in this particular matter, and it appears that three out of four of the riparian local authorities do not want this canal to be restored, including the big ones, Manchester and the Lancashire County Council. However, that is a matter which no doubt will be considered by everybody, because of course we all want, if we can, to restore any canals which can be restored with the money which we have. But one comes back
1516
in the end, as the other place evidently felt—because perhaps they are more directly concerned with finance than we are that there is only £400,000 for these 1,100 miles of amenity waterways, and to spend about £200,000 on restoring one canal would inevitably mean that there would not be money for the job which this Bill does. I hope, therefore, that on these grounds, this House will not insist on either Amendment No. 82 or Amendment No. 84.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments, Nos. 82 and 84, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I will confine my remarks to a few words on Amendment No. 82. I do so because my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, whose Amendment this is, is not present. On October 14 he argued the case for this Amendment so ably. He was supported from both sides of the House, and the Amendment was carried by 79 votes to 56. Let me say at once to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that on this Part of the Bill, on which alone I have ventured to intervene, I am not going to repeat any of the former arguments. The important thing, of course very relevant to-day, was that when we argued this very important matter in this I House the Commons had not devoted much time or consideration to this particular subject. They have now had a debate on this matter, on Monday of this week, and the debate occupies no fewer than 25 columns of the Commons Hansard. In those circumstances it has clearly been discussed even more in the other House than it was here.
While not altering any of my views which I ventured to express in answer to the Lord Chancellor on previous occasions, while holding all the views I then held, clearly I should be willing to bow in a case of this kind to the House of Commons once they had fully discussed the matter. I must observe, however, that I think that anybody who reads those 25 columns of last Monday's Commons Hansard will find that the argument in favour of the Amendment, on which we are now not going to insist, was put forward both from the Liberal Benches and from the Conservative Benches, and by laymen and lawyers alike. Therefore, in explaining, in the

1517
absence of my noble friend whose Amendment it is, that I am sure we should not wish to insist on our Amendment, we remain of the same opinion.
4.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am a little surprised that Amendments No. 82 and No. 84 should be taken together because I conceive them to be two totally different subjects. If I may therefore be permitted to make two short speeches following one another on the two different Amendments, I should be grateful.
TILE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount is entitled to object to their being taken together. If he wishes, I will take them separately.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, now that we have got as far as this I think it would be better if we continued in the same way, and I hope that I may be allowed to make a speech in two parts. This may be more convenient to the House. On Amendment No. 82, I do not wish to say a single word about what I have said before, because the House has heard it all and it appears again in the Commons Hansard of yesterday. On the arguments in favour of the Commons' rejecting our Amendment, I can only say that there continue to be none.
When we passed this Amendment in this House the noble and learned Lord made a speech which I believe to have been totally irrelevant to the Amendment. I am reinforced in this belief because some part, but not the whole, of the noble and learned Lord's speech was repeated by the Government spokes man in the Commons, with the astonishing result that he was three times interrupted by Mr. Speaker, who asked him to keep to the point. I think this is a record. I only hope that it is an all-time record and that such a thing will not occur again. In fact, no argument was put by the Government spokesman yesterday in another place, nor has been put here to-day—
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment? He keeps saying "yesterday"; it was in fact Monday.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I accept the correction and I apologise for the mistake. But, to make things worse, no reference whatever has been made by the Government to the rights of navigation of cargo-carrying craft—rights of navigation which they have repeatedly agreed exist, or will exist until this Bill becomes law. Because of that I cannot understand the arguments adduced in the Commons, which said that the remainder creates a duty of uncertain extent. It does not create anything. The duty has been there all the time; indeed, it has been there for a hundred years. If its extent is uncertain after a hundred years I cannot conceive how long; the uncertainty is deemed to continue. This seems to me to be nonsense; nevertheless I suppose we must accept this nonsense. I shall accept it for the simple reason that I do not think this House should go against the Commons, but for no other reason whatever.
Only two new points emerged in the Commons debate. One was a request from the Government spokesman that all cases where the Board were unreasonable or where this clause would haw had value should be brought to his attention, and I promise my noble friends that I shall do my best to carry out that request. Indeed I have cases which I could quote now, but I feel that I should not weary your Lordships with a long speech, which is in fact why those cases have not been introduced before. The other point that emerged in the Commons and in which I have great interest was a promise in that debate by the Conservative spokesman that should there ever be such a thing again as a Conservative Government they will see fit to re-enact this right of navigation. I must tell the noble Lords on the other side of the House that I shall do my best to see that they carry out this promise should such an event ever occur again.
To refer to the second set of Amendments, I feel sure it was accidental but there was in fact a slight error or the part of the noble and learned Lord. He said that three out of the four local governments concerned in this canal were opposed to the reopening of the canal. That was three out of four of the large authorities which border the canal but which as a matter of fact are not responsible for the expense of filling at in.

1519
All the other authorities—I forget the exact number, but it is a considerable number—who are engaged in this matter were not only not present at the meeting but were actually excluded from the meeting.
I quite understand why these three local authorities were anxious about the canal; they are anxious about children being drowned. I know a great deal about children being drowned in a canal because, as this House must know, when I am not present in this House I spend my time putting children into small boats on a canal, and I know perfectly well that it is the dead canal that is not used for navigation and is not filled in and made into dry land which kills children. If you wish not to kill children in a canal you must do one of two things; either make that canal navigable, active and full of boats with people in them who will pull the children out of the water if they fall in; or else you must fill in the canal and make it dry land. But that costs £100,000 a mile. It is noticeable that the local authorities which did not want the canal restored to navigation were also not the ones who would have to pay £100,000 a mile to fill it in, whereas the ones upon whom that enormous expense would fall were rather differently minded.
This is the point that we really must get into our heads in regard to these waterways, both in this case and in subsequent ones, if we are to save the lives of children in derelict canals; we must either make those canals active or else fill them in. What we are doing under this clause is simply creating chaos and losing lives. We have put up this clause, we have passed it through this House, we have demonstrated that this House is determined that something must be done about these waterways, and now I think we must accept that our Amendment should be rejected.
LORD GRIMSTON of WESTBURY: My Lords, I cannot let this pass without a short comment, particularly in view of what the noble and learned Lord said in moving the rejection of the Amendment. I was sorry that in another place this question of the date of the writ was brought up again, because I thought
1520
we had resolved it here as being due to a misunderstanding, and I believe that was accepted by the noble and learned Lord.
In regard to the meeting, to which he referred, which took place the other day between certain authorities and the British Waterways Board, I want to confirm what the noble Viscount has just said; that this meeting was most unrepresentative of those who are interested in this particular problem. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there were thirty relators to the proposed action, but only three of them were invited to the meeting. So whatever report the Government received from this meeting is most unrepresentative. There is considerable feeling in regard to this point, and if evidence is wanted about that, it is surely the fact that this Amendment in another place was defeated by a majority of only twenty-nine when there was a three-line Government Whip out. All I am asking is that too much reliance should not be placed upon the report that has been received from this meeting. We know we cannot take the matter any further, but I wish the Government to be under no misapprehension that the report from this meeting will reflect the true position.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord should not speak with such apparent authority about the number of lines on the Whips that go out from this side of the House. There were not three lines on that Whip.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I accept that. I saw it reported in the Press that there was a three-line Government Whip. In any case, 29 is not a particularly good majority.
4.29 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I hesitate to speak on this subject and I will not delay your Lordships for more than a moment. I am bound to say that I cannot see anything unreasonable in the Government advising the House not to adhere to the Amendment which was carried largely due to the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. In 1947 we were still under 19th century influences and the Transport Commission,

1521
of which I was Chairman, was made subject to all sorts of 19th century restrictions, more particularly in regard to its railways and its canals. It was told that it must not discriminate in this direction, it must give generality to its tariffs, and equality of treatment to everybody, whatever might be the commercial competitions or pressures upon it. All those 19th century maxims, which no doubt in those times were very sound and necessary, were still to apply. But in 1963 and 1962 there was, on a change of Government, a wholesale sweeping aside of all this kind of restriction, and I cannot, for the life of me, see why in the particular case of the canals particular restrictions of this kind should still be held to be necessary.
There is one other consideration and it is a much more general one. When public authorities are set up and when experienced administrators or able businessmen are asked to take the chairmanship of their boards or to serve upon them, they are not going to be attracted by the prospect of having Parliament always wagging its finger at them and saying, "You must not behave improperly there", and, "You must not behave unfairly there", "You must not discriminate in this case or treat somebody unjustly in another", and, "If anybody has a fancied grievance he must be entitled under the particular Act under which you are set up to take you to some court or tribunal". It seems to me quite inconsistent with the action all Parties in recent years have adopted, to try to impose in this set of circumstances particular obligations on this particular Board. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not feel disposed to insist upon the Amendment.
4.32 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word about No. 84. I agree with my noble friend Lord St. Davids that there is no real relationship between these two. The practical side of this subject has been very effectively dealt with already by two of your Lordships. The result, of course, will be that this action will be stopped. My objection to it is that, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, this is completely contrary to all the traditions of English law. I think it is a very serious thing. It has been happening very occasionally over the
1522
last years, and those of us who have some veneration for the long traditions of English law have been worried about in.
This, I think, is a particularly bad example of it, and the reasons given for the Commons disagreement are completely illogical. If this Amendment had become part of the law, it would not have prevented this Bill, when it became an Act, from carrying through the objects of Parliament in amending the law. All that it would have done would be to safeguard a right which had accrued and which a mere technicality had prevented from already making some progress in its journey through the courts. Time after time in the history of our legislation a position of that sort has in fact been safeguarded. This Amendment was an attempt to safeguard that sort of position, in the best traditions, I should have said, of English law, and it is most unfortunate that the Commons should have seen fit to break it up in this way. I do not propose to ask your Lordships to dissent from the Commons decision this point, but it seems to me to be quite contrary to the best traditions of the English legal system.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not propose to reply, except to say that I am sure the Board will not attach any exaggerated importance to the meeting. To clarify the matter, I am told that three out of the only four authorities through whose areas the Ashton Canal runs, including Manchester Corporation, told the Board quite categorically that they did not want the Ashton Canal retained as a navigation, and the Board have reason to believe that the fourth council concerned may hold the same view. I do not think it would be useful for me to argue the matter any further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 86.]
Clause 120, page 157, line 31, at end insert "including the owner and occupier of the land for which the crossing is maintained."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
[No. 87.]
Because it would place an unreasonable burden on the Railways Board.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lads, I beg to move that this House doth lot

1523
insist on its Amendment No. 86, to which the Commons have disagreed. If this Amendment were retained the Minister would have powers to require the Railways Board to increase protection at level crossings not used by the public. The clause already gives the Minister powers to require the Board to increase protection at level crossings on private occupation roads which, through increasing traffic, have become virtually public roads, but the Government still do not think that powers should be taken to make the Railways Board solely responsible for the cost of improvements to entirely private crossings.
The Government realise that at some private crossings there may now be a need for extra precautions, and know that in some cases it has not been possible for the Railways Board and the farmer whose land the crossing serves to agree on an equitable method of sharing the cost. As I stated on Report, the Minister intends to bring the Railways Board and the National Farmers' Union together once more with the object of making a determined effort to reach some mutually acceptable standard basis of cost allocation. Should the discussions fail, the Government may have to legislate, but not in the sense of placing the full cost on the Railways Board. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 86 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for explaining the reason for the Commons disagreement here, and particularly for his statement that the Minister intends to bring together the National Farmers' Union and the British Railways Board to see whether it is possible to hammer out a solution. I am grateful for the Minister's recognition that there is a need to do something on some of these crossings where modern conditions clearly make the situation unsafe. I know that there are such crossings, and I am sure that new precautions should be introduced. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, that if it is impossible to reach an agreement no doubt legislation may be necessary, and I should be perfectly happy to see it
1524
tackled that way. I think probably the Railways should not be asked to pay the extra if it proves impossible to get an agreed basis. I think this is something for which the Government have to pay and which public funds have to stand.
I should like to repeat a point I made on Report stage; that where a motorway is being built to-day we have precisely similar circumstances to those in which the railways were built a hundred years ago, and where motorways are built, and farms are severed either by bridge or tunnel, the two severed pieces are connected at public expense. And this is really the only practical approach. But we have inherited a situation in which, although when the severing took place a hundred years ago existing private crossings were perfectly satisfactory, with the changes to modern conditions they simply are not so now; they are dangerous, not only for the farmer but for the trains as well. This is the practical point, and I am glad to hear that the noble Lord has got it. I hope that the Minister will be able to get agreement, and that if he cannot he will be prepared to consider legislation. For these reasons we accept the Commons disagreement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 88]
Clause 123, pane 165, line 35, leave out "paragraphs" and insert "paragraph—
(d) provided that adequate provision for off-street parking facilities in each local authority area has been made then such surplus may be applied to—"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu:
[No. 89]
Page 165, line 35, leave out "paragraphs:(d)" and insert paragraph—
(d) if it appears to the local authority that the provision in their area of further parking accommodation for vehicles otherwise than on highways is for the time being unnecessary or undesirable, the following purposes, namely—
(i)".
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the agreement of the House I will take at the same time Amendments Nos. 88 and 89. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 88 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons

1525
in their Amendment No. 89 in lieu. Clause 123(6) amends Section 44(3) of the Road Transport Regulation Act 1967 by introducing two further purposes for which surplus parking meter revenue may be expended, in addition to the main purpose of building or maintaining off-street parking places. These extra purposes, in brief, are the provision of public transport services or facilities and road improvements, including traffic management measures.
The House will recall that at Committee stage the Amendment in the name of Lord Nugent was passed which introduced a proviso into Section 44(3) of the Road Transport Regulation Act 1967. This proviso reads:
"Provided that adequate provision for off-street parking facilities in each local authority area has been made then such surplus may be applied to"
the two new purposes detailed above. The Government's view is that it would be wrong to give absolute priority to car park investment in this way. It is a cardinal principle that the amount of off-street parking space should be geared to the capacity of the access roads, otherwise the provision of large numbers of off-street parking places will only lead to congestion on the roads in the area. Circumstances could therefore arise when it would be wrong for a town to build more car parks, at least for the time being, and the Government want to give local authorities more flexibility in deciding how to spend surplus parking meter revenue.
However, the Government accept the spirit of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in the sense that it is reasonable that a local authority should pay attention to its car park needs when considering what to do with any surplus parking meter revenue. Accordingly, the Government proposed in another place the alternative Amendment on the Marshalled List which leaves it to the local authority to be the judge of whether or not surplus revenue should be used for further off-street parking facilities in its area. This puts the responsibility squarely where we believe it should be.
The Government Amendment in lieu was welcomed, I believe, by the Opposition in another place. For this reason I commend it to the House.
Moved, That this House doth no insist on its Amendment No. 88 to which the Commons have disagreed; and that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89 in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 88.— (Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Winterbottom, for explaining the Government's view on disagreeing with our Amendment and inserting their Amendment, and I recognise that this goes a long way to giving what is wanted. It gives the local authority discretion as to how it will spend its parking meter revenue, and allows it to spend it for the purpose of providing off-street car parks. It does not quite fulfil what we on this side feel is the obligation of the Government of the day. We gave a specific undertaking that these revenues would be devoted to off-street car parks. Great store was set on that undertaking by the motoring organisation and others. For that reason we felt that it was preferable that the Government of to-day should accept that obligation and should fulfil it. However, we must again be thankful for small mercies. The noble Lord has come some way to meet us here. This will leave it to local authorities who, in most cases, I daresay will do why we want. At any rate, they will be subject to the representations of local opinion, and if that is the local wish no doubt they will accede to it. I feel that we have been given something here. I thank the noble Lord, and for this reason we shall agree to the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 90]
After Clause 129, insert the following new clause:
Duty to act in certain cases as body engaged in commercial enterprise
".—(1) This section applies to the following authorities, namely, the Boards, the new authorities, and the Executive for any designated area within the meaning of section 9(1) of this Act.
(2) Every authority to whom this section applies who engage, either directly or through a subsidiary, in any activities authorise by any of the provisions specified in subsection (3) of this section shall in carrying on those activities act as if they were a company

1527
engaged in a commercial enterprise or, as the case may be, shall exercise their control over that subsidiary so as to ensure that the subsidiary in carrying on those activities acts as a company so engaged.
(3) The provisions referred to in subsection (2) of this section are—

(a) the following provisions of the Act of 1962, namely, section 6 (which relates to the provision of hotels) and subsections (2) to (4) of section 11 (which relate to certain development or acquisition of land);

(b) the following provisions of this Act, namely, sections 2(1)(g)(ii) and (m), 10(1)(viii), (xx)(b) and (xxii), 25(e) and (f), 26(1)(e)(ii), (f) and (k), 49(1) to (4), 50(1) (so far as it relates to the provision of facilities at additional premises), and 50(3), (4) and (5)."

The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments thereto:
[Nos. 91–95]

Leave out line 16.

Line 20, after "(viii)", insert "(xi)".

Line 21, after "(k)", insert "48(2)".

Line 23, leave out "(3), (4) and" and insert "(2) to".

The Commons have made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:—
Page 262, line 7, after "Sections", insert "Duty to act in certain cases as body engaged in commercial enterprise)".
4.42 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 94, to the Lords Amendment No. 90, and to the Commons consequential Amendment No. 95. I think it would be convenient if these were taken together. Noble Lords will recall that on the Report stage I introduced a new clause which provided that in certain circumstances the nationalised transport authorities and Passenger Transport Executives must act as if engaged in a commercial enterprise. The new clause was welcomed by noble Lords opposite and accepted by the House. The new clause was also welcomed in another place, but the Government felt it necessary to move the four Amendments to it which stand on the Marshalled List.
The effect of the Amendments made by the Commons to the new clause was; to apply the obligation to act "commercially" to the power of P.T.E.S to repair vehicles and supply fuel and vehicle accessories at car parks which they may provide; to apply the duty to subsection
1528
(2) of Clause 48, which, as amended at Commons Consideration stage, includes the similar power of the Boards and new authorities, and the Waterways Board's power to sell goods at places where those using their waterways may want to buy them; to apply the duty to the Railways Board's power to operate hotels, contained in Clause 50(2) (which was deleted from the Bill in Lords Committee). A consequential Amendment is the deletion from the new clause of the reference to Section 6 of the 1962 Act, which is repealed by the reinstated Clause 50(2).
The effect of the consequential Amendment No. 95 would be to include the new clause among the provisions listed in Part I of Schedule 17 of the Bill which are to extend to Northern Ireland. This is clearly desirable because some of the powers on which the new clause bites could be exercised in Northern Ireland (for instance, the travel agency powers of the Scottish Group and Bus Company, or the powers of the Boards and new authorities to acquire and develop land other than for the purposes of their business) and the "commercial obligation" must apply to the exercise of the powers in Northern Ireland no less than to their exercise in Great Britain. Noble Lords will, I hope, appreciate that the broad effect of these Government Amendments is to apply the formal obligation to act commercially more widely. They thus re-emphasise the Government's declared intention that new ancillary activities of the Boards, the new authorities and P.T.E.S, when carried out in direct competition with the private sector, shall be conducted fairly and in a businesslike manner.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 to the Lords Amendment No. 90; and in their consequential Amendment No. 95.—(Lords Hughes.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I say just a final word of welcome to this clause? It is a substantial concession by the Government and it goes a long way to making Clause 48 less unacceptable. The four Amendments which have been approved in another place do, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has told us, extend more widely

1529
the qualification to act commercially and to that extent they also are acceptable. Again, I should like to thank the noble Lord and his colleagues for the constructive and helpful work that they have done on this particular point, and to say that we shall not disagree with the Commons in their Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 96]
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
Application of road traffic enactments to Crown roads
.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 32 of the Countryside Act 1968 with respect to certain Crown roads, the Minister may, with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority or authorities concerned, by order, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, direct that, subject to subsection (3) of this section and to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications appearing to him to be necessary or expedient as may be specified in the order, all or any of the road traffic enactments shall apply to all Crown roads, or to any specified Crown road or Crown roads, or to Crown roads of a specified class, as they apply in relation to other roads to which the public has access.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, but subject to subsection (3) of this section, any order under the said subsection (I) with respect to any of the road traffic enactments may in particular include provision—

(a) for enabling functions with respect to a road exercisable under the enactment in question by the local authority or the highway authority to be exercised with respect to a Crown road by the appropriate Crown authority or by a particular local authority or highway authority;

(b) for enabling power to make an order, regulation or scheme under the enactment in question with respect to a Crown road which would otherwise be exercisable by a local authority or highway authority to be exercised instead by the Minister, and for requiring the consent of the Minister to the variation or revocation by any other authority of such an order, regulation or scheme made by him;

(c) for a certificate of the appropriate Crown authority or of the Minister that the authority or Minister has, or has not, consented to the doing of anything for which under the order or under this section the consent of the authority or, as the case may be. The Minister is required to be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the facts stated;

(d) for exempting from any provision of the enactment in question persons and
1530
vehicles on a Crown road in the service of the Crown or of an agent of the crown.

(3) No order, regulation or scheme in (elation to a Crown road shall be made, varied or revoked under any of the road traffic enactments by virtue of an order under subsection (1) of this section except by or with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority.
(4) With a view to the avoidance of doubt, the road traffic enactments specified in an order under subsection (1) of this section may include any provision of those enactments notwithstanding that it would have applied in relation to Crown roads apart from the making of the order; and the inclusion in the order of a provision which would so have applied shall not prejudice anything done under that provision in relation to a Crown road before the coming into force of the order.
(5) In this section—

(a) the expression appropriate Crown authority ', in relation to a Crown road, means—

(i)in the case of a road on land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, the Crown Estate Commissioners or other government department having the management of that land;

(ii) in the case of a road on land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy;

(iii) in the case of a road on land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, such person as the Duke of Cornwall 0 7 the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall appoints;

(iv) in the case of a road on land belonging to a government department it or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department, that department;

and if any question arises under this paragraph as to what authority is the appropriate Crown authority in relation to any Crown road, that question shall be referred to the Treasury, whose decision shall be final;

(b) the expression 'Crown road' n Bans a road, other than a highway, to which I the public has access by permission granted I by the appropriate Crown authority, or otherwise granted by or on behalf of the Crown;

(c) the expression 'road traffic enactments' means the enactments (whither passed before or after this Act) relating to road traffic, including the lighting and larking of vehicles, and any order or other instrument having effect by virtue of any such enactment;

and, in the application of this section to Scotland or Wales, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a refernce to the Secretary of State.
(6) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any enactment in addition to this section and section 32 of the Countryside Act 1968 which relates to Crown roads."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
[No. 97]
Line 81, after "after" insert "or contained in"
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97 to the Lords Amendment No. 96. This merely repairs an accidental omission in the drafting of the clause as it stood originally, by adding the words "or contained in".
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97 to the Lords Amendment No. 96. —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 98]
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee
".—(1) The Minister shall establish a committee, to be known as the Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee, for the purpose of—

(a) considering and from time to time reporting to the Minister on matters which affect the interests both of the Railways Board and of persons engaged in coastal shipping, and in particular any such matters which the Minister may refer to the committee for consideration; and

(b) dealing with any complaint as to the charges for the carriage of goods by rail made or quoted by the Railways Board in competition with coastal shipping, being a complaint which is made to the committee, or made to the Minister and referred by him to the committee, and which is so made by or on behalf of a body appearing to the committee or, as the case may be, to the Minister to be representative of the interests of persons engaged in coastal shipping.

(2) The committee shall consist of —

(a) such number as the Minister thinks fit of shipping members, that is to say, members representing the interests of persons engaged in coastal shipping, who shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the President of the Board of Trade and with such body or bodies as the Minister thinks fit, being a body or bodies appearing to the Minister to be representative of such persons; and

(b) the like number of railway members, that is to say, members representing the Railways Board, who shall be nominated by the Railways Board and of whom at least one shall be a member of that Board.

(3) The committee shall appoint one of their members to be their chairman and, subject to subsection (4) of this section, their procedure, including their quorum, shall be such as they may determine.
(4) If, at the meeting at which the committee consider any such complaint as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section, a majority of those present and voting of each respectively of —

(a) the shipping members; and

(b) the railway members,

are unable to agree together as to the action, if any, to be taken on the complaint, the chairman of the committee shall, if such a majority either of the shipping members or of the railway members so request, report the failure to reach agreement to the Minister who shall then refer the complaint for a determination of the matters referred to in subsection (5) of this section to a person appearing to the Minister to have suitable qualifications for that purpose.
(5) The matters to be determined by the person appointed by the Minister under subsection (4) of this section in connection with a complaint are—

(a) the cost to the Railways Board of providing the services in question;

(b) the cost of providing corresponding services by coastal shipping; and

(c) the likely effect on the Railways Board and on persons engaged in coastal shipping respectively of losing the business in question to the other of them, including any effect of the loss of that business on the charges of that Board or, as the case may be, such persons for other services by way of the carriage of goods,

the costs referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection being broken down in such manner as the Minister may direct.
(6) The person appointed to determine the matters aforesaid in connection with a complaint—

(a) may require the Railways Board and the complainant respectively to submit written evidence in support of their case; and

(b) shall make any evidence so submitted by the Railways Board or by the complainant available to the other of them;

and subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection the procedure for Cat; purpose of determining those matters shall be such as the Minister may direct.
(7) After considering the report of the person appointed to determine the matters aforesaid in connection with any complaint, the Minister may give to the Railways Board any directions which he may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(8) In this section the expression `coastal shipping' has the same meaning as in the Act of 1962."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and have made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
[No. 99]
Page 262, line 7, after "141" insert "(Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee)".
4.48 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 99 to Lords Amendment No. 98. This Amendment would bring the new clause setting up a Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee within the list of provisions in the Bill, in Part I of Schedule 17, which are to be extended to Northern Ireland. This would ensure that, for example, matters affecting the interests of the Railways Board and of people in the coastal shipping business which relate wholly or partly to Northern Ireland will come within the scope of the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 99 to Lords Amendment No. 98.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 100]
Schedule 18, page 263, leave out lines 22 to 24.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment hut proposed the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill.
[No. 101]
Page 263, line 22, leave out "the, proviso to"
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment No. 100 to which the Commons have disagreed. I would also move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 101 to the words so restored to the Bill. It is, in effect, a tidying-up Amendment in consequence of the restoration to the Bill of Clause 48. It was proposed in another place to restore to Schedule 18 the provision which had been removed by the Lords on Report, that the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 13 of the 1962 Act should be repealed. That subsection empowers the British Waterways Board to manufacture for sale plant or equipment as used in connection with inland waterways, and to repair such
1534
plant or equipment. The proviso stipulates that such activities must not it elude barges or other vessels. However, Clause 48 entirely covers (without the proviso the ground covered by Section 1312) of the 1962 Act, which is accordingly rendered completely superfluous. The Government's Amendment there for has the effect that the whole of subsection (2) of Section 13 of the 1962 Act, not just the proviso, shall be repealed
My Lords, I think it would be not inappropriate that I should say, as we come to the final stage of a very long process, how much we on the Government side have appreciated the way in which to-day's proceedings have gone. It would have been rather difficult, per laps, some months ago to predict that it this final stage we should conclude our proceedings on this Bill in a spirit of such complete harmony (shall I say), even though that does not necessarily mean unity of viewpoint. It is, however, quite consistent with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and his colleagues have acted through-out in their proceedings on this Bill. I feel that it would be going a little too far if I were to say that any of us felt, in seeing the last of this Bill, the we were departing from an old friend, but certainly my own personal feeling is that life is going to be a little empty without it.
I should be surprised if the con acts and discussions and arguments which I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, could be continued in future on Scottish legislation. I doubt very much whether his noble friends behind would welcome such a reversal of the trend to nationalism, but perhaps the remedy is that my excursions out of Scotland should not be solely, geographical but should continue from time to time to be legislative also. I certainly should welcome very much the opportunity of continuing what has been a very pleasant operation. In saying so, I know that I speak for all my noble friends on the Front Bench, and if we must continue to have political disagreements (and I hope that we shall; otherwise we are in fact saying that we do not wish to have political Parties) I hope that they will be continued in the ray in which we have managed to conduct

1535
this very lengthy and difficult Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 100 and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 101.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lord we do not disagree with the Commons on this Amendment. We especially appreciated the coda which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, added to his speech in such a pleasant, charming and generous way, and we would reciprocate from this side. This has been a long, difficult and arduous Bill. As he says, we are already beginning to wonder what we used to do with our lives before the Transport Bill floated into it, but no doubt other things will come along to fill them up.
I think my colleagues and I would agree that we feel that the achievements on the Bill have been, to a large extent, due to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his noble colleagues, Lord Beswick, Lord Winterbottom and Lord Stonham (we wish he were with us to-day), for the skill with which they have handled the debates here in the House, and obviously other debates which must have taken place behind the scenes. The result is, 1 think, that this House has carried out its proper job of revision in an effective way, and it has been something in which we, like the noble Lord, have been glad to take part. Before Lord Hughes floats off back to Scottish affairs again perhaps I might ask whether the Minister of Transport would give him a special authorisation which would bring him back occasionally to English affairs, and allow him to travel the 400 miles and join us—he should cover the "ton mileage" situation anyhow. For these reasons we shall not disagree with the Commons decision on Schedule 18.
On Question, Motion agreed to.