Sitting of 23 July 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

  BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING) BILL [Lords]
  Standing Order 198 suspended; Bill to be read a Second time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.
  Ordered,
  "That Standing Orders 115, 177 and 199 be suspended; and that one clear day's notice be given by the Clerk to the Committee of Selection or the Clerk to the Committee on the Bill, as the case may require, of the day and hour appointed for the sitting of the Committee on the Bill.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CIVIL AVIATION

    Corporations' Accounts (Publication)
    Air-Commander Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when the accounts of B.O.A.C., covering the year ended March, 1947, will be available.
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when it is intended to publish the annual accounts of the three air corporations.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The statements of accounts of the three
    1190
    airways corporations for the year ended 31st March, 1947, will be laid as soon as possible after Parliament re-assembles in October.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: While I appreciate the difficulties of getting the accounts from overseas, may I ask the Minister to be sure that there is no delay, because of the large sums which may be involved, and because of the public interest in this matter?
    Mr. Lindgren: Most certainly. There has been active co-operation between the Minister, the chairman of the corporations, and the accountancy sections and auditors of the corporations. We have brought publication of the accounts to within seven months of the end of the financial year, and we are desirous of bringing them as close to it as possible, because that is, in itself, an efficiency test.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the long delay in presenting these accounts, will my hon. Friend consider giving more information in this House in response to questions put to him by Members of this House, pending publication of the accounts?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is an entirely different question.

    Aerodrome, Doncaster
    Mr. Walkdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, as a result of the acquisition by the State of Doncaster airport, he now proposes to construct the necessary runways and other essential works; when he anticipates the plans will be ready or the work of reconstruction will commence; who will use the airport in the meantime; and what facilities will be given to commercial operators or charter companies to develop, in the near future, regular airline services.
    Mr. Lindgren: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in regard to aerodromes in the United Kingdom on 9th July, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), but I may add with regard to Doncaster that preliminary plans for its development, which is a heavy constructional undertaking, have been prepared, though for the reasons given in my earlier statement I am unable to forecast the date of implementation. Meanwhile, the

    1191
    aerodrome is already being used by one aircraft repair and maintenance firm, and will be available within the limits of its capacity and accommodation to other commercial, charter and private flying interests to engage in their legitimate actiivties. A civil operated reserve school will resume flying activities there in the autumn.
    Mr. Walkden: Is not the Minister aware that we in the West Riding of Yorkshire, particularly in the City of Sheffield and other towns around Doncaster, attach considerable importance to the development of this airport? Will my hon. Friend give it the same consideration as he gives to Prestwick in Scotland, because the West Riding produces a considerable amount of wealth for Britain, certainly in the export field?
    Mr. Lindgren: The development of this aerodrome will cost a considerable amount of money and will require a lot of labour and materials, and its development must, in relation to these factors, be in accordance with the national programme.

    Prestwick (Transatlantic Service)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secreary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many Atlantic arrivals and departures to and from Prestwick, by aircraft of the three corporations, took place during June; and how many by other airlines.
    Mr. Lindgren: In the month of June there were 17 arrivals and 19 departures to and from Prestwick Airport on transatlantic services by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, 41 arrivals and 41 departures by Trans-Canada Airlines and 54 arrivals and 56 departures by foreign airlines.
    Colonel Hutchison: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these figures abundantly bear out the contention that if left to themselves to choose between Prestwick, Heathrow and Shannon, a great many foreign companies will, in fact, prefer to use Prestwick?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, as and when it is the most effective route on the Great Circle route.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Do these figures bear out the prognostication that a Labour Government would close Prestwick?

    Air-Sea Rescue Equipment
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Parliamentary Secertary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether all British air-liners operating on the ocean routes carry emergency dinghies, lifebelts and other standard air-sea rescue equipment for passengers and crews.
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir.

    Gatwick Racecourse
    Mr. Toucheasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will now state when Gatwick racecourse is to be derequisitioned.
    Mr. Lindgren: Gatwick racecourse is now an essential part of Gatwick Aerodrome which is being extensively used for the testing of transport aircraft under modification on the aerodrome, for air charter work and for the Ministry of Civil Aviation's experimental and communication work. I can, therefore, give no promise that it will be derequisitioned.
    Mr. Touche: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that it will be requisitioned permanently?
    Mr. Lindgren: The answer means that I can give no promise when it will be derequisitioned. From my information, I think it will be in use for a number of years, for there is no alternative aerodrome within the London area.

  GERMANY

    Medical Practitioners
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many German doctors and surgeons in the British zone, whose medical services are urgently needed, are prevented from resuming practice because of their former connection with the National Socialist Party.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): None, Sir.

    Control Commission (Rations)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the weekly weight and calorie content of each

    1193
    item of the rations issued to British officials of the Control Commission in Germany; and whether the quantities are the same for large messes as for issues to individuals.
    Mr. Bevin: The rations for the Control Commission are the same as for the British Army of the Rhine. I have obtained the details asked for in the first part of the Question from my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, and with permission will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answer to the second half of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Keeling: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the allegations I sent him that there is a good deal of waste and does not his reply to the last part of my Question corroborate that, as it is a well known fact that the issues need not be the same for a large mess as for an individual?
    Mr. Bevin: I will look into that very carefully. The Commander-in-Chief is coming over, and I am constantly trying to tighten up the administration.
    Following are the details:

    Commodity.

    Weekly Quantity in oz.

    Calories (per week)

    Meat Frozen (Bone in)

    42

    3,115

    Bacon

    9

    987

    Cheese

    6

    700

    Jam

    7

    497

    Margarine

    8½

    1,855

    Butter

    2

    560

    Sugar

    14

    1,512

    Cooking Fat

    2

    504

    Bread

    84

    6,132

    Vegetables (Fresh)

    56

    224

    Onions

    14

    84

    Potatoes (Fresh)

    84

    1,323

    Dried Peas/Beans/Lentils

    7

    553

    Fruit (Fresh)

    28

    252

    Fruit (Dried)

    6

    313

    Milk Td. U.K.

    14

    644

    Skim Milk Powder

    2

    196

    Milk Powder F.C.S.U.

    3

    413

    Herrings

    7

    301

    Oatmeal

    5

    546

    Rice or alternative

    2

    196

    Flour

    17½

    1,715

    Sausages (Fresh) (Beef)

    16

    973

    Preserved Meat

    2

    140

    Dried Egg

    1

    161

    Cocoa

    ⅞

    112

    Salt

    3½

    —

    Tea

    3½

    —

  Land Reform Scheme
  Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the main differences between the land expropriation proposals for the British zone of Germany and those already in operation or proposed for the United States zone.
  Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consultations have been held with the United States occupation authority and agreement reached as to the principles on which the scheme for land reform in the British zone of Germany is to be based.
  Mr. Bevin: The settlement law passed in the United States zone was carefully studied before the issue of the British Draft Ordinance. There has been, however, no official consultation with the United States authorities on land reform. The main difference between the British proposals and the provisions of the United States settlement law is that while the British proposals envisage a fixed limit above which all land shall be expropriated, the United States law establishes a sliding scale of expropriation starting at a low fixed limit.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the Foreign Secretary intend to ask the United States Government what is their opinion of land nationalisation in a zone for which they are likely to take an increasing responsibility?
  Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. I had not thought of putting that question to them yet.
  Mr. Bramall: Could my right hon. Friend say what is the position with regard to this land reform as between ourselves and the Zonal Advisory Council, and what stage has been reached?
  Mr. Bevin: The stage which has been reached now is that opinion has been taken through the Zonal Advisory Council, and from different parties who put up different points of view and opinions, and the Commander-in-Chief and his officers, and we have been taking all these into account before reaching a final conclusion.
  Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that responsible organisations in Germany representing agriculture and forestry will be consulted before any decision to expropriate German farmers is reached.
  Mr. Bevin: Responsible German opinion has been consulted through the Zonal Advisory Council, which, in examining the British proposals, has employed the services of German agricultural experts.
  Mr. Vane: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the responsible opinion which he says has been asked for its advice, is really responsible opinion with agricultural and forestry experience, and not merely the semi-political opinion as represented on the Zonal Advisory Council?
  Mr. Bevin: Responsible German opinion has been consulted through the Zonal Advisory Council, but if the hon. Member asks me whether I have taken into account all the farmers organisations, well, that is not so.
  Mr. Vane: Would not the Foreign Secretary think it better that the Zonal Advisory Council should take the opinion of responsible agriculturists and foresters, who are more likely to know about the loss of foodstuffs?
  Mr. Bevin: In my experience, I have never found unanimity amongst them.

  Travel Permit (Application)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Mr. Paul Bruggemann, Hamburg-Harburg, Stormstrasse 15, British Zone, Germany, with a Swedish wife and family resident in Sweden, who went to Hamburg to visit his sick mother in the autumn of 1946, is still refused the right to return to Sweden, in spite of his anti-Nazi record, the distress of his wife and family and the Government's promise early in May to treat his request as a matter of prime urgency.
  Mr. Bevin: Mr. Bruggemann has made no application to the British authorities in Germany for permission to return to Sweden permanently. He has, however, made two applications to visit Sweden, both of which had to be refused because the grounds stated did not come within the approved categories of travel out of Germany.
  Mr. Zilliacus: If I give my right hon. Friend a copy of a letter from Mr. Bruggemann stating that he does wish to return to Sweden permanently, will he look into the matter again?
  Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

  RUMANIA (POLITICAL PRISONERS)
  Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arrest of people for political reasons, contrary to the peace treaty, has now ceased in Rumania; and how many political prisoners have been released since 1st June.
  Mr. Bevin: The Rumanian Government have not discontinued arrests of political opponents. They have recently arrested Monsieur Maniu and the leading members of the National Peasant Party. Releases of political prisoners are taking place, but I have been unable to obtain any reliable figures. I agree with the hon. Member that such political arrests are in conflict with Article 3 of the Peace Treaty, and His Majesty's Government addressed to the Rumanian Government a Note on 21st July refuting the Rumanian Government's contention that this is not so and that His Majesty's Government will have no right to concern themselves with the fulfilment by Rumania of that Article.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: While appreciating the seriousness of the right hon. Gentleman's reply may I ask him can he assure the House that he is receiving the active co-operation of the other parties concerned with the Moscow Conference, towards ensuring that the Rumanian Government implement their obligations?
  Mr. Bevin: I would not like to say that. Certainly, the American Government, as one of the members of the Allied Council, have supported it. That is all.

  PEACE TREATIES (RATIFICATION)
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is expected that the Peace Treaties, agreed on by the Great Powers, will be ratified.
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an approximate date when the Treaty of Peace with Finland will be ratified; and what steps he is taking to hasten this ratification.
  Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government are anxious to avoid further delay, and are discussing the matter with the other Governments concerned.
  Mr. Reid: Which Governments are delaying, and what alleged reasons do they give for the delay?
  Mr. Bevin: The principal point is in the case of Italy. I think it would be in the best interests of Italy if she were to ratify the Treaty and clear up the technical state of war and allow normal relations to be resumed; but she apparently is holding back because she does not feel certain whether Soviet Russia would ratify the Treaty. I do not think that she ought to rely on that. Really, she ought to carry it out and, having signed it, to ratify it and then to allow the other Powers to try to bring these Treaties into operation.
  Mr. Teeling: As Finland is an entirely different case from Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc., because the United States had nothing whatever to do with it, why could not Russia and Great Britain come to a quicker answer?
  Mr. Bevin: I was endeavouring to get the ratification of all the Treaties deposited at the same time. In view of the difficulties that have arisen, I will take up the point which the hon. Gentleman has made.
  Mr. Molson: What is the policy of His Majesty's Government in the case of such Treaties as those with Bulgaria and Rumania which contain guarantees for the liberties of the individual and which are being openly flouted at present by the Governments in power there; will His Majesty's Government consider delaying ratification until those Governments show some intention of honouring the terms of the Treaties?
  Mr. Bevin: No. I think that would be a mistake. It would just keep the thing open. The best thing to do is to get the Treaties ratified, then get the countries admitted to United Nations, and then bring the "human rights" clause into operation so that the whole thing can be ventilated in a public assembly.
  Professor Savory: How is it possible to ratify the Treaty with Italy until she carries out the obligations which she has undertaken towards South Tyrol and the Tyrolese population?

  POLICE (OVERSEAS) REGULATIONS
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the reason for the delay in laying on the Table of this House the Police (Overseas Service) Germany Regulations (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1088), dated 29th May and the Police (Overseas Service) Austria Regulations (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1188), dated 8th June.
  Mr. Bevin: I regret the delay; it was really due to confusion that arose out of the amalgamation of the Control Office and the Foreign Office. I have taken steps to prevent a recurrence.

  CUBA (BRITISH WEST INDIANS)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sums have been paid during the last year for the relief of necessitous British West Indian colonials in the island of Cuba; how many recipients have been involved; and, of these, how many were permanent residents in Cuba.
  Mr. Bevin: £22,048 for the financial year ended 31st March, 1947. There were 3,110 recipients. Information is not available to answer the last part of the Question.

  BRITISH EMBASSY, LIMA (LABOUR ATTACHE)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the duties of the labour adviser to the British Ambassador at Lima; when this office was established; and what is its annual cost.
  Mr. Bevin: The Labour Attaché at His Majesty's Embassy at Lima, who is at the same time Labour Attaché on the staffs of His Majesty's representatives at Santiago and La Paz, took up his appointment on 9th May last. As regards the duties of Labour Attachés, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. F. Willey) on 7th July. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that the salary and allowances for this post amount to £2,050 a year.
  Mr. Turton: Would the Foreign Secretary explain generally whether he is to

  1199
  give advice upon how to deal with labour conditions or whether he is to receive advice from the South American Republics upon how to treat the Trade Union Congress?
  Mr. Bevin: His duty is to keep other countries advised of the very advantageous social services and the policy developed in this country. I do not intend to leave the whole world of labour open to others when we have such an example to put before the world.

  RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES
  Earl Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the discussions that have been taking place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the U.S.S.R. in regard to the refusal of the latter Government to permit the Russian-born wives of British subjects to leave the U.S.S.R.
  Mr. H. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action he proposes to take in the matter of the 15 Russian-born wives of British subjects who are still detained by the Soviet authorities.
  Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow has now written a letter to Mr. Vishinsky to inquire how the matter stands.
  Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to publish as a White Paper the correspondence with the Soviet Union concerning this matter over the last six months?
  Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that question.
  Earl Winterton: I beg to give notice, in view of the unprecedented action of the Russian Government—unprecedented in a country having treaty relationship with another country—that on behalf of a number of hon. Members I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment for the Summer Recess, if I am successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker.

  GREECE

    Frontier Situation
    Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    1200
    whether his attention has been drawn to the large concentrations of guerillas along the Yugoslav and Albanian frontiers and their subsequent repeated and increasing violation of the Greek frontier; and whether he proposes to draw the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations to these unprovoked aggressions.
    Mr. Bevin: The Greek Government have already brought before the Security Council the latest case of a guerilla attack from across Greece's northern frontier. In addition, the Subsidiary Group of the United Nations Balkan Commission has investigated, and reported to that Commission in New York on, various frontier incidents which have taken place since the Commission's report was drawn up. The Security Council is, therefore, fully informed upon these matters which are, I understand, engaging its attention at the present time.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: In view of the fact that these frontier situations are connived at, if not actively assisted, by the Yugoslav and Albanian Governments, will the Foreign Secretary consider making very strong protests to those Governments?
    Mr. Bevin: I think the matter has been taken up by the United Nations. We have a representative on the United Nations, and he speaks with the voice of His Majesty's Government, and I think we ought to stick to that instrument.
    Mr. Eden: Could the Foreign Secretary say whether the United Nations Commission will have a representative on these frontier area commissions, or have these commissions been withdrawn?
    Mr. Bevin: There is some doubt about it; there is a partial commission at the moment.

    British Police Mission
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the action taken by the Greek Government in arresting, without charge, thousands of trade unionists, Socialists and Communists, he will now withdraw the British Police Mission.
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Piratin: In that case, will the Foreign Secretary say whether he is satisfied that the Police Mission which we sent

    1201
    over to Greece is there for a useful purpose or merely in order to ensure the unwarranted arrest of Socialist and Communist trade unionists?
    Mr. Bevin: They are there for a very useful and successful purpose.
    Mr. Piratin: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this present attack on the Left and the working-class in Greece is a useful purpose?
    Mr. Bevin: I think that when any party, like the Communist Party—
    Mr. Piratin: And the Socialist Party.
    Mr. Bevin: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, perhaps he will allow me to answer the question—sets out to destroy the elected authority of the State, the elected authority of the State is entitled to protect itself.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Greece, anybody who opposes the Government is apparently classified as a Communist, and that this also ha:; the appearance of a Nazi doctrine to which exception has been taken this afternoon?
    Mr. Bevin: I am not expressing a view whether the Greek Government are right or wrong; I am expressing the view that the Police Mission is out there doing its duty. On the other hand, when I was asked a question as to this attack on the State, I gave an answer, and I limited it to the Communist Party.

  SPAIN (TOURIST PROPAGANDA)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to attract Spanish tourists to this country; what instructions our consulates in Spain have received on this subject; and to what extent the British Council in Spain is directing its attentions to interesting Spaniards in visiting this country.
  Mr. Bevin: Propaganda to attract Spanish tourists is not justified in view of the virtual prohibition by the Spanish Government of the export of currency for private journeys abroad. The British authorities concerned in Spain have, however, been given discretion to issue tourist visas permitting a stay of two months.
  1202
  The activities of the British Council in Spain naturally stimulate interest in this country and encourage visits by scientific, medical, professional men and others.
  Mr. Teeing: While fully realising that it is very difficult, from the financial point of view, for Spaniards to leave Spain, is it not true that, in France, only £5 is allowed for export, and that there is still a large amount of propaganda to try to get French people to come over here? Can we not do the same in Spain?
  Mr. Bevin: The relationship between Spain and the rest of the world is not the same as in the case of France

  FOREIGN SERVICE (UNIFORMS)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what allowances are at present granted to members of His Majesty's Diplomatic Service for the purchase of diplomatic uniforms; whether coupons are specially granted for this purpose; and whether ambassadors when first appointed are given any special facilities for obtaining the necessary uniforms for official functions outside this country.
  Mr. Bevin: The new Foreign Service Regulations provide that new entrants into the Foreign Service shall receive the actual cost of their uniform and that all officers shall receive the cost of altering their uniform on promotion in rank. Only in exceptional circumstances can the cost of a second new uniform be borne by public funds. When a new uniform or the alteration of an existing uniform is authorised the necessary coupons are also provided. No other special facilities appear to be required for obtaining uniforms, but these would be granted if necessary.
  Mr. Teeling: Would that exclude the fact that, in possibly 15 or 20 years' time, people's figures might change?
  Mr. Bevin: I shall rely on Mr. Moss to adjust that.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will ask the Soviet Government to release some of the three miles of gold braid which they recently ordered from this country?
  Mr. Bevin: I think the uniforms, without gold braid, of some of our Services are much better.

  POLAND

    Political Assets.
    Mr. Crawleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the British Ambassador in Warsaw as to the number of Polish Socialists who have been re-arrested since the political amnesty was declared and in violation of the Potsdam Agreement.
    Mr. Bevin: A communiqué issued by the Polish Ministry of Public Security on 8th June named seven Socialists who had been arrested. Of these, two were arrested last year, and have been in prison ever since. Two others were arrested last year, released and re-arrested in June of this year. The remaining three were arrested in June. Certain other prominent Polish Socialists have also been arrested in May and June. According to the Press, the total number arrested is 23. Not all the persons arrested are at present members of the Polish Socialst Party. Some of them are former members who have resigned from the Party.
    Mr. Crawley: Can my right hon. Friend say what were the charges against these men?
    Mr. Bevin: No, I really could not.
    Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that there is nothing in the Potsdam Agreement to prevent the arrest of people identified with sabotage, and is he aware that the chairman of the Socialist Party has stated that, having seen the documents, he is convinced that these people had planned sabotage?
    Mr. Bevin: I have not gone into the question of the charges at all. I must say to the House that I cannot take up every charge made against these people. It is impossible.

  POLISH REPATRIATION CAMP, AYRSHIRE (SOVIET CITIZENS)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the appeals since January of 133 Soviet citizens now in Polish Repatriation Camp No. 75, at Stewarton, Ayrshire, to be sent home have hitherto led to no action; and why their request to see a Soviet Consul has been refused.
  Mr. Bevin: There are at present 144 Soviet citizens in Polish Repatriation Camp No. 75 at Stewarton who are due to leave for Russia on 29th July; all these men have seen the Soviet Consul in order to obtain their Soviet visas.
  Mr. Zilliacus: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the remaining 550-odd Soviet citizens in camps in this country who have asked to be repatriated, will be repatriated in the near future?
  Mr. Bevin: When it is established that they have asked for it, I can do it, but there is a tremendous conflict about it. The Soviet sometimes tell me that people have written, and the people have said that they have not written, and so I have asked that, if a person writes from the camp, the Soviet should give me a copy of the letter, so that I can confront the person with that letter
  Major Cecil Poole: Would not the Foreign Secretary consider making an exchange between these people and the Russian-born wives of British citizens?

  VIENNA PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA (VISIT)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the ban on the visit to this country of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, because of the many Nazis among its members, has been lifted, in spite of the fact that it still has 30 Nazi members, and that its leader, Wolfgang Schneiderhahn, is a former voluntary member of the S.S., who made his musical and political reputation under Hitler.
  Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. His Majesty's Government encouraged the project of a visit to this country of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra last year, after it had been purged of 17 of its members with Nazi connections. For commercial reasons it was not found possible to arrange engagements for the orchestra last year, but no political aspect was involved. I am satisfied that the Austrian Government, whose de-Nazification Law of 6th February, 1947, was only issued after thorough examination by the Allied Council in Vienna, has carried out the de-Nazification of the implicated members of the orchestra. Wolfgang Schneiderhahn is not a figure of any political importance.
  Mr. King: Was not the persecution of artists and musicians, on account of their political opinions, among the first signs of incipient Nazi bestiality, and will the Foreign Secretary ensure that we do not follow that bad example?
  Mr. Bevin: I realise that the word "artist" covers a wide area and is not limited to musicians. I understand that politics is an art as well.

  GERMAN PRISONER-OF-WAR CAMPS (HANSARD)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make HANSARD available in information rooms at all German prisoner-of-war camps in Britain and the Middle East.
  Mr. Bevin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, and am looking into it.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Would it not be wise to make, an exception of last Monday's edition?

  INDONESIA (SITUATION)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Indonesia; and what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to mediate between the Indonesians and the Dutch.
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the outbreak of hostilities initiated by the Dutch military authorities against the Indonesian Republic, he will bring the matter, as an immediate urgency, to the notice of the Security Council of U.N.O. in accordance with Article 35 of the United Nations Charter.
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the dangerous situation in Indonesia and the breakdown of negotiations, he will take steps to bring the matter to the notice of the Security Council under Article 35 of the United Nations Charter.
  Mr. Bevin: I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.
  At the end of Questions:
  Mr. Bevin: As the House is aware, Netherlands troops began military action against the Indonesian forces at dawn on 21st July. The reasons for the actual breakdown have been described in detail in an official statement by the Netherlands Prime Minister on 20th July, and I do not propose to comment on these at the moment. I would like, however, to give the House some account of the efforts which His Majesty's Government have made over a long period to avert this breakdown.
  I have learned of the decision of the Netherlands Government with the keenest regret. Ever since December, 1945, when the Political Adviser to the Supreme Allied Commander in South-East Asia was authorised to make our first attempt to exercise good offices and bring the two parties together, we have continued our efforts to this end. It will be recalled that early in 1946 Lord Inverchapel was sent to Batavia by His Majesty's Government and succeeded in securing a wide measure of agreement between the Netherlands authorities and the Indonesians on certain proposals providing for Indonesian autonomy within the framework of the Netherlands Kingdom, a state of affairs which had been foreshadowed in a broadcast declaration by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands in 1942. Unfortunately, these proposals were subsequently found to be unacceptable by the Netherlands Government at The Hague.
  In August, 1946, Lord Killearn was invited by both parties to exercise his good offices. The result of the ensuing negotiations was the Linggadjati Agreement, which provided for the establishment by 1st January, 1949, of a federal government to be known as the United States of Indonesia, and of a Netherlands-Indonesian Union in which the Kingdom of the Netherlands, on the one hand, and the United States of Indonesia, on the other, were to co-operate on a basis of joint partnership. Since March last, when the Agreement was signed, negotiations have been going on between the Netherlands and Indonesian authorities for its practical implementation.
  Until recently these negotiations were going fairly well. We know that a wide measure of agreement was reached, but

  1207
  there were one or two outstanding points on which the Indonesian authorities were reluctant to accept the Dutch proposals. One of the chief points was a Dutch proposal for the creation of a joint Netherlands-Indonesian gendarmerie, which would restore order in the interior. Even on this a compromise seemed possible, since the Indonesian authorities were ready to pursue negotiations with a view to meeting, in some measure, the Netherlands proposals. In the hope of promoting agreement, His Majesty's Government suggested to the Netherlands Government the possible appointment of a neutral police commissioner, but this idea did not prove acceptable. Meanwhile, His Majesty's Consul-General in Batavia, Mr. Mitcheson, has done a lot of valuable work to bridge the differences between the two parties, which was very greatly appreciated by both.
  At all times His Majesty's Government have made it plain that they were ready to place their good offices at the disposal of both parties, and in our official statement of 21st July this offer of good offices was renewed. I would add that His Majesty's Government have acted throughout in full consultation with the United States, to whom also, on various occasions, the Netherlands Government and the Indonesian authorities have appealed for help. They have also kept in close touch with all members of the Commonwealth.
  In reply to our offer, which was published yesterday at The Hague, the Netherlands Government state that they are grateful to the United States and His Majesty's Governments for their help; that they have taken good note of our offer of good offices; and that it will depend on developments whether, and if so when, it will be opportune to appeal again to the U.S. Government and His Majesty's Government. I am keeping in very close touch with events, and will take advantage of any opportunity to bring about a peaceful settlement, but I cannot, at the moment, express any view as to the quickest and best way of bringing this conflict to an end. I cannot, therefore, at present give an opinion as to whether the Security Council is the best and most appropriate means of achieving this object.
  Mr. Chamberlain: While fully appreciating the efforts which have been made, and are being made, in regard to mediation, may I ask if the Foreign Secretary does not feel that the situation has now so deteriorated that there is both a technical and a moral obligation to refer the matter to the United Nations and, indeed, would not this be in the best interests of all concerned, and of the world at large?
  Mr. Bevin: I am giving very careful consideration to that. Obviously, I do not rule it out, but I have to be guided by experience. In regard to questions we referred to the Security Council recently, it does not bring about a final and peaceful solution, and the matter drags on, with vetoes, and all sorts of difficulties going on, which is disappointing. What His Majesty's Government are determined to do is, to try to use their good offices to bring this matter to a satisfactory solution at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Gammans: Can the Foreign Secretary say to what extent the Indonesian Government who were carrying on the negotiations with the Dutch have, in fact, lost power; and to what extent has that power now reverted to a much more extreme section of political opinion?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot answer that question, but I do say this, that all history proves that whatever may happen when negotiations are going on, once you start letting off the guns you create an entirely different situation, with a rallying round the Government.
  Mr. Driberg: Would my right hon. Friend be willing to see and to talk personally with Dr. Sjahrir, if he should be able to come to this country; and would my right hon. Friend also give an assurance, now a war has actually begun, that we shall not provide any more arms or equipment for the Dutch, or train Dutch troops, or allow them to be trained, anywhere on British soil, here or in Singapore?
  Mr. Bevin: I do not feel disposed to make threats of any kind at this moment. With regard to Dr. Sjahrir, he is not now the Prime Minister, and, therefore, I do not see that it would serve any useful purpose to see him. We are working on other methods, which I think might be more appropriate if they can be found

  1209
  to be practicable. Therefore, at this stage, I would not like to commit myself to any actual decisions which His Majesty's Government might take.
  Mr. Eden: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement—which I think we all understand fully—that he does not feel able to comment at the present time on the Dutch Government's note, would not this House be well advised to pursue a similar attitude in dealing with a matter of this delicacy in relation to an Ally, when His Majesty's Government have already offered their good offices?

  EUROPEAN RECONSTRUCTION (PARIS CONFERENCE)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he anticipates being able to make a statement on the progress of discussions among the European countries on the Marshall offer arid of all related discussions which have taken place between his Department and the State Department of the U.S.A.
  Mr. Bevin: I can tell the hon. Member now that the Economic Reconstruction Conference in Paris is making good progress. The discussions are in the committee stage, and any detailed report on the proceedings will clearly have to await its conclusion. The discussions are confined to participating States and there are no related talks in progress with the United States.
  Mr. Piratin: Does the Foreign Secretary deny the statements which have been published in the Press with regard to the behind the scenes discussions with America, and some of the almost open threats which America is making with regard to this country's attitude to the Marshall offer and the negotiations in Europe?
  Mr. Bevin: I here have been no threats and no discussions on the Marshall offer at all. I have made that clear, but I cannot be expected every time to deny an accusation which comes out of an inventive brain.
  Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it a fact that the Marshall proposals are being developed on the assumption that they will not interfere with the sovereignty of the States participating?
  Mr. Bevin: The whole basis of the conference is voluntary, just as it is when one enters the United Nations; one enters it or not, and the position as regards one's sovereignty is exactly the same. If one does not come in, nothing happens; if one does accept to come in, and then comes in, one agrees to do a certain thing, and it becomes a voluntary act, just like making a treaty or anything else.

  MALAYA

    Highland Farming (Cost)
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the cost per acre for farming the highland areas in Malaya; and the crop yield per acre.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Agriculture in the Malayan highlands is almost exclusively concerned with tea growing and market gardening. Tea is grown on about 50,000 acres, the average annual cost of production including manufacture being 470 dollars and the yield 700 lbs. per acre. Market gardening is carried out on about 750 acres, the average annual cost of production being 4,850 dollars, and the yield 12 tons per acre. These figures do not include capital outlay. The area is unsuited for rice cultivation.

    Food Crops (Cultivation)
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what amount has been spent by the Government of Malaya on Government farms opened up for the cultivation of rice substitute crops; what acreage has been planted; what are the weight and value of the crops harvested to date; and whether he is satisfied with the results of this experiment.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Government of the Malayan Union has spent 4,200,000 Straits dollars on short-term food production for crops, including rice, during the period April, 1946, to June, 1947, of which over 2,000,000 dollars is capital expenditure. Five thousand, three hundred and twenty-three acres have been planted, the weight of crops harvested being 196 tons, value at 20,000 dollars. Heavy expenditure has been entailed in the preliminary work of

    1211
    clearing and preparing land for cultivation, and it must be some time before the full benefits of this development become apparent. Nevertheless, in the Governor's view, the results have so far been disappointing.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there seems to be some difference of opinion between the experts of the Department of Agriculture and the short-term food production committee with regard to the cutting down of the tropical Malayan forest whose natural productions are tropical trees and rubber, and that, consequently, the 80,000 acres of highland that were put down for rice will not yield sufficient rice to make it worth while?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am fully aware of the importance of conserving the Malayan forests. On the other hand, there is a tremendous drive by the Agricultural Department to grow more food wherever that can be done.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Minister confirm, as he has done before, that there is a large part of the population for whom no substitute for rice can be obtained?

    Pensions (Increases)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Malayan officers are compelled to retire from the service at the age of 55 years and under in certain cases; and why such officers are excluded from temporary increase in pension until they have reached 60 years of age unless incapacitated by ill-health.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I took occasion at the end of April, when sending them particulars of the increases introduced in this country by the Pensions Increase Act, 1947, to invite a number of Governors, including the Governors of the Malayan Union and Singapore, to consider reducing the minimum qualifying age for pension increase from 60 years to 55 years.
    Mr. D. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the question of revising the pension increase for Malayan and other colonial pensioners in the light of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, is still under consideration; and when the result is to be announced.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 2nd July. I have not yet received replies from the Governors of the Malayan Union and Singapore to the invitation sent them on 26th April to review their schemes.

  COLONIAL HANDBOOKS (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what Colonies have now published the comprehensive handbooks relating to their history, potentialities and developments which his predecessor promised to the hon. Member for Swindon.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The reports on British Guiana, British Honduras, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Jamaica (Cayman and Turks and Caicos Islands), Nigeria, Saint Vincent, Sierra Leone and Zanzibar are now with the printers. The report on Hong Kong, already published locally, will be issued by the Stationery Office as soon as copies are available. Several other Colonial Governments have supplied the material required and it is now being examined. I hope that publication here will begin during the next two or three months.

  HONG KONG (SALARIES COMMISSION)
  Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Salaries Commission in Hong Kong has started its work; and when it is likely to report.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The Commission has started its work, but I am not yet in a position to say when it will report.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware of the great urgency of getting a report and taking action, owing to the gradual disintegration which will otherwise occur in the Hong Kong Civil Service?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. I am personally alive to the urgency of the matter, and so are the Hong Kong Government.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Is there any possibility of an interim report to deal especially with medical officers and very junior

  1213
  officers of the other services, who really at present are just not able to live upon their official income?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I know that there is very much distress with regard to the medical establishments, and representations have already been made to the Hong Kong Government in that respect.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Is there any possibility of action on an interim report in those very urgent cases?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I will look into that

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Cocoa (Government Profits)
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will announce the use to which he proposes putting the large sums, exceeding £20,000,000, arising from Government profits on cocoa deals.
    Mr. Creech Jones: It will be for the Cocoa Marketing Boards which are being established in the Gold Coast and Nigeria to consider how these funds may best be utilised for the benefit of West Africa farmers. Some of the uses to which these funds may be put are set out in Command Paper 6950 on the Future Marketing of West Africa Cocoa, which I presented to the House last November.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister confirm that this enormous sum will not be put to any uses other than those indicated in his reply—that is to say, for general purposes?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The purposes are set out in the White Paper, and obviously these funds which have accumulated will he used for these purposes.
    Mr. Turton: Will the West African farmers be consulted first?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly. The West African farmers are represented, in the case of the Gold Coast, on the Production Board; and in the case of Nigeria their voices will be heard through their officials.
    Mr. Scollan: If the Government carried on this business for themselves, would it not be a profitable investment for this country?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The answer is that this is bulk purchase and trading by the Government.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister agree that hulk trading, where he pays £60 a ton to the natives and sells to the Americans at £177 a ton, is hardly a practice to he encouraged?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question, but the whole of the proceeds of the sales of the cocoa will go back to the producers in West Africa.

    Nigeria (Ijebu-Remo)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what regulations the funds of the native authority of Ijebu-Remo are used to provide for the Akarigbo of Ijebu-Remo a salary which includes a sum paid in discharge of a treaty obligation of the Central Nigerian Government.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am consulting the Governor on this question, and will communicate further with my hon. Friend when the reply is received.

    Jewish Displa Persons, Uganda
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jewish displaced persons from Iraq are still interned in Uganda; and when it is proposed they shall be released.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Including women and children, between 20 and 30 persons of Jewish race who were transferred from Iraq for internment during the war now remain in Uganda. Those of them who are unable to obtain accommodation elsewhere live in a provided camp, but are subject only to the rules necessary for the organisation of the camp. They are free to accept any employment they can obtain in Uganda and to leave the country. It is hoped that an official of the Preparatory Commission for the International Refugee Organisation will shortly visit Uganda with a view to discussing the problems of these people on the spot, and that, as a result, the Commission will be able to arrange for their settlement elsewhere.
    Mr. Scollan: Would my right hon. Friend tell us how long they have been there?
    Mr. Creech Jones: They were taken to Uganda at different periods during the war. A large number of them have now found places in which to live outside of, the country, and they are all free to go, and all possible help is given to them if they go elsewhere.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid the use of the term "Jewish race," because, in fact, the Jews are a religious community and not a race?
    Mr. Janner: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that most people there would desire to go to the Jewish National Home in Palestine, and has he considered that at all?
    Mr. Creech Jones: In point of fact, the vast majority of Jews amongst these people have already left Uganda. But it is not a Jewish problem only. It is a much larger problem than that.

    Education
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how soon it is estimated that it will be feasible to introduce compulsory education for Africans in townships in Kenya.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that I am unable to give an estimate at the present time. The Kenya Government are re-examining their education programme for Africans in the light of the financial resources available, and as soon as I am informed of their plans I will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many cases have local native councils voted a special cess for education in 1945 and 1946; and in how many cases have the proceeds been spent, and with what result.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I assume that my hon. Friend's Question refers to the African Territories. I am making inquiries from the Governors concerned and will write to my hon. Friend when I have their replies.

  ARMED FORCES

    Service Personnel (Indian Wives)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Defence approximately how many British Service men have married Indian women
    1216
    in India during the past three years; how many of these wives have come to reside in this country or are known as desiring to accompany their husbands on repatriation; and whether permission to marry Indian women has to be granted to Service men by military or other authorities.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I have been asked to reply. The information asked for in the first two parts of my hon. Friend's Question is not available. As regards the last part, there is no provision in Service law which prevents marriages of Service personnel to Indian women, though if the Service authorities considered it to be in a man's own interests there are a variety of steps which they could take to dissuade him from such a marriage.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could my right hon. Friend give some rough idea of the number of Indian women who are married to British Service men?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I am afraid we have not any statistics.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that none of the Services has any particulars at all regarding these marriages?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, that is what I have said in the first part of the answer.

    Strength
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Minister of Defence what numbers of men and women were serving in each of the three Services on 30th June, 1947, or on the latest date for which such information is available; and what are his estimates of the corresponding strengths at 31st December, 1947.
    Mr. Bellenger: I have been asked to reply. On 30th June there were 188,100 men and women in the Royal Navy, 806,200 in the Army and 307,000 in the Royal Air Force. As to the second part of the Question, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the promised statement of the release programme for the last quarter of this year following which it will be possible to give an estimate of the strength of the Forces at 31st December next.
    Mr. Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say when that statement will be made?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have an idea that it may be tomorrow, but, at any rate, it will he very soon.

    Free Travel Warrants
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Defence if, before a final decision is taken on the question of the number of free travel warrants issued to Service men, he will consider the inequality between man and man caused by the present cut in the number of warrants, the hardship to those posted far from their homes, the increased cost to Service men of cigarettes and other amenities, and the consequent lessening of incentives to voluntary enlistment; and if, in view of all these considerations, he will revert to the wartime practice of allowing four free warrants a year.
    Mr. Bellenger: I have been asked to reply. All the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend will certainly be taken into account in deciding the annual number of free travel warrants for Service men, but my right hon. Friend can hold out no hope of reverting to the wartime practice of issuing four such warrants a year.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was pressed about this matter last week, he seemed to be somewhat impressed by the argument put forward by several hon. Members that this is particularly hard on naval ratings whose homes are in Scotland or in the North of England, and who are mostly stationed in the South of England?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, I am also impressed by the argument, but then, I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a few arguments, too.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what sum is involved in this matter, and how much saving there will be by cutting down on these warrants?
    Mr. Bellenger: Quite a considerable sum. It may surprise the House to know that this wartime concession was one of the most costly of the welfare amenities given to Service men.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Would not this difficulty be overcome, so far as naval ratings in Scotland are concerned, by locating a naval base in Scotland?
    Mr. Bellenger: Partly; but, of course, the Navy does have to go to sea
    Mr. George Wallace: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that when a young man is taken from his home, it is in his moral interests that he should be able to go home at least four times a year?
    Mr. Bellenger: I could not accept that suggestion entirely, although I am bound to say that the Services' leave provisions and free travel arrangements are generous when compared with what the men get in civil life.

    Releases (Industry)
    Mr. Sharpasked the Minister of Defence whether he has considered, or is considering, proposals for lending Servicemen to industry whilst retaining them in the Services and if he will make a statement; and whether he will bear in mind the prior claims for release through demobilisation of men in the early release groups.
    Mr. Bellenger: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. The wartime scheme for lending men to industry from the Services was discontinued in June, 1945, on the institution of the release scheme for the Forces, which made provision for the out-of-turn release of men urgently required for reconstruction work. In the circumstances, the second part of the Question would not appear to arise

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Processing (Cans)
    Mr. Sharpasked the Minister (it Food to what extent food supplies are being wasted owing to the fact that food processing firms are short of cans; and what action he is taking to remedy such a shortage.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): If my hon. Friend knows of any case where food is being wasted owing to shortage of cans, I shall be glad to look into it. So far, no such case has come to my notice.

    Publications
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food if he will make a reduction in the purchases by his Department of the publications of the Bureau of Current Affairs, proportionate to the reductions in newsprint imposed by His Majesty's Government on the daily newspapers.
    Dr. Summerskill: There will be no immediate reduction. I cannot say yet what we shall do when our present order for one year's set of posters is completed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When that time comes, will the hon. Lady bear in mind the desirability of equality of sacrifice?
    Brigadier Rayner: Is the hon. Lady aware that this publication is full of Socialist propaganda and sometimes propaganda of a pro-Russian and anti-British character, of which the Carnegie Trust would not approve; and when possible would she refrain from spending any public money in this way?
    Dr. Summerskill: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is in the negative. I must remind the House that there are 18 Government Departments who avail themselves of these publications.

    Argentine Wheat (Purchase)
    Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement regarding the delay in shipping 500,000 tons of wheat from the Argentine to this country, bought under bulk purchase; whether the price was free on board; and what is the nature of the dispute over this contract with the Argentine.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Members for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) and Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) on 21st July.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: Does the contract specify an f.o.b. price, or is the House to understand that the Minister omitted to include such a clause in the contract?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, it does.

    Citrus Fruit Imports (Prices)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Food what price has been paid for citrus fruit imported from the U.S.A. during the past six months as compared with the prices paid for similar fruit from the British West Indies.
    Dr. Summerskill: As I informed the hon. Member on 21st May, I am not prepared to disclose the prices paid by my Department for particular purchases. It is not in the national interest to do so.
    Mr. Gammans: Am I then to understand that money can be used in this way, and that there can be a differentiation against a British Colony without any figures whatever being revealed?
    Dr. Summerskill: I have told the hon. Gentleman before that any business man would regard this disclosure as detrimental to negotiations.

    Imported Tomatoes
    Mr. Chamberlainasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that Dutch tomatoes have recently been sold by the London Tomatoes Distribution Association at 131s. 6d. per cwt., instead of 121s. 4d. as laid down in the Tomatoes Order; and whether this variation was with the permission of his Department.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. As the London Tomato Distributing Association carries out in the London area the functions which the secondary wholesaler performs in the provinces we have authorised the Association to sell at the secondary wholesale price of 131s. 6d. per cwt. applicable in other areas.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Is this strictly in accordance with the terms of the Order? In any case, do not such variations cause considerable dislocation in distribution? Are they wise?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman, I think, is a little confused. The figure in the Order, of course, which he will agree is the same for the primary wholesaler, is there in order to deter secondary wholesalers from infringing Article 19.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Will the hon. Lady use that as little as possible? Does she not agree that these sudden variations throw the whole scheme badly out of balance, involving severe losses in some elements of it and corresponding excessive profits in others?
    Mr. Chamberlainasked the Minister of Food whether imported autumn and winter tomatoes from North Africa and the Canaries are to be freed from control; and whether he will now adopt this policy in reference to Dutch tomatoes.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. An announcement was made on 17th July that the price and distribution of winter tomatoes imported from the Canary Islands and North Africa during the

    1221
    1947/8 season will not be controlled, provided that selling prices remain at reasonable levels. The season for Dutch tomatoes coincides with our home crop and different considerations apply. The open general licence under which Dutch tomatoes are now being imported expires on 31st July, after which it is expected that the home grown supply will be sufficient to meet the demand.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision made already is generally considered most sensible? I hope the same thing will be done in regard to Dutch tomatoes.
    Mr. Collins: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the quantities of Dutch tomatoes which, even now, are being received, are so large that the present distribution scheme is liable to break down immediately, and would it not be possible, in order to avoid this, and to give the consumers the benefit of these large supplies, to consider removing the present price control?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman knows that the open general licence expires in a week and we shall certainly then look at the matter again.

  CHILEAN WINE (IMPORT LICENCE)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food whether he has considered an application for a licence to import wine from Chile; and whether, in order to encourage trade between Chile and the United Kingdom, he will authorise a sample importation of Chilean wine.
  Dr. Summerskill: An application has been received, but the total amount we can afford to spend on wines and spirits is too limited for us to include even a small quantity of wine from Chile in our wine programme.
  Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Lady aware that the balance of trade with Chile is such that unless we are more friendly towards her imports, it will be impossible for her to take our exports?
  Dr. Summerskill: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that Chile has only been a nominal exporter of wine in the past.
  Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Lady aware that this is the only country in the world
  1222
  at the moment which refuses to take Chilean wine?

  MAURITIUS

    Housing, Port Louis
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to improve the housing conditions in the town of Port Louis, Mauritius.
    Mr. Creech Jones: A town planning scheme for Port Louis is being prepared. A preliminary survey to enable the Consultant Town Planner and Architect to study possible planning solutions has already been completed, and this Consultant is now on his way back to the Colony for further discussions with the Governor and the Mayor of Port Louis with regard to the improvement of the town, including housing conditions.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it the case that the construction of the houses is mostly under private enterprise, and that that is the reason for the poor conditions? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to encourage either municipal authorities or the Governor to undertake housing schemes?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The whole of this problem is to be dealt with by the local Government in consultation with the architect who is now going out.

    Cost-of-Living Index
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the high prices of goods imported into Mauritius from Britain; if he will state the existing level of the cost-of-living index; and the steps that are being taken by the Government of Mauritius to stabilise the prices of essential commodities.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The index for clothing, which forms the bulk of essential imports from the United Kingdom, now stands at from 250 to 300 compared with 100 in 1939. The prices paid for British goods by Mauritius are no higher than those paid by other importing countries, and British prices compare favourably with current world prices for similar goods. The cost-of-living index is at present 295 compared with 100 in 1939. The Government stabilises the prices of essential foodstuffs

    1223
    by subsidisation, and regulates the prices of other essential commodities by controlling profit margins.

    Consumers' Societies
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the difficulties which have prevented the development of consumers' societies in Mauritius, in view of the fact that the Mauritius Co-operative Ordinance of 1945, as amended in 1946, makes provision for the establishment of consumers' societies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware of any special difficulties attending the development of consumers' societies, although admittedly the main activity so far has been in connection with co-operative credit societies. A full-time Registrar has now been appointed and he has recently visited another Colony to study the operations of small consumers societies there.
    Mr. Greenwood: As no special difficulties exist, will my right hon. Friend impress upon the Governor of Mauritius the desirability of the development of such societies, in view of the very high cost of living to which he referred in a previous answer?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, the Governor is most anxious to get ahead with the setting up of the co-operative movement.

  PALESTINE (M.P.s' BROADCAST APPEAL)
  Mr. Pickthornasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he authorised the broadcasting from Palestine of an appeal from two hon. Members calling on all Jews to help towards the release of two kidnapped British sergeants; and whether he had the script of the proposed broadcast beforehand.
  Mr. Creech Jones: My hon. Friends the Members for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), and West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), asked if a message from them might be broadcast by the Palestine Broadcasting Service, calling upon the Jewish community to assist in obtaining the release of two British soldiers kidnapped on 12th July, one of whom was a constituent of the hon. Member for
  1224
  West Coventry. I informed the hon. Members that, while I had no objection, this was a matter within the discretion of the High Commissioner for Palestine. He was consulted by telegram and, with his consent, the message was broadcast in Palestine on 17th July. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. Edelman: Would it not have been more courteous on the part of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), and more in accordance with Parliamentary traditions, if he had advised the two Members for Coventry of his intention to raise this matter? Would he not have served more effectively the cause of saving the lives of these two soldiers, to save whom was the sole purpose of sending this message, if he had not sought to disparage the broadcast?
  Hon. Members: Apologise.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Since that question has been put, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. Gentleman has no right to suggest that I sought to disparage the broadcast, whatever that may mean? I did consider telling the two hon. Members I was putting the Question down. It then occurred to me that, by the putting of the Question down, the Question itself would reach them as quickly as a note from me.
  Hon. Members: Apologise.
  Mr. Pickthorn: There is nothing to apologise for.

ATOMIC ENERGY PLANT, WEST CUMBERLAND
The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I propose to make a statement about the proposed atomic energy plant in West Cumberland.
On 29th January, last year, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of an organisation to be responsible for the provision of fissile material. It has since been announced that the first stage of this process, the production of pure uranium from pitch-blende concentrates, will be carried out at the Ministry of Supply factory at Springfields, near Preston. Consideration has been given to the location of the second stage of the process, the production in a chain-reacting pile of fissile

1225
material from the uranium produced, at Springfields. In addition to purely technical considerations, it was necessary, in order to save much time, to find a prepared site with services already developed, and, if possible, in reasonable proximity to Springfields. At one stage it was thought that these requirements could only be met by the use of the former explosives factory at Drigg in West Cumberland.
When it was learned that His Majesty's Government were considering the construction of an atomic energy plant at Drigg, Courtaulds Limited, who were proceeding with a project for a new rayon factory on the site of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Sellafield, a few miles north of Drigg, informed His Majesty's Government that it seemed unlikely to them that there would be sufficient constructional and operational labour for both schemes. His Majesty's Government concurred in this view. This made it possible to consider the Sellafield site as an alternative to Drigg for the atomic energy project. Sellafield has proved to be technically more suitable, and in addition has the advantage that its use for industrial purposes is consistent with planning proposals for the area, and, in particular, with the proposals for a Lake District National Park, which will include part of the coast line, and that it will permit re-examination of the scheme for raising the level of Ennerdale Water. The atomic energy project will, therefore, be located at Sellafield. Building and engineering work will begin in the near future, and will employ a considerable number of men for some time to come. For the time being, there will be no change in the present use of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Drigg.
Mr. Peart: In view of the Minister's statement, may I ask when ho will he able to announce that this factory at Drigg can be used for something which is really productive?
Mr. Wilmot: For the time being, I think that the factory at Drigg must proceed with the work it is now doing.
Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what type of employment will be given by the atomic energy factory at Sellafield? We understood that Courtaulds were going to employ a large number of women, for whom there is little employment in West Cumberland Will the atomic energy plant employ women,
1226
or what type of employment will be offered?
Mr. Wilmot: For some Lime the labour employed on the site will be constructional building labour, as would nave been the case with the construction of the rayon factory. Later on, the special staff of the atomic energy project will be the labour employed. I think we had better leave it at that.
Mr. Skeffington-LodgeIs my right hon. Friend aware that the decision he has announced will give the greatest satisfaction to all those who were so concerned about the preservation of the amenities of Ennerdale Lake?
Mr. Wilmot: I am very glad indeed that this solution of the problem appears to be acceptable to the friends of the Lake District.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: In reference to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Wilfrid Roberts), can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of how many people will be employed?
Mr. Wilmot: Hon. Members will, I think, appreciate that it would not be in the public interest, on security grounds, to go into the question of the number of persons to be employed, or the size of the project.
Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the maximum amount of research will be made into the possible effects on rivers of effluents from these atomic energy factories in rural districts, which is very important?
Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir. The Medical Research Council and our own people are actively engaged upon research on this problem at the present time.
Mr. Henry Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman renew the assurance given on a previous occasion, namely, that before authorising any new use of the Drigg factory, he will pay the closest regard to the undertakings given by his predecessors?
Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir.

HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF (LATE TRANSPORT SERVICE)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about a late night transport service for the House of Commons staff. Arrangements have been made for the Ministry of Supply to
1228
operate, as from this week, a small number of six seater vehicles to convey staff to points near their homes along four main routes when the House rises after midnight. It is impossible to include Members of Parliament in this scheme. The fares charged will be the same as before. The estimated cost is about £500 in a full year, a small proportion of which will be recovered from receipts.

BILL PRESENTED

  Isle of Man (Customs) Bill
  "to amend the law with respect to customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

  Division No. 318.]

  AYES

  [3.43 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

  Alpass, J, H.

  Ewart, R.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Logan, D. G.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Longden, F.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Foot, M. M.

  McAdam, W.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Forman, J. C.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Balfour, A.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  McGovern, J.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Mack, J. D.

  Barton, C.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Battley, J. R.

  Gibbins, J.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Benson, G.

  Gilzean, A.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Beswick, F.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  McLeavy, F.

  Bing, G. H C.

  Gooch, E. G.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Binns, J.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Grey, C. F.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L pl, Exch'ge)

  Grierson, E.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mathers, G.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Medland, H. M.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Guy, W. H.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hale, Leslie

  Monslow, W.

  Burden, T. W.

  Hall, W. G.

  Moody, A. S.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Byers, Frank

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Callaghan, James

  Hardman, D. R.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Carmichael, James

  Hardy, E. A.

  Moyle, A.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Harrison, J.

  Murray, J. D.

  Champion, A. J.

  Haworth, J.

  Nally, W.

  Chater, D.

  Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwiok)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Niohol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Coldrick, W.

  Holman, P.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Collins, V. J.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  House, G.

  Orbach, M.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr G.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Cove, W. G.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Pearson, A.

  Daggar, G.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Peart, T. F.

  Daines, P.

  Irving, W. J.

  Piratin, P.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Janner, B.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Davies, Harold (Look)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Price, M. Philips

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Keenan, W.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Deer, G.

  Kenyon, C.

  Proctor, W. T.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  King, E. M.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kinley, J.

  Randall, H. E

  Dobbie, W.

  Kirby, B. V

  Ranger, J

  Dodds, N. N.

  Kirkwood, D

  Rankin, J

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lang, G.

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Lavers, S.

  Reeves, J.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Dye, S.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Rhodes, H.

  Edelman, M.

  Leonard, W.

  Richards, R.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Lever, N. H.

  Robens, A.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Levy, B. W.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 116.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Stross, Dr. B.

Watkins, T. E.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Stubbs, A. E

Watson, W. M

Rogers, G. H. R.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Weitzman, D

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Swingler, S.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Royle, C.

Sylvester, G. O

West, D. G.

Scollan, T.

Symonds, A. L.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Segal, Dr. S.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wilkins, W. A.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Sharp, Granville

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Shurmer, P

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Willis, E.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Thurtle, Ernest

Wills, Mrs. E A

Skinnard, F. W.

Tiffany, S.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Timmons, J.

Woadourn, A.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W)

Titterington, M F.

Woods, G. S.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Tolley, L.

Yates, V. F.

Solley, L. J

Turner-Samuels, M.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Sorensen, R. W

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Soskice, Maj. Sir P.

Viant, S. P.

Zilliaeus, K

Sparks, J. A.

Wadsworth, G.

Stamford, W

Walkden, E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Steele, T.

Walker, G. H

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Popplewell.

Stephen, C

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr P. G.

Haughton, S. G.

Osborne, C.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Head, Brig. A. H

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Barlow, Sir J.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pickthorn, K.

Beamish, Maj. T V. H

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Bennett, Sir P

Hollis, M. C.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Birch, Nigel

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.

Boothby, R

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Bower, N.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Ramsay, Maj. S

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Jennings, R.

Rayner, Brig. R

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Keeling, E. H.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Butcher, H. W.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Challen, C.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Roberts, Maj P. G. (Ecclesall)

Channon, H

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ropner, Col. L.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Savory, Prof. D. L

Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Scott, Lord W.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F, C.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Smiles, Lt.-Col, Sir W

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Snadden, W. M.

Crowder, Capt. John E

McCallum, Maj. D.

Spence, H. R.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Davidson, Viscountess

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

De la Bère, R.

McKie, J. H (Galloway)

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Digby, S. W.

Maclay, Hon J. S.

Studholme, H G.

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

MacLeod, J.

Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Teeling, William

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Manningham-Buller, R E.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

Eden, Rt. Hon A

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Turton, R. H.

Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

Marsden, Capt. A.

Vane, W M. F.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Marshall S. H. (Sutton)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Gammans, L. D.

Mellor, Sir J

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Grant, Lady

Molson, A. H. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gridley, Sir A.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

York, C.

Cmston, R. V.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

Nicholson, G.

Major Conant and

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Lteut.-Colonel Thorp.

TRANSPORT BILL
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Barnes.]
3.55 P.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. Could you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether it is usual for the Amendments which are passed by another place, and which the Government do not intend to accept, not to be printed on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: I did not quite catch what the hon. and gallant Member wanted. I am bound to put all the Amendments to the House. I cannot avoid that. I can put together those which are agreed, and that I hope to do.
Mr. Keenan: Is it not a fact, Sir, that a list of the Lords Amendments has been issued. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) should get a copy, so that he will know what the Lords have agreed to.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): May I, at this stage, ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the procedure which we might follow for the general convenience of the House? In referring to three documents, those which set out the Lords Amendments, the Motions on the Order Paper in my name, and the Bill as it left this House—and which has been considerably altered by the Lords Amendments—we may find ourselves in a difficulty in following various related matters There are 10 major issues on which the Government will ask the House to disagree with the Lords, and there are 42 Amendments which are connected with these major issues. There are some 240 Amendments which have been made in another place, some 200 of which are either mainly drafting, or result from agreement which took place during the discussions, or
1234
which give effect to pledges and undertakings which I gave on the Report stage. If it meets with the general convenience of the House I would like, on behalf of the Government, to advise acceptance of those Amendments, limiting, in the main, our discussion to the major Amendments on which there is disagreement. If it meets with your approval, Sir, and the general convenience of the House, would it be desirable to consider each related group of Amendments, and take the discussion on each of them on the main Amendment?
I would like to run over, briefly, the issues on which there is major disagreement between this House and another place. They are the limitation of the powers of direction; the appointments to the Executive; the Scottish Executive; the doubling of the mileage limit for road haulage; the exclusion of "A" contracts; the exclusion of milk; the onus of proof; the subordination to the licensing authority; the decision of the referees on staff compensation, and the procedure on inquiries. I would be glad, Sir, if you could give me your guidance on the submission I have made.
Mr. Assheton: I agree that the position is a little complicated, but, speaking for myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side, the procedure which the Minister has outlined seems to be convenient to the House, and if it meets with your approval, Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to support it.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Poole: If we are to take these Amendments in group, may we discuss each set of the group as may be necessary from time to time? There will be difficulty in deciding which Amendments fall in each group, and as each Amendment is moved could we be told what group goes with it?
Mr. Barnes: At the time, yes.
Mr. Charles Williams: I have no particular wish to fall out with any understanding that may have been arrived at. If we are going to discuss the Amendments in groups, that is one thing; but there are a vast number of other Amendments Which, it would seem to me, we should have a chance of discussing separately when coming to the group of vetos. I think that we should be careful not to rule

1235
out those that are not exactly dealing with the same point. I am not quite clear whether the Amendments are printed correctly. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 22 of the Lords Amendments. Near the bottom of the page will be seen "page 101," and then comes "page 108," after that "page 105." In going through the Amendments, I found very great difficulty, and I could not follow what happens after the first one in fitting in the Amendments on pages 28 and 29. It seems that there must be a misprint and I am not sure that this is the only one. I should like to know when we come to these, if we may have the position made clear.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. There are some misprints. I have a list of them. I do not think that they are our fault; I believe that the fault arises in another place. I would propose as we come to each misprint—I do not think that they are serious—to read it out, and to make it perfectly plain to the House how it should read. As regards the other point, I thought that this arrangement might be generally for the convenience of the House, but I cannot, of course, very well put the Amendments en bloc to disagree with another place, in case there is a desire to discuss any particular point. I think that it would be better to put them separately, unless they are purely drafting or consequential Amendments. With regard to points generally agreed, I suggest that I put these page by page, and if any hon. Member wishes to raise a point he should stop me when I read out the Amendment.

TRANSPORT BILL

  CLAUSE 1.—(The Commission.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 10, leave out, "four" and insert "not less than four nor more than eight."
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is one of the Amendments on which there is agreement, but I think that it is of sufficient substance for me to say a word or two about it. In the Committee stage of the Bill, I resisted a similar Amendment, but later on, the Government reconsidered this decision and, on the understanding that the whole of the increased members should
  1236
  not be full-time members, it was agreed to modify the decision. So we have agreed with the Lords Amendment, which lays down that the chairman and four members of the Commission shall be full-time, leaving the others open to part-time appointments if so desired.
  Question put, and agreed to

  CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Commission.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 34, at end, insert:
  "(d) to provide houses, hostels and other like accommodation for persons employed by the Commission;"
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. C. Williams: I am not sure precisely what is the purpose of this Amendment.
  Mr. Barnes: The Commission had this power in the original Bill, but this is an Amendment to make it abundantly clear that they can provide that accommodation.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Powers of the Minister in relation to the Commission.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 30, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that the Minister shall not give the Commission a direction in relation to any matter the effect of which, taking one year with another, will be or will be likely to be, that the revenue of the Commission will be less than sufficient for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, unless the Minister shall at the time of the giving of such direction notify the Commission that it is given in the interests of national security."
  Mr. Assheton: On a point of Order. This is one of the cases where, I think, there is a misprint.
  Mr. Speaker: There is no misprint here.
  Mr. Assheton: May I draw attention to what I think is the misprint—the words "or will be likely to be" do not appear to me to have been passed in another place. I am looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place and before this Question was put Lord Balfour of Burleigh said:
  "We are voting on it, with the exception of the words 'or will be likely to be'."
  On the question being put whether the said proviso, as amended, should be there

  1237
  inserted, their lordships divided. I take it, therefore, that it is not correctly recorded here, and that the words
  "or will be likely to be"
  are therefore omitted.
  Mr. Speaker: These words are actually as they came to us from another place. If anything has been left out, we have no knowledge of that.
  Mr. Assheton: I would like your guidance on this inconvenient situation, which is of a kind which I have never known before. I have the record of their Lordships' HANSARD, which records this quite clearly, and I should think that for this purpose it is quite in Order to draw attention to it and to ask your guidance.
  Mr. Bowles: Surely it is out of Order to quote in the same Session, anything said in another place and we should take the official record of another place, and not the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Speaker: The OFFICIAL REPORT is published for our convenience, and for their convenience, and is not really an official record. I think the only thing we can do is to take the official Amendment which the other place have sent to this House. No doubt this point will be noticed when it goes back, and there will be opportunities for note to be taken of the point.
  Mr. Frank Byers: I am not quite clear about this matter, because I understand you Sir, said to the House not long ago that you knew there were certain things wrong with these Lords Amendments. That being so, is it not possible that this is one which has not been brought to your notice? It that is so, it seems to me we are going to be in great difficulty. Either we have to take this as it stands, with all the misprints, or it will be open to objection on every side.
  Mr. Speaker: I was wrong when I said all the misprints were due to another place; indeed only one is due to error in another place and the others, I am afraid, are misprints due to our own arrangements.
  Mr. C. Williams: May I ask what the position is going to be in the event of our passing or rejecting the Amendment, and then being told that it is not the Amendment which another place sent to
  1238
  us? That would be the position if we accepted or rejected an Amendment which did not come down to us, because we could not rectify it, or because we did not have some rule to deal with these doubtful questions.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member chose to come to the Table, he would see the actual Amendment, and that is the wily thing we can go by.
  Mr. C. Williams: With great respect, supposing this goes back and they say that the right Amendment did not come to us, what happens then?
  Mr. Speaker: We say, "It is your fault and not ours."
  Mr. Assheton: It seems unfortunate if we are going to spend time in discussing Amendments which the House of Lords have not sent to us—[HON. MEMBERS: "They have sent this to us."] I suggest from the reading of HANSARD that this has been misprinted. I hoped that there might have been some means of ascertaining from the other House what their real intention is. Would it be possible to adjourn for some time, to ascertain that intention?
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I think we can easily resolve the difficulty by rejecting this Lords' Amendment. That is the course which I propose to recommend to the House on behalf of the Government. To relieve the anxiety of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) I will say that I would have moved the same Motion whether the words
  "as or will be likely to be"
  were in, or out. It occurs to me that we should devote our attention to what such an Amendment seeks to accomplish. The purpose of it is to limit the Minister's power to give directions to the Commission in reference to the carrying on of their undertakings if, in the opinion of the Minister, such a direction is necessary in the national interest. As a matter of fact, I am informed that it is very doubtful whether even if this Amendment were accepted in its present form, it would in fact limit the Minister's power. We all know from experience

  1239
  that it might in circumstances of very serious national emergency, be the subject of legal action for the purpose of delaying any action which the Government of the day might take in the exercise of such power. Therefore, in the opinion of the Government, we cannot possibly have in regard to important services which represent a considerable volume of employment in the country, the possibility of expenditure of large sums of capital either in accelerating or retarding development, as the case may be, and in other matters. I should have thought, in view of experiences which this country had in the early part of this year, that the wisdom of the Minister having power of direction of this character should be abundantly plain to hon. Members of this House, and of the other place.
  Hon. Members are aware that during the fuel crisis it was imperative to maintain the economic life of this country when certain action had to he taken in regard to the use of transport for the transport of coal. Even today, the community is being compelled to suffer considerable inconvenience for the necessity of the railways contributing to and augmenting the coal stock position. A decision like the 10 per cent. cut in passenger services for the sake of building up coal stocks, represents an interference with the revenue-taking capacity of the railways at present. That is quite a recent example of the need for the Minister to have powers of this description. For those reasons, I have not the slightest hesitation in asking the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.
  Mr. Assheton: We are dealing with this Amendment as it is reported to us on the Order Paper, and I apprehend that when we have dealt with it we shall not have dealt with the Amendment which their Lordships made to the Bill, and that some further opportunity will be given to the House to deal with the Amendment which in fact was made in another place. By that time, no doubt, we shall have had a report from the other place as to what the position may be. As the House will recall, Clause 3 (3) lays it down that:
  "All the business carried on by the Commission, whether or not arising from undertakings or parts of undertakings vested in them by or under any provision of this Act, shall form one undertaking, and the Commission shall so conduct that undertaking and, subject
  1240
  to the provisions of this Act, levy such fares, rates, tolls, dues and other charges, as to secure that the revenue of the Commission is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another."
  That is a very important Amendment indeed because on it depends the whole finance of this Bill, and this House laid it down and intended to lay it down that the Transport Commission should not run at a loss. It was not intended that there should be a subsidy from the Exchequer towards deficits made by the Transport Commission, but it was laid down that, taking one year with another—although I should have preferred to have omitted those words—the Commission would have to pay its way. It appears from the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given this afternoon that he is prepared, in certain circumstances, to depart from that position. When this matter was discussed in another place it was not quite clear whether the Government thought that the Amendment was undesirable or merely unnecessary. It appears to me now from what the Minister has told us today that they definitely think that it is undesirable. That was not made sufficiently clear perhaps—
  Mr. Barnes: In asking the House to disagree with this Amendment, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it does not alter at all the obligation on the Commission to carry out the duties laid down in Subsection (3). Action along those lines would follow if it were necessary.
  Mr. Assheton: I fully appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes, but it was pointed out in another place with considerable weight and with the authority of at least two former Lord Chancellors, that the position was not as the right hon. Gentleman has now described it to us. It is true that Subsection (3) is not directly contradicted by this provision, but it is equally true that if the Minister were to give a direction which resulted in losses falling upon the Commission then, if the Commission carried out his direction, it might not be able to recoup those losses. A situation might very easily arise in which the Commission was led into making a loss whether it wanted to do so or not. The Minister has taken powers to give these directions, and all that we have sought to do is to limit those powers in such a way that he cannot put the Commission into the position of making

  1241
  a loss against its own intentions. Of course, in the Amendment which the Lords have sent to us, there is an exception in the interests of national security, and everybody in both Houses would agree with that, but the Minister wants to go a great deal further than that.
  I am bound to say that I am not at all happy at the attitude which the Minister has taken on this Amendment, and I hope very much that on reading what has been said in another place, he will be prepared to concede this Amendment. I am still not quite certain from his intervention whether he is suggesting to the House that the Commission cannot be put in the position of being forced to lose money under his direction, but it is clear to me that certain directions he could give might have that effect, and therefore I suggest very strongly that we should agree with the Lords in this Amendment.
  Mr. C. Williams: I was worried by the Minister's speech because it seemed to me that his main theme was that he should have the powers of direction in an emergency such as we had last winter. But surely this Amendment gives him those powers, since at the end, it provides for exception in the case of national security. That makes it plain that in time of war or at any other difficult period, the Minister could make regulations under this very Amendment which he says deprives him of that power. That was explained by his argument, but the other part of the Amendment seems to have been rather avoided in his speech. I do not know whether it is because of the doubtful clarity of the Amendment, but the guiding purpose of the Amendment is that the Minister should not give directions to these Commissioners which will compel them to run the railways in such a way that they will be financially unsound. When the Minister in his original reply leaves out that part of the Amendment, I find it rather surprising, because I know that he has a very sound financial mind as far as certain business interests are concerned, and I do not think that he wants to run the railways at a loss. I can think of Ministers who might give directions which could lead to such a loss, and I should have thought that there was a very strong case for the Amendment since no one desires that. In these circumstances, at this early stage in our discussions, it would he what I might call a
  1242
  lubricant on the part of the Minister to give way on this and to say that on further consideration this is a matter in which be can accept the Lords Amendment.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: We may agree or disagree with the Lords in this Amendment, but before we get to that stage we should understand clearly what is the attitude of the Government to the Amendment. I do not understand it at the moment and, at the risk of being, a little repetitive, I should like to put the point to the right hon. Gentleman again. Clause 3 lays down that this Commission must balance its revenue with its expenditure, taking one year with another. Its says nothing whatever about the national interests or anything of that kind, but simply lays a duty upon them to balance revenue with expenditure. It all depends upon one's point of view, and, according to the view taken, the national interest might involve many other things besides effecting such a balance. There might be hon. Gentlemen opposite who thought that the national interest demanded that we should subsidise the railways out of public funds, that we should run them at a loss, or that we should use the transport system to subsidise coal or exports, or something of that kind. In Clause 4 the Minister is given power to make directions which the Commission have to follow and which, in the opinion of the Minister, will favour the national interest. It is therefore evident that the Minister can override the obligations placed upon the Commission in Clause 3. Does the Minister agree with that? I think it is self-evident. If there is any disagreement about it, I hope that the Minister will say so.
  4.30 p.m.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that whatever directions the Minister may give, they shall in no sense override the obligation of the Commission to balance revenue with expenditure. I do not know whether the Minister agrees with that object or not. I do not know what his case is yet. He ought to tell the House before we go to a Division. Is it his case that the Amendment is unnecessary because the Minister could not give such directions? Is that his case? He has not told us at all. If it is his case that, although he agrees with the principle behind the words, the words are wholly unnecessary, he should tell us. I think

  1243
  that the Minister can override the general provisions of Clause 3. That is made even more plain by Subsection (5), of Clause 4, in which the Minister can give directions to the Commission to discontinue any of their activities or dispose of any part of their undertaking. In fact, he can override the whole purpose and object for which the Commission is set up to operate. It is obvious that the general directions which the Minister can give are powerful and can override at any moment Clause 3, or any other part of the Bill. His direction can, for example, tell the Commission to stop owning docks. So far, the only case which the Government have made is that the proposal in the Amendment is unnecessary, but it is wholly unsupported by any sort of argument. The House is entitled to know whether the Minister contends that the Amendment is wholly unnecessary. The Minister said he was doubtful whether the words would limit the Minister's power. What does he mean? Does he want them to limit the Minister's power or does he not? That is what we want to know. Will he tell us?
  Then he said something about another coal crisis, and that in the winter we might be moving into a difficult period, and somebody might start a law action in some way or another and that somehow, this Amendment would make it more difficult for the Government to deal with that situation. How on earth would directions from the Minister making the Commission unbalance its revenue and expenditure, help in a coal crisis or any other sort of crisis? Will the Minister explain what he means? I do not want to delay the House, but we have not had an adequate explanation from the Government. Will the Minister tell us at this stage? We cannot proceed with the argument very much further until we have had a further explanation. Will the Minister tell us whether he thinks the Amendment is unnecessary, and if so, will he meet the argument which I have brought forward to show that the words are necessary and that his power of direction will override all the duties of the Commission? Will he tell us whether he thinks that the Minister should have power to direct the Commission to unbalance its revenue or expenditure or not? If he tells us the answer, we might be able to proceed with
  1244
  the Debate upon a rather more intelligible basis.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: My hon. Friends and I do not want to go into the Division Lobby on this matter. We want to know what the Minister intends. My hon. Friend has just used arguments which contain a very important principle. Clause 3 lays down obligations which were considered by many of us, and were supported by us, in the Committee. We want to know whether the Minister can, under Clause 4, override those provisions which were laid down very clearly as a safeguard in Clause 3, and which we supported. I think I am speaking on behalf of quite a number of hon. Gentlemen when I say we are anxious to know whether that is so or not.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I want to deal with a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). Clause 3 provides for the carrying on of nationalised under-takings in the national interest. Subsection (1) lays down that the Commission must take such steps as they consider necessary
  "to provide most efficiently and conveniently for the needs of the public, agriculture, commerce and industry."
  Those words are subject to very wide interpretation. It might easily be that for a temporary period in time of crisis or otherwise it would be necessary that the railways or some other section of the transport industry should operate at a loss, and it is conceivable that the loss might be temporary. Take, for instance, the staggering of hours of work which is to be brought in during the coming winter. It might be necessary to put on extra buses for the carriage of people to work at uneconomic periods, and it might be necessary for the Minister to give instructions to that effect, even though the buses were run at a loss. The Amendment is tampering with that very—
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I think the hon. Member is getting unnecessarily at cross-purposes with us. Clause 3 lays down no obligation about particular bus services, but it does oblige the Commission, in Subsection (3) to secure that its revenue is not less than sufficient to balance its expenditure, taking one year with another. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent Clause 4 from

  1245
  overriding that broad instruction as to balancing income and expenditure, taking one year with another.
  Mr. Davies: We all agree with that, and the Bill lays that down. The argument on the other side of the House is that the Amendment is necessary because the instructions given by the Minister might cause a loss of revenue and prevent the Commission balancing its accounts. I am arguing that the Amendment might be so interpreted so that any direction by the Minister which caused a loss of revenue to the Commission could not be operative. There is no doubt that the financial position of the transport industry today as disclosed by answers to Questions put to the Minister on Monday, is such that any addition to expenditure might make it very difficult to balance its accounts. Any direction which led to an increase in expenditure could, therefore, be resisted, under the Amendment. For that reason, I think the Amendment is a hampering one.
  Mr. Wadsworth: I wonder whether hon. Members opposite who know something about railways realise that, even under nationalisation, there may be times when losses will be sustained? Simply because you nationalise an industry, it does not mean that you put right all its difficulties. I have read very carefully the Debates which took place in another place, and there it was clearly demonstrated that the Government opposition to the Amendment was on the ground that the Amendment was unnecessary. Now it is said that the Minister must have the power to instruct the Commission on any occasion he desires, even if it has an effect on the balancing of the budget of an undertaking. I thought that throughout the stages of the Bill in another place and even today, we had accepted the principle—the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) implied that he believed it—that all transport undertakings brought under nationalisation should be made, as a Yorkshire friend of mine says, "To meet and tie" In other words, revenue should equal expenditure. That is the principle involved in this Amendment. We either believe in that and vote for the Amendment, or we do not believe it and vote for the Government Motion. If we accept the Lords Amendment and the undertakings
  1246
  are balanced financially we shall have an exact record of their efficiency. We shall know whether under nationalisation the industry is more efficient than under private enterprise. It is a measuring stick which I ask the Minister to bear in mind. I hope that he has sufficient faith in this nationalisation scheme to allow this Lords Amendment to be carried.
  Mr. Haworth: There seems to be a certain amount of shadow boxing about the objection to the objection to the Amendment from another place. The first part of Clause 4 says that the Minister shall only direct the Commission on matters which appeal to him to affect the national interest, and that is sufficient indication of how rarely this power will be used. It will only be used on rare and important occasions, and it is a very necessary power for the Minister if we believe that transport must come before finance. There might be occasions in some particular emergency when it would be unnecessarily hampering the conduct of the transport system if such a provision as this were inserted. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) quoted Clause 4 (5) as to the powers of the Commission and said that under that the Minister could direct the Commission to close docks and had the power to issue all kinds of instructions to cease activities, but in the second portion of Clause 5 it is laid down that the Minister can only give those directions if he is satisfied that the undertaking is unnecessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the Commission under this Act. It is not therefore, conceivable that he would issue an instruction to close docks because presumably docks will be necessary to this country for a long time.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Some Ministers of Transport might come to the conclusion that the national interest demanded that they should get rid of all the undertakings.
  Mr. Haworth: I am presuming that the Minister of Transport will be a Labour Minister of Transport—
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: He will not be next time.
  Mr. Haworth: —and I cannot imagine a Labour Minister of Transport taking that view. Hon. Members opposite have professed not to understand on what

  1247
  grounds the Minister was objecting, but I listened to him and he was perfectly clear. He has been advised that it would lead to unnecessary limitation and place in the hands of the Commission or outsiders an opportunity to object on the grounds that such a direction in the national interest will unbalance their accounts. It would be very wrong and unnecessary to insert a limitation of this kind, and I hope the Minister will stick to his guns.
  4.45 P.m.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Surely there are two points at issue here. The first is the major one, and the second the lesser one. As my hon. Friends have said, we have got to clear up the major one first. The major one is whether in the Bill as it stands without the Amendment, Clauses 3 and 4 are not mutually antagonistic. Is it the intention that Clause 3 in its broad lines is to operate and that Clause 4 is to take nothing away from it, namely, that taking one year with another, the proceeds which the Commission draw shall meet its expenses and that it shall be a paying concern? The Minister, who was followed even more emphatically by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies), pointed out that in certain temporary circumstances or national interest circumstances, that might not happen. The Minister instanced the coal situation last year. Are we to suppose that the words, "taking one year with another" would have got rid of that difficulty? Perhaps the Minister expects that coal situation to return. If it was only a temporary situation, this Amendment allows the Minister to deal with it in the way he wants. If it is a question of national emergency, once again this Amendment allows him to deal with it in the way he wants. I am, therefore, led inescapably to the conclusion that the Minister wants to have Clause 4 and Clause 3 mutually antagonistic and to cut out one of the broad principles on which we have insisted throughout the Bill.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. It is very much that which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) has in mind. Two quite separate questions arise here. I can quite
  1248
  well imagine that one of them gives rise to a real difference between the two sides of the House. It is whether or not certain powers should be given to the Minister. That is a matter on which we may well differ, but there is another question on which we ought to be agreed, and that is: What are the powers of the Minister under the Clause as it stands? Whatever else may divide one side of the House from the other, we should be absolutely clear on the powers that are being given to the Minister under this Clause. The question I wish to put to the Minister is a perfectly simple one. Does he or does he not say that he would be entitled to give directions under Clause 4 (1) which disregard the obligations of Clause 3 (3)? He will agree that that is a perfectly simple and direct question. He will he able to obtain skilled legal advice on the question whether or not in the Clause as it stands unamended he is taking that power. In the first view that some of us take, it would appear that he is, but, if he advises the House that on the most skilled legal advice open to him he would not be able to give any direction under Clause 4 (1) which would disregard the obligation of Clause 3 (3), it might carry great weight in certain sections of the House. So far, he has not given that assurance, and to talk about the Amendment being unnecessary may mean so many different things.
  The only point on which I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend is that he asked the Minister to state what his intentions are. I am asking something different. I am asking what he is advised his powers are. Intentions would only govern himself and not his successors, but powers would bind him and his successors. I hope he will give a perfectly clear and direct answer to the quite simple question as to whether on the Clause as it stands he could over-ride the obligation which is laid down in the Bill under Clause 3 (3). While this House may be willing to give many powers to the Minister, it does not want to give him powers to disregard other Clauses in the Bill.
  Mr. Barnes: Replying to the specific point which has just been submitted to me, it appears to me that it could have been put with more purpose when the Bill was before the House, because it has very little relation to the Amendment we are discussing. The powers given to the

  1249
  Minister under Clause 4 (1) are quite specific and do not over-ride the clear and specific responsibility placed upon the Commission to balance its budget one year with another laid down in Clause 3 (3). One does have to take into consideration a direction from the Minister under circumstances in the national interest made for the moment and for the period affecting the situation, but the responsibility for discharging that situation would be net and steps and action would have to be taken for the purpose of righting any temporary position. However, that is not the issue which the House is considering now, which is the Amendment proposed in another place that introduces into Clause 3, where it is inappropriate, the intention to limit the Minister's powers—
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: In Clause 4; the right hon. Gentleman said Clause 3.
  Mr. Barnes: I am sorry, it is Clause 4. I was referring to Subsection (3) which is the responsibility of the Commission. The purpose of the Lords' Amendment is to introduce words as to which, I am advised, it is doubtful whether they do limit the Minister's powers. The fact that they are inserted, may raise a doubt and, on the occasion of the Minister using those powers, it may—I do not say it will—lead to legal action. In the opinion of the Government there is no doubt about the situation as it exists today, and we do not see the value of accepting this Amendment which tends only to add confusion. I venture to suggest that the discussion which has taken place this afternoon supports the wisdom of the Government's action. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) put up all sorts of bogies and assumptions—
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I asked questions.
  Mr. Barnes: —and then proceeded, in the hearty and vigorous way to which we are accustomed, to destroy his own assumptions. Therefore, from the point of view of the Government, having made the position clear, I ask the House to come to a decision on this Amendment.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have listened, as I always do, with the greatest care to
  1250
  what the right hon. Gentleman has said on this Amendment, and I should like to remind him that we are in the happy position in this instance, of not only having had the advantage of knowing what Government spokesmen have said, to which we can refer, but also the brief on which Government spokesmen made their pronouncement, because that was quoted with great frankness by their representative in another place. This is the difficulty which I put to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government brief on the point was:
  "The amendment is entirely unnecessary as, having regard to the requirement in Clause 3, subsection (3), that the Commission shall make both ends meet, it would not be competent to the Minister to give a direction under Clause 4 (1), to a contrary effect."
  May I put to the right hon. Gentleman our difficulties on that? Under Clause 3 (3) there is a duty placed on the Commission. When in a Statute, after placing a duty on one body—in this case a public corporation set up by the Bill—then in a subsequent Clause you give a right to a different body which, by its terms, may override or interfere with the duty, the subsequent provision giving the right to the Minister would be the prevailing provision in the Statute. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is not merely my own opinion. I cannot go into it in detail, but it is the opinion of high legal authorities.
  If the position he that the Government, as is stated in their brief, do not think this is necessary, but high legal opinion in various quarters thinks that this doubt may arise, then surely it is reasonable to put words into the Bill which will remove this doubt? That is all we are seeking to do. The right hon. Gentleman his said that it raises a doubt, but there cannot be any doubt because, according to their view, it is governed by Clause 3 (3). If we put in these words, then it makes clear that the Minister's directions are limited so that he cannot interfere with Clause 3 (3), and in that case assurance is made doubly sure. We have been rather worried on this side of the House by the arguments advanced in favour of the Government case by their more intrepid supporters because, of course, they always go a bit further in finding arguments which do not accord with that main argument which has been advanced, and it is the feeling and attitude behind these arguments which make it difficult for

  1251
  those on this side of the House to depart from this Amendment.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are three difficulties about which we are alarmed, and from which we are trying to protect the country. The first is an interference by the Minister—I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman but to the person who holds the office of Minister of Transport for the moment—with charging schemes that have gone up through the process from the Commission to the tribunal and are being considered by the tribunal. If there is then an interference with the charging schemes, the whole of that work may be thrown up. Secondly, you may have the imposition of such grave obligations on the Commission that it cannot pay its way on the present charging scheme which it has got up. Then it has to go back for further charging schemes and, as the right hon. Gentleman and every hon. Member knows, there comes a point where you

  Division No. 319.]

  AYES.

  [5.1 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Collins, V. J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Grierson, E.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)

  Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

  Cove, W. G

  Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Daggar, G.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Gunter, R. J

  Awbery, S. S.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Guy, W. H.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hall, W. G.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

  Davies, Hadyn (St Pancras s W)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Balfour, A.

  Davies, R J (Westhoughton)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A J

  Deer, G.

  Hardy, E A.

  Barstow, P. G.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Harrison, J.

  Barton, C.

  Delargy, H. J

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Battley, J. R.

  Diamond, J

  Haworth, J.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Dobbie, W

  Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

  Benson, G.

  Dodds, N. N

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Beswick, F.

  Driberg, T E. N

  Herbison, Miss M

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Dugdale, J (W Bromwich)

  Holman, P.

  Blackburn, A. R

  Dumpleton, C W.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Durbin, E. F. M

  House, G

  Blyton, W. R

  Dye, S.

  Hubbard, T

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Edelman, M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt Exch'ge)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Ewart, R.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Irving, W. J

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Field, Capt W J

  Janner, B.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Foot, M. M

  Jay, D. P T

  Bruce, Maj. D. W T

  Forman, J. C.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Buchanan, G.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Burden, T. W.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Burke, W. A.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

  Ganley, Mrs C. S

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Callaghan, James

  Gibbins, J.

  Keenan, W.

  Carmichael, James

  Gibson, C. W

  Kenyon, C.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Gilzean, A

  Key, C W

  Champion, A J.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  King, E. M.

  Chater, D.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Kinley, J

  Cluse, W S.

  Gordon-Walker, P C

  Kirby, B. V

  Cocks, F. S.

  Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)

  Kirkwood, D

  Coldrick, W.

  Grenfell, D. R

  Lang, G.

  cannot depend upon getting a return from increased charges.
  Thirdly, we want to strengthen the hands of the Minister in the direction of freights. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council and Leader of this House has emphasised on many an occasion that, if the public corporation is to succeed at all, it must be protected from its charges and its fares being subjected to political pressure. Now the direction of the Minister is the vehicle of political pressure, and it is in order to restrict that possibility, to keep the Transport Commission within the unsullied lines which the Lord President of the Council has laid down as desirable, that we feel we cannot let opposition to the rejection of this Amendment go, but must support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes. 295; Noes, 148.

  Lavers, S.

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Stross, Dr. B

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Pargiter, G. A

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Parker, J.

  Swingler, S.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Lever, N. H.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Levy, B. W.

  Peart, T. F.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Piratin, P.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Piatts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Popplewell, E.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Logan, D. G.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Longden, F.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Price, M. Philips

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  McAdam, W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  McGhee, H. G.

  Randall, H. E.

  Tiffany, S.

  McGovern, J.

  Ranger, J.

  Timmons, J.

  Mack, J. D.

  Rankin, J.

  Titterington, M. F.

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Tolley, L.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Reeves, J.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  McLeavy, F.

  Rhodes, H.

  Usborne, Henry

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Richards, R.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Viant, S. P.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Robens, A.

  Walkden, E.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Walker, G. H.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Marquand, H. A.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Royle, C.

  Watson, W. M.

  Mathers, G.

  Sargood, R.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Scollan, T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Medland, H. M.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  West, D. G.

  Messer, F.

  Shackleton, E. A A

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sharps, Granville

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Wilkes, L.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Shurmer, P.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Monslow, W.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Moody, A. S.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Morley, R.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Moyle, A.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Williamson, T

  Murray, J. D.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

  Willis, E.

  Nally, W.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Solley, L. J.

  Woodburn, A.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Woods, G. S

  Nicholls, H R (Stratford)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Yates, V. F.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Sparks, J. A

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Stamford, W

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Stephen, C.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Orbach, M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Paget, R. T

  Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Daines.

  NOES.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Haughton, S. G

  Astor, Hon. M.

  De la Bère, R.

  Head, Brig. A. H

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Digby, S. W.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Beamish, Mai. T. V. H

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Hogg, Hon. Q

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Birch, Nigel

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Boles, Lt.-Col D. G. (Wells)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Bower, N

  Eden, Rt. Hon A.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Wallet

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow. C.)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Butcher, H. W.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Byers, Frank

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Challen, C.

  Gage, C.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Channon, H.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Clarke, Col R. S.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Grant, Lady

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Lindsay, M (Solihull)

  Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H F. C.

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Linstead, H N

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Lipson, D. L

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Hare, Hon J. H (Woodbridge)

  Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  1254

  1255

  Ll yd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Low, Brig. A R W

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Studholme, H. G

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O

  Pickthorn, K

  Teeling, William

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

  Thorp Lt.-Col R A F

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Touche, G. C

  Maclay, Hon. J S

  Rayner, Brig R

  Turton, R. H.

  MacLeod, J

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Vane, W M F

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Wadsworth, G

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Ward, Hon G R

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

  Watt, Sir G. S Harvie

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Ropner Col. L

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Marshall S H. (Sutton)

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Mellor, Sir J

  Savory, Prof. D. L

  Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

  Molson, A. H E.

  Scott, Lord W.

  York, C

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

  Snadden, W M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cirencester)

  Spearman, ACM

  Commander Agnew and

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Spence, H R

  Major Ramsay.

  Nicholson, G

  Stanley, Rt Hon. O

  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 28, at end, insert:
  "and shall include a statement of the salaries or fees and of the emoluments of each of the members of the Commission during that year."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. C. Williams: I do not see why I should not thank the Minister for putting into the Bill something which I think improves it. It is a very good thing that the public should have a right to know what emoluments and payments are being made to the members of the Commission; and it is the duty of someone to thank the Government for having accepted this Amendment, which is rather unusual for this Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(The Executives.)
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I should point out, in accordance with the agreement arrived at, that there are a number of allied Amendments, all dealing with the question of the appointment of Executives. It may be for the convenience of the House if I give particulars. They are: In page 7, line 36; in page 7, line 37; in page 9, line 13; in page 106, line 23; in page 107, line 37; and there are 13 Amendments on pages 129 and 130.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Do any of these Amendments which you have read out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, contain misprints?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We will deal with that question as it arises on a particular Amendment.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Are we keeping the question of the Scottish Executive clear of this one?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Thank you very much.
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 36, leave out from "be" to "but" in line 37 and insert "decided by the Commission."
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment and the series of Amendments which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have just indicated, transfer to the Commission the power of the Minister to appoint Executives. Hon. and right hon. Members will recall that this subject was debated at great length both in Standing Committee and on the Report stage. Here we see evidence of the acknowledgment which the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) made in the discussion on a previous Amendment, that is, that in carrying this type of Amendment the other place was, in fact, carrying out the Conservative Opposition's attitude. The hon. Member referred to the previous Amendment as "our Amendment," indicating clearly that it represented an Opposition attitude to the Bill. In this Amendment that emerges even more clearly. The Government have considered this, and we advise the House to disagree with this Amendment. A good deal of confusion and misunderstanding has surrounded this question of the Minister appointing the Executives, and reference has been made,

  1257
  in the discussions, to other appointments It is essential that we should recognise the structure, both for policy and management, which this Bill embodies—the division of the two. In this case the Executives are not area or regional bodies; they are national and functional bodies, and the Commission, by an instrument, delegates to the Railway Executive, if I may use that as an example, the running and the conduct of the whole of the railways of this country.
  Therefore, if one considers the importance of the Executives, the extent to which their functions will affect the whole community, both in their capacity as traders and as the travelling public, I cannot for a moment conceive that Parliament would not, in the larger aspects of administration, wish to be able to examine, or to put to the Minister from time to time their requests or observations or opinions on, certain aspects of the administration of these Executives. Therefore, from the point of view of Parliamentary control, there is a lot to be said for the Executives being appointed by the Minister, rather than that he should delegate that duty to the Commission. Further, in matters of this description it is far better, in the public interest, that they, should know clearly where the responsibility rests. If the Commission had the responsibility of appointing these Executives, it is inconceivable that they would proceed to do so without consultation with the Minister. If, in these consultations, there developed a divergence of opinion, at the commencement of the establishment of bodies of this character, I do not think it would make for a good ultimate result. On the other hand, if the Minister is charged with the responsibility of appointment, there is no question of the Minister riding off on the assumption that another body has appointed persons of this importance.
  The next aspect of this problem to which I wish to refer is that I have noticed in another place, and in speeches by Members of Parliament, that the question of patronage has been introduced. HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I gather that that has some support. I want to deal with the question of patronage fairly and frankly. I find that usually it is raised when persons of the wage-earning or working classes are appointed to positions of importance. We are dealing with those who are going to run the
  1258
  railways of this country in their capacity as a Railway Executive, and with the appointment of a limited number of persons who are to run the ports, and so on.
  Since the fall of the last Government, a number of right lion Members sitting on the other side of the House have been appointed as railway directors In the ordinary way, I would not raise a matter of that kind, but is that patronage or is it not? If the Minister did a similar thing to what the existing railway boards have done, and if he appointed a person of that character, would hon. Members then allege that patronage had been applied? I have sat in this House for many years and I have witnessed many appointments by Governments. Usually they were drawn from a very limited circle in the community, and I have never heard the question of patronage raised by hon. Members opposite. It is only when some individual who, as a rule, has fought his way up against many adverse circumstances and won through by character and determination, normally over great odds, is appointed to a post of this description, that we hear this question of patronage raised. I hold the view that when we come to the executive positions in industry, commerce and administration, the personnel have been drawn from a far too limited circle in the community. During the Committee stage of this Bill I made no secret and caused no doubt about the position.
  In an industry like the transport industry, where there will be over one million persons employed possessing a very wide range of experience and knowledge of their industry, I would not accept the position that those who are to run the industry should be drawn from a very limited class in the community. I think it is essential when Parliament is establishing and carrying out a great change of this kind, which springs from new ideas moving in the community, that the Minister should see that in the executive administration all walks of life and all experiences are reflected in the public administration. When a Minister makes appointments of that description, he should be prepared to have his appointments examined publicly on the Floor of the House, in the Press, or anywhere else. The Minister should accept responsibility for the appointments he has made. I have made it quite clear through all our

  1259
  discussions, both here and elsewhere, that the appointment of the Commission and the Executives is primarily a job which the Minister must do. He must see that this administration starts off with a personnel capable of doing the task, the very onerous task, placed upon them, namely, to co-ordinate the whole of the transport system of this country and to run it in the interests of trade and of the community generally.
  Therefore, I state that the Government have considered this issue, which has run through all the stages of this Bill, on more than one occasion. We have examined all the views that have been put forward, both in this House and in another place, and we have come to the considered decision that we intend to adhere to the position of the Minister appointing not only the Commission but the Executives. We think it is essential and, in the long run, desirable that, if we are to have criticism of that kind in our public life at this stage, the best thing is that it should not be in the form of an underground type of campaign of criticism, but that the Minister should make the appointments and should be able to stand on the Floor of the House and defend those appointments
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to deal with the points which the right hon. Gentleman has made in proposing this disagreement, in the order in which he has put them before the House. Like him, I cannot but remember that we have discussed this matter before. I think it is important that we should give a little time to it today because this is one of a number of Amendments which show how carefully the improvement of the structure proposed in the nationalisation of transport has been examined in another place. From the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman's own words on structure and policy, I put my first considerations before the House. The Executives are to be the agents of the Commission with delegated powers. Once again, I base my argument on the conception of the public corporation that has been put forward. It is essential, if such a public corporation is to have any chance of success, that it must have full powers and be able to carry on its business undertaking. That is the essence of the Socialist approach, and so far, and
  1260
  within the severe limits of our general objections, that is common sense
  5.30 p.m.
  Our point all along has been, How can your structure succeed, how can your set-up work, if it has this sag in the middle? You have the Minister with great powers, you have the Executives carrying on the day-to-day work, and between them you have a body so hamstrung that it has not even got the power to appoint its own agents.' That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman's point—that we are not giving sufficient consideration to the structure and policy of this Commission. It seems a very long time ago, but I gather that it is only some seven months, since I moved the rejection of this Bill on Second Reading, when I said that one of the dangers to which we had to have regard was whether we would get on the Commission "yes-men" and sycophants. That will be a danger if we give the Commission such limited powers that, on the one side, it is subject at every turn to the directions of the Minister, and, on the other, has not even the power to appoint the agents by which it works.
  There is another practical point on which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch, and, therefore, I venture once again to bring it to his attention. That is the point that we do not know when the Executives will be appointed. We know that there is a contemplated delay in appointing the Hotels Executive, and others may or may not come, but the body which will be there, and which it is planned to have from the start, is the Commission. The Commission will be working, and that seems to me an additional point for leaving it to this body, which is tackling the problem, to appoint those who are going to work under it.
  I want now to deal, with equal frankness to that of the right hon. Gentleman, with the question of patronage. As he knows, I have, probably more often than anyone else, raised this point in the House and in speeches outside it, and I want to deal today with his argument and to give what I conceive to be the counter argument to it. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to those of my colleagues on these benches who have been made directors of railway companies. Those are appointments made by the companies for reasons

  1261
  which seemed good to them and in the expectation that useful members of the board would be obtained, but, whatever disadvantages there may be, the right hon. Gentleman, who has been in this House longer than I have—and I have been here for a good many years—must agree with me that one of the points on which we have all been primed is the complete frankness with which interests have been declared in this House. It was referred to the other day when we were discussing Privilege. It does not matter whether they were railway directorships or anything else, such interests have always been disclosed with complete frankness, so that hon. Members could attach such importance to, or make such discounts from, what somebody said as they thought was right. What we are worried about in the set-up of these nationalisation schemes is the largely increased political patronage which is placed in the hands of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman has considered this subject, and he will know that, over the centuries, and especially in the 18th century, the fact that Ministers had well-paid jobs at their disposal was used as a method of attracting votes and getting men of a certain political line. I am not making any personal reflections, but just raising the general point.
  It is, I submit, putting too big a strain on the Minister, and putting too big a strain on Members of Parliament, to have in front of them as they come along, an ever-growing number of jobs which they can get from one or other of their political leaders on the Front Bench. I say that, by making a large and ever-growing number of jobs open to political patronage, we are doing a dangerous thing. The right hon. Gentleman has had some regard to that matter, and he has said "Well, the answer to that is that, although the jobs are in my hands, I am subject to Parliamentary control, and people can blame rue if they do not like it." I am trying to make a general point, and there is no personal edge in this in any way. Parliamentary control, in the last resort, however, is control by the party that has the majority in the House. The party that has the majority in the House is in this matter ex hypothesi, the party that is to be affected by the Ministerial appointments, and the Parliamentary control which will operate in the last resort
  1262
  can be decided by the majority of those who are potential beneficiaries. That again is dangerous. I seriously put this point to the Minister, because it is a danger and a difficulty in the way not only of the working of nationalisation schemes, but in the working of the democracy which is so dear to us all.
  I want only to say very few words on the other aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, namely, the category of people from whom the appointments are made. I am sure that I speak for everyone of my colleagues on these benches when I say that the background or the past of the appointees does not matter at all to me or to anyone who co-operates with me in this matter. We are only too anxious that if they have had the requisite experience, they shall come from whatever section of the community will provide that experience, and the right hon. Gentleman may take that as being a firm view, but here we are dealing—and the right hon. Gentleman will realise it—with highly-paid jobs, and it is a case of the first consideration which I have endeavoured to develop, that of the political background. We consider that there is a danger in its application, and not from the other point of view. Therefore, from the point of view of the set-up and its workability, from the point of view of making it work in time, and from the point of view of avoiding this patronage, in which we see some dangers, we believe that the Commission is the proper body to make these appointments, and I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote in that sense.
  Major Haughton: The Minister, in suggesting that this Amendment should be rejected by the House, dealt particularly with three aspects. The first was responsibility to Parliament in the appointments, the second was patronage, and the third the selection of personnel. But there is another aspect connected with this Amendment, and I think win other Amendments, and that is the commercial aspect. We are now approaching tremendous economic difficulties. We are being exhorted by Members of the Government, and by all people of good will to do everything possible to increase production. Production is completely interlocked with transport. In this question of the appointment of the Executive, the commercial aspect must be taken into

  1263
  consideration. I cannot conceive that the Commission, which will be selected from the ablest men that the Minister can induce to accept appointment, will thank him for taking on the job of appointing the Executive. After all, it is not the kind of thing that would be done in a commercial concern. If the board of directors of a commercial concern was responsible for the operation of branches throughout the country, that board would not thank some ordinary shareholder who had a controlling interest in the company for making the appointments of branch managers.
  In Committee upstairs—I do not know whether I am in Order in referring to what happened there—it was said, over and over again, that the Bill having been given a Second Reading, it was the duty of everyone concerned to make it work properly. Amendment after Amendment was introduced for the purpose of making the. Bill work properly. The Minister has an immense responsibility to make transport in this country efficient and successful. If we go back over the history of the Bill since it was first introduced, and consider the various Amendments to it, it will be found that they have been very helpful. Personally, I deplore and deprecate the feeling that seems to have arisen that these Amendments from another place are in the nature of obstruction, and that they should. ipso facto. be rejected. I know that these things were argued out in Committee, but we have had more time since then to consider many of the Clauses and others which were not debated there at all. I think that, from a commercial point of view, as well as from many other points of view, this is a good Amendment, and I propose to support it.
  Mr. O. Poole: The right hon. Gentleman urged the House to reject this Amendment on three grounds. The first was that it had come down from another place, and that, therefore, it was an obstructionist Conservative Amendment and, ipso facto, should be rejected. The second reason he gave was that the possibility of patronage had already been considered. He then referred to some of my hon. Friends who may or may not have been directors of railway companies, and virtually said that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. His
  1264
  third reason was that he, himself, would be personally responsible for the appointments. I suggest that every one of those reasons is bad. He said that the matter had been argued at very great length on every stage of the Bill, and that he and Parliament had taken careful note of what had been said about it. I should have thought that he would have put forward a better argument than he has done for the rejection of this Amendment.
  It is quite obvious that there is no substance in the argument that the Amendment ought to be rejected. What most concerns me is how is this really going to work. Is the Minister going to say to the Commission, "I am going to make you responsible for this enormous task"—and no one can lay down a complete blueprint of how the Commission will work—"but I do not consider that you are capable of choosing the Executives who are to put your policy into practice"? How can the right hon. Gentleman have so little confidence in his choice of people that he should believe that they will not choose the right people to put their policy into effect? He says that he must be responsible to this House for the appointment of the Executive. He is responsible for the Commission, and, therefore, is responsible for all their actions. But why does he limit his responsibility to appointing the Executive? Why does he not say that he is going to appoint everyone, all the way down?
  5.45 P.m.
  The reason why we have fought for this Amendment throughout the whole proceedings of this Bill is because experience has shown that, where there is divided responsibility at the top, the thing must automatically fail. That has happened over and over again in every walk of life. It happened in Government departments during the war, in the Services, and in business. To any of us who have had the least experience of these things that is the one salient feature. We are starting this vast organisation—far greater than anything hitherto—with no idea of how it is going to work. This Bill is really the broad outline of what the Commission is going to do, and yet the first thing we do is to put divided responsibility at the top. It is absolutely indefensible. If I needed any further proof that it was indefensible, I would listen to the ridiculous argument put for-

  1265
  ward by the right hon. Gentleman for the rejection of this Amendment. I hope that, even at this last stage, the Government will reconsider the matter. I shall vote against it again unless they are able to do that.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: I listened with great interest to the opening remarks of the Minister as to why this Amendment should be rejected. It seemed to me that he was less logical than usual, and certainly less clear headed. He spoke about patronage as though it were something new, and objected to it as such. The fact is that patronage is inescapable with any Government. After all, the Government Chief Whip is officially the Patronage Secretary, and what we on this side of the House have objected to, with growing anxiety, is the unchecked development of that patronage beyond all possibility of control until it creates and spreads corruption.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member seems to be getting rather wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. Baxter: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you were not in the Chamber when the Minister spoke on this Amendment. He criticised the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the House because we said that patronage was a bad thing, and he accused us, as a party, of blaming the Government only when it appointed a wage-earner to a job, whereas, he said, had it been some mysterious member of the upper classes, we would, for some reason, not object to it. The point was very strongly made by the Minister, and I do submit to you, Sir, that I am not out of Order in dealing with it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not rule that the hon. Member was out of Order; I merely said that his remarks were somewhat wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. P. Thornycroft: I think it is only right to point out that the Minister devoted pretty well two-thirds of his speech to the question of patronage, a question which, I understand, has been raised and debated at length in another place. I am not going into all the arguments that he advanced, but I earnestly submit that those arguments were admitted as being in Order at the time,
  1266
  and that, therefore, it is surely in Order for us to answer them.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I repeat that I did not rule the hon. Member out of Order; I merely pointed out that he was getting somewhat wide of the Amendment. May I express the view that we should keep to the Amendment. Any widening of the Debate is undesirable.
  Mr. Baxter: I shall endeavour not to go beyond your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. At the same time, I must say this about patronage, because the subject was brought up before us, and I think we must discuss it. What we are doing here is to try to protect the Minister. [Laughter.] We are becoming very accustomed in this House, every time a serious point is made, to hear this cackling laughter from the other side. A famous dramatic critic once described the laughter of a certain comedian as being like the falling of February sleet upon the roof of an empty coffin. That is what the laughter of hon. Members opposite is like. The development of patronage will be carried another stage further, unless this Amendment is accepted. It does not involve the personal honour of the Minister, because none of us doubts his honesty; but it is the approaches to him which become fouled—those who advise him, right down the line. If the Socialist Party think they will escape the inevitable corollary of this increasing patronage, they are wrong, and sometimes I begin to wonder if the Government want to escape it, and whether they have got these unlimited perquisites to hand out.
  I would have liked to discuss the appointment of the Governor of the B.B.C., but I think that might be a little "off the line." I wish to ask this question of the Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of his chief. Nowadays we do not expect Ministers to speak with the same voice. They are a very discordant choir. The Minister of Fuel and Power said that he would not appoint to the Electricity Board any man who said he did not believe in nationalisation. May we ask whether the Minister of Transport is going to take that same attitude? If a capable man in the transport business honestly opposes this Bill, is he now to be excluded from these new appointments, or is his ability to count? We have a right to know where we are, and

  1267
  whether Tammany Hall is being established here or not. This growing patronage is a very great menace to the country and to its future. We have a right to know whether it is the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Minister of Transport who speaks for the Government, and we want an answer. The other House has done good service, and we in this House should be very grateful for the wise counsel they have given. They have brought to this subject vast experience and impartiality. For that reason, I hope this House will reject the Minister's advice and will accept this Amendment as the first check which the Government will ever have made to the growing and inevitable corruption.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: My objection to the Minister's attitude to this Amendment arises from the tendency of His Majesty's Government to concentrate power in the hands of Ministers, in the whole of the legislation which they are now promoting. I rise particularly to say to the Minister that I think his suggestion that the administration of the railways by past railway directors has not been on as high a level as the administration in any other part of the world, should not have been expressed. I served on both the Committees of this House in 1921, and we all know the men who were railway directors then. Think of the contributions they made to the problems concerning the railways at that time. Think of the contribution which Lord Banbury made. He was, perhaps, rather a peculiar character in this House, but he was also a very competent authority on railway administration. Think of the contribution made by Lord Horne. These gentlemen were directors of railways in this country, and they administered the railways on the very highest level. Think of what the late Lord Stamp did for railway administration.
  Mr. McAdam: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the first things the late Lord Stamp did when he became chairman of the L.M.S. was to appoint his son to a department newly created in the L.M.S.?
  Sir P. Hannon: He was a very efficient man, and he did a first-class job. Unfortunately, he was killed during the
  1268
  raids on this city. In spite of the good intentions of the Government Front Bench, political influence will play a big part in these appointments if this Amendment is rejected. The Parliamentary Secretary will receive letters from his constituents saying that Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones is a fit and proper person to serve on the Executive. All the Members of the Front Bench will be subjected to the same kind of attack from their constituents; and if this Amendment is rejected, applicants for these appointments will, no doubt, receive favourable consideration from the Minister when this Bill becomes law, provided they have strong Socialist convictions. It is a very strange situation that the Minister, in spite of the consideration extended to him in Standing Committee upstairs, has arrogated to himself the power to appoint the members of the Executive to carry out the management of the railways. No doubt hon. Members opposite will go into the Lobby in support of their Front Bench, no matter what happens. No matter how much wisdom or what authority we may quote, or how much we may plead for the exercise of sound judgment, they will still support their Front Bench.
  Mr. David Kirkwood: It is a good Front Bench, too.
  Sir P. Hannon: I have no doubt that while the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) remains where he is, the Government Front Bench will feel perfectly safe. The hon. Member may have in mind somebody whom he wishes to propose for one of the executive appointments, and, no doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to any application that he makes. I do not wish to pursue these arguments, but I sincerely hope the Minister will have the wisdom to accept this Amendment.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. H. Strauss: The speeches made on both sides have dealt with two particular questions. One is whether this Amendment is right or resistance to it is right, having regard to the structure of the Bill. The other question is the question of patronage. These two questions are related to this extent. If we find that the Government's proposal is entirely bad, having regard to the structure of the Bill, that will very much strengthen our suspicion that the object of the bad pro-

  1269
  vision is patronage. Let me deal straight away with the question of the structure of the Bill. Here let me remind the House that, while my party has taken this line on the appointment of the executives from the beginning, critics of the Government's proposal are by no means confined to the Conservative Party on this issue. On this particular issue of the structure of the Bill an intelligent Socialist is as much entitled to object to the Government's proposal as a good Conservative.
  Let us deal with one of the things that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister quite rightly said was important, namely, the responsibility. Let us consider the question of the responsibility of the Commission. How on earth can the Commission be held responsible if it is not even entitled to choose its own servants and agents? Whatever else the effect of the Government's proposal is, it must be to diminish and to make vain any idea of the responsibility of the Commission. Let me remind the House of the relevant phrases in the Bill itself. If hon. Members will look at Clause 3 (4) they will find that:
  "Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise their functions, etc."
  If it had been said that these Executives were to be agents of the Minister, then, of course, the Minister would be quite right to appoint them. What is so utterly wrong in the structure is for the Minister to appoint them and then to say they are not his agents but those of somebody else. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will look at Clause 5 (6) they will see the words:
  "Every Executive shall, in the exercise of their functions, give effect to any directions which may from time to time be given to them by the Commission."
  Throughout the structure of the Bill they are made the servants and agents of the Commission and not of the Minister. For the Minister, in the circumstances, to take upon himself their appointment can have one main effect only, which is to diminish the responsibility and the effectiveness of the Commission. Now that is not good sense. It is not even good Socialism. If the Government are going to nationalise an industry at all and set up a statutory body for that purpose, and if they are good Socialists, they want to make that statutory body a good and effective body.
  1270
  That is not done by the structure of the Bill as it stands.
  Let me pass to the question of patronage. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What about the case of an ex-Minister or a former politician, either inside or outside this House, being appointed to a railway board?" Let me say at once that any such appointment, it seems to me, may be good or may be bad: it depends on the circumstances. But the responsibility of the board is to its shareholders, and those appointments can be called in question. Whether it is good or bad, there is no doubt at all as to the effect of the appointment. The patronage here in question is a patronage about which the House of Commons is always right to concern itself. These enormous powers of patronage in the hands of the executive Government constitute a matter which is rightly of concern to the House and to lovers of our constitutional machinery in whatever quarter of the House they may sit. The power of the Executive through patronage is a matter of great importance which had, in the past, legislative and other checks, and- in which this House has always been rightly concerned.
  At this part of the right hon. Gentleman's case he made it quite clear that what he desired was patronage. That was why he welcomed this Clause. That was why he was so loudly cheered in getting up to move disagreement with the Lords Amendment before he had even addressed a word to the House. It is frankly welcomed on the benches opposite, not in spite of making patronage possible, but precisely because it makes it possible. [Interruption.] These words and cries, whether they are in some cases of assent or in some cases of misunderstanding of what is taking place in the House, very much confirm the view I have just expressed. There is no doubt that these powers of patronage which the Government are taking by this provision, as I have pointed out, are entirely wrong even on the principles of good Socialism. These powers the Government are taking are welcomed precisely because they make patronage possible. One of the things that I wonder is this: whether the Government not only say, "We shall not accept this Amendment," but have already put it out of their own power to accept this Amendment by the promises

  1271
  they have already made for filling these positions. It is, I think daily the expectation of reward, the expectation of reward for political—
  Mr. Barnes: I was not quite clear whether the hon. and learned Member was talking generally or in relation to these specific appointments. It is drawn to my attention that his remarks could be applied to these specific appointments. I want to know if that is so or not?
  Mr. Strauss: Certainly.
  Mr. Barnes: What justification has the hon. and learned Member?
  Mr. Strauss: I have pointed out that the provision which the right hon. Gentleman is defending—let me put the argument—is utterly wrong from the point of view of the structure of the Bill.
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Mr. Strauss: I am not going to give way for the moment. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks, when I have finished my reply, that I have evaded him I shall give' way again. Secondly, I say that the fact that this is utterly wrong from the point of view of the structure of the Bill strengthens my own suspicion that its object is to secure what it undoubtedly does secure—the increased power of patronage. Now let me get on to the specific question the right hon. Gentleman has put. I promise I shall yield to him if he is not satisfied with my answer. I say that it is an open secret how he has already filled—or plans to fill—some of the positions on the Commission. It is an open secret already.
  Mr. Barnes: What I want to put directly to the hon. and learned Member is that he should submit evidence of that, or else withdraw.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Strauss: I am going to give the grounds of my suspicion. I shall give them clearly, and I shall be interested to know whether anyone is going to get up on behalf of the Government to deny them
  Mr. Gallaeher: On a point of Order. The hon. and learned Member has made a definite statement that it is an open secret that the Minister has
  1272
  already appointed members of the Commission—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Alpass (Thornburg): That he has made promises.
  Mr. Gallacher:—that he has made promises, that it is an open secret that the Minister has made promises. I ask, in view of the reputation of the Minister, if the hon. and learned Member is in Order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no power, of course, to instruct or to insist upon an hon. Member making any particular statement. That is left to the good sense and good taste of hon. Members and the House will judge accordingly
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)rose—
  Mr. Strauss: I should like to deal with that point before giving way. The last speaker, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), mentioned refutation by the Minister. So far there has been no refutation whatsoever by the Minister, and I say—
  Mr. Bevan rose—
  Mr. Strauss: I will yield to the right hon. Gentleman in one minute. I say that the post of chairmanship on the Commission is going to be obtained by Lord Latham. I also say that I am highly suspicious of why this Amendment has been resisted, and my belief is that a good many indications have been given to people who are likely to fill some of the positions on the Boards.
  Mr. Barnes: I have taken particular care to avoid this situation—[Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh. There is not an atom of truth in what has been stated by the hon. and learned Member—no truth whatsoever—and I demand his withdrawal of the statement. No hon. Member is entitled to get up in a Debate of this kind and make insinuations of that nature, which affect the standing and integrity of the Minister, unless they are substantiated. I say, without any hesitation, that the person referred to has never had any contact with me, that I have never made any statement to any person, and have never considered that individual. Now I ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw.
  Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman has combined two demands. On one, of course, I at once defer. If the right hon. Gentleman says there is no foundation for the statement that the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred is going to be a member of the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am going to make—
  Mr. Gallacher: Does not the hon. and learned Member know the meaning of decency?
  Mr. Strauss: The Communist Party had better endeavour to behave itself. I have no particular eagerness to withdraw these things. I am going to withdraw, but I am also going to make quite clear what I am withdrawing and what I am not withdrawing. And, in case that can be used either for or against me, I wish to be clear. I say that until the right hon. Gentleman assures the House that he has no intention of appointing this right hon Gentleman—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Mr. Strauss: I really am not going to yield until I have made my statement. Surely hon. and right hon. Members opposite know me well enough to do me the honour of agreeing that I do yield—
  Mr. Keenan: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. and learned Member—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Unless hon. Members are quiet I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Keep those fellows opposite in Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not concerned with any one side of the House. I am concerned with the House as a whole.
  Mr. Keenan: Is it in Order for the hon. and learned Member, in his attempt to defend what he says he did not say before, to attribute to the Minister a statement which the Minister did not make, as the hon. and learned Member did a few moments ago?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the hon. and learned Member was about to make a certain withdrawal, the nature of which I was waiting to hear. If that
  1274
  withdrawal is not satisfactory, then it will be quite open to the Minister himself to say so.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Strauss: I confess, I do not remember the exact terms the Minister used, but I intend to make clear the nature of my withdrawal, what it is I withdraw and what it is I do not withdraw. Whatever attacks may be made, it is much better for them to made on accurate knowledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly. I say at once, if the Minister assures me that he has no intention, and has never intimated such intention, that the Government have no intention, and that the Government have never intimated such intention, of appointing the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred, then, of course, I accept that from the Minister. I would not doubt it for one moment but—
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Mr. Strauss: One moment.
  Mr. Gallacher: What a twister.
  Mr. Strauss: Do not be so nervous. I promise that I will sit down if the right hon. Gentleman likes, but do let me get my own statement right. The Minister then goes on to say that I have made some frightful charge against the Government. I have not made one single charge against the Government which is not explicit or implicit in this Clause which we are discussing. And in the Minister's defence here he, in so many words, claimed the right—he did not object—
  Mr. Barnes: On a point of Order. I really cannot allow this to go on any longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not get away with it like that. As I understood it, the hon. and learned Member stated that it is well known that promises have been made by the Minister. I now ask that he substantiates that or withdraws it.
  Mr. Strauss: If the Minister says to me that no promises have been made, of course I will withdraw. I say, though—and still my main point seems to me to remain quite unaffected—that these great powers have been given to Ministers, and they have made it clear that they think it is quite in order for them to fill these appointments with their political supporters. I say that there is very strong

  1275
  rumour—with which I have acquainted the House, and which I certainly believed to have some foundation; the right hon. Gentleman says to me that it has none, and I accept his word—as to how one particular appointment is to be filled. Now, I say in the case of these Executives—
  Mr. Bevan: May I put a point to the hon. and learned Member? My right hon. Friend did not hear the end of the statement which the hon. and learned Member made, and I directed the attention of my right hon. Friend to it. What I want from the hon. and learned Member is either a substantiation or a withdrawal of the original statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has withdrawn."] What the hon. and learned Member said was that my right hon. Friend had put it out of his power—
  Mr. Strauss: No.
  Hon. Members: You did.
  Mr. Bevan: I am within the recollection of the House, and the OFFICIAL REPORT will show me to be correct. The hon. and learned Member said that my right hon. Friend had put it out of his power to accept this Amendment because of promises that had been made about this appointment. That is what the hon. and learned Member said; it is a very serious charge to make, and any gentleman of honour would either substantiate it or withdraw it.
  Mr. Strauss: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making clear what his point was. The OFFICIAL REPORT will, as he says, make clear what were the exact words, and I shall take the precaution of not going up and making any amendment to my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—certainly of grammar. I rely on my recollection, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find—
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and learned Member had better give it up.
  Mr. Strauss: I am quite aware of the Communist Party's desire that nobody—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think this is a quite deplorable turn which the Debate is taking, and I hope the House will come back to the Amendment.
  Mr. Strauss: I yielded to the Minister of Health, and always shall yield, because his interventions always provide useful contributions to the Debate. I think he will find that what I said was: Having regard to the way this Amendment is being resisted, I wonder whether the Minister not only says "I won't withdraw the Amendment," but has put it out of his power to withdraw it, having regard to the expectations that have been aroused with regard to this appointment. I think it will be found that that is what I said. If the Government do take this alleged step—and I am saying quite directly in this House what is becoming to be suspected increasingly, I think on reasonable grounds, outside—not only that reward for political services can be expected in the way of appointment, but that fairly early rewards can be expected merely for joining the Socialist Party—I say that this is the first—
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: On a point of Order. I rise to ask whether the hon. Member is now making an apology to the House, and whether the House is entitled to ask him to make an apology for a most offensive statement against the Minister?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Chair has no power to ask for any apology to be made, nor has it power to ask an hon. Member to withdraw. In all seriousness, I would ask the House, and those who are addressing the House, if they will address themselves to the Amendment.
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it conceivable that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) or myself would have been allowed to behave in this way?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The only thing is for the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and the hon. Member for West Fife to try and see how far they can do it.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I have tried and failed.
  Mr. Strauss: I am making no apology of any kind. I am not under the illusion that I am making a speech which is popular with hon. Members opposite. I am making— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do hope that the House will allow the hon. and learned Member to conclude his speech.
  Mr. Strauss: I am stating, on the first Amendment when it has been possible, what I believe to be a public issue of the very first importance. In these Bills, and especially—[Interruption.] I am anxious to conclude my speech, but I assure hon. Members opposite that I shall continue until I have made my point absolutely clear.
  Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Deputy-Speaker has said that the hon. Member is to conclude his speech.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not say that he had to conclude it, but simply expressed a wish.
  Mr. Strauss: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my desire to conclude my speech is no less than that of any other Member in the House, but I mean to go on until this point is absolutely clear, and every characteristic attempt from hon. Members opposite to try to prevent me from saying what I believe it is my duty to my constituents to say—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have a speech carried on with these persistent interruptions.
  Major Cecil Poole: On a point of Order. It is certainly a very ancient Rule that any hon. Member has a right to address the House, but surely the House is at liberty to decide whether or not it will listen?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but it is within the discretion of the Chair that the speech be listened to.
  Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): Is it out of Order for a Member to show his appreciation of the efforts of any hon. Member in addressing the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are other forms of appreciation, and silence is one of them.
  Mr. Strauss: On nationalisation Bills, and particularly with this one, it is of the utmost importance that the House shall watch what opportunities are being given of patronage by the Executive, particularly when these opportunities are wholly unnecessary and can be avoided by an Amendment which positively improves the structure of the Bill. That criticism has been made, not only by
  1278
  Conservatives, but by commentators on this Bill from the time it was introduced, and in papers so divergent as the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Economist." There is no doubt whatever that the structure of this Bill will be improved by accepting this Amendment, which will also have the effect of diminishing the Government's opportunity of patronage. On both these grounds I commend the Amendment, which has been made in another place, to the good sense of the House.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. York: I, too, wish to voice my opinion upon the question of political patronage. Up and down the country, I have accused the Socialist Government of seeking to introduce more and more political patronage, and I consider it is therefore right and proper that I should make the same accusation in this House.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does that mean the hon. Member is challenging us all on that this evening?
  Mr. York: I would tell the hon. Member that patience is a virtue. It seems to me that the Minister tried to justify his case on the grounds that "Because you boys have done it in the past, we are going to do it in the future."
  Mr. Gallacher: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. York: The Minister pointed in the general direction of this side of the House, inferring that the Conservative Party had had the right in the past—goodness knows where they got it from—to appoint railway directors. That is certainly an argument which none of my hon. Friends has been able to discover before; it is the most wonderful invention of the Minister. I will not ask the Minister to withdraw it. If he likes to make that sort of point, the intelligent public can give it the weight it deserves. If the railway directorships in the past were given to Conservative Members because they were Conservative Members, then I think that it is a thoroughly disreputable thing, and so do most of my hon. Friends. If that had been the case in the past, the right hon. Gentleman and I would have joined hands in condemning it, and I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite know that I am speaking the truth. The point is that there happened to be many Conservative

  1279
  Members of Parliament who were in business before they came into the House. If they had been appointed to railway boards on the grounds that they were competent administrators that is not my affair, because they were appointed on their merits.
  If the Minister will appoint members of the executives purely on their merits, then there will not be a great deal of complaint in any part of the House. The Minister implied that the provisions of this Bill were to make it possible to put working men on the Executives. I beg leave to doubt whether any single working man will be put on one of these Executives. Do right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Front Bench think that they are working men? Some, but very few, may have been working men 20 or 30 years ago.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Alpass: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the Amendment?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to conduct the proceedings of the House.
  Mr. York: Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not working-class men today in the sense that many men who started work in industry, who saved money and put it back into their businesses, and who rose to high places, are working men. The men who are appointed, if they are appointed on merit, will not be working men.
  Mr. Stubbs: Can the hon. Member define a working man "?
  Mr. York: Perhaps the hon. Member will think about it, and then he will find out. I will give him his due; he is a good type of working man and proud of it, but he will never be on the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fail to see what this has to do with the Amendment.
  Mr. York: I apologise to you, Sir, and to the hon. Member for that digression. What we on this side of the House are trying to do is to prevent the worst features of political patronage becoming a reality. The Minister is an honest man, but we cannot guarantee that future Ministers of Transport, of any party—I
  1280
  want to be perfectly fair in this matter—will be as honest and straightforward as the right hon. Gentleman. We know that there are far too many men with political ambitions to give carte blanche to all future Ministers of Transport. There can be no doubt that resistance to this Amendment will put power into the hands of all future Ministers of Transport to distribute political patronage far and wide. It is on those grounds that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will oppose the Government on this issue.
  Mr. Turton: The Minister and the party opposite seem to be nervous of this Amendment, and I think they have good reason to be. There arise the questions: How far will there be incompetence through red tape, and how far will there be incentive towards corruption and graft? Taking the former question first I am surprised that we have not had a speech from the Government side in support of this Amendment. In the past, I have heard the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) speak on this very point of the danger of incompetence through red tape. He has said that there must not be over-centralisation in nationalisation proposals, that a certain amount of freedom must be given to a Commission. This Amendment raises that very point. Here, the Government are to appoint to the Commission men who
  "have shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial, or financial matters, or in administration or in the organisation of workers."
  Those men, I should have thought, could be trusted to choose the Executives. The Government have done that under the Civil Aviation Act. There they appointed three corporations, and gave them the job of choosing the Executives. The Hotel Executive was chosen, not by the Minister of Civil Aviation, but by the corporation. Now the Government are doing something entirely different which, I believe, the Labour Party will rue afterwards.
  The Minister, in opposing this Amendment, asked whether it would make for a good ultimate result if there was divergence of opinion. The man the Commission chose might be a man who was disagreeable to the Minister. Why should the Minister impose on the Commission a man who is not fit for the job?

  1281
  If he does not intend to do this, there is no point in the right hon. Gentleman trying to reject this Amendment. I cannot see that transport in this country will be run competently if, at any time, the Minister can appoint to the Executive a man who has not the confidence of the Commission. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) pointed out that the Executives were the agents of the Commission. In that case, the Commission should be entitled to choose their own agents. I am an opponent of the Government in this business of the nationalisation of transport, but I feel strongly that if we are to have nationalisation we must make it work efficiently. It will not be efficient if it is bound up with red tape. It is a facile but dangerous argument for the Minister to say, "It is all right. Parliament will be able to 'vet' everything we do." If the Government continue to prosecute their present programme this House will be cluttered up with Questions, which will make the work of the Transport Commission unwieldy.
  A great deal has been said about patronage. This country, since the time of Lord Liverpool, has had a great reputation for honesty in public life, and for absence of inducements towards graft. I am afraid that these nationalisation Measures are being regarded in the country as giving opportunities for graft. The rumours that go about, which Ministers have to contradict, show that danger. The wisest way of dealing with this problem is to remove the opportunity for those rumours. In other countries, there are jobs that are given by the parties in power—
  Mr. Alpass: Where did that originate?
  Mr. Turton: I have lately been in a country where the allocation of the oil ration was handed out to the Communist Party. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has left the Chamber. That went on for about six months until there was such an uproar that all the Communist Ministers were dismissed from the Government. That happened two months ago, in South America. That is the kind of thing which everybody wants to avoid happening in this country. At present, there is general dissatisfaction here with the way things are run. People believe
  1282
  that there is too much red tape, and there are rumours of blackmail and corruption. I hope that the House will not disagree with this Amendment.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mt. Herbert Morrison): I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of this Debate, but I was at a Cabinet meeting. On the point of the merit of the Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, I would put the following considerations to the House. These Executives are to be bodies of very great importance. They are not merely departmental bodies within the transport organisation of a domestic character. The Railway Executive will be in the executive sense responsible. I agree, under the Transport Commission, for running the whole of the railway system of this country. The Road Transport Executive will be similarly responsible for the whole of the road transport system, and so on. I think that in these cases where there are bodies which are running great undertakings as distinct elements of the British transport' system, nevertheless being coordinated by the British Transport Commission, it would be wrong from the Parliamentary point of view if there was no Ministerial accountancy for the appointment of these important executives.
  I think that the House would not be much older before it complained if the Minister said, "I have no responsibility for the appointment of these Executives," and the House would complain if he said he had no responsibility for their salaries or conditions of service. In these cases, where they are, from time to time, discharging big functions and running vast economic units, it is right that there should be Parliamentary responsibility for the appointment of these executive bodies. It is proposed, and the Bill provides, that the Minister appoints the Executives after consultation with the British Transport Commission; therefore, the Commission will have a good opportunity of discussing with the Minister the appointments that are to be made. Personally, I think, as does my right hon. Friend, that that is the happiest way out of this problem, having regard to the very important nature of these bodies.
  I would remind hon. Members opposite that they have repeatedly pursued my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power with regard to the appoint-

  1283
  ment of the divisional boards under the Coal Industry Act. They have complained most vigorously—we had a discussion on the Adjournment only last week—that the Minister has refused to accept responsibility for the appointments of the divisional boards or to give the House information as to their salaries and conditions of service. The reason he does not do so is that in the case of the Coal Industry Act, the same provision was made in respect of the divisional boards—not quite the same—nevertheless, the provision was made or implied that the appointment of the divisional boards under the National Coal Board was the responsibility of the National Coal Board.
  I really think that the Opposition ought to make up their minds. If they accept the view that within the Coal Board the appointment of boards for its geographical organisation, much less important than the appointment of these bodies, which are really conducting vast industries within the wider industry—if they accept the view that the divisional coal boards should be the responsibility of appointment by the National Coal Board, they ought not to follow that up by Parliamentary questions and agitations wanting to know why the Minister of Fuel and Power will not give the House information or, in fact, take responsibility for the appointment of the divisional boards.
  On this occasion, they are taking the line that the Minister should not appoint. Do they appreciate that if the Minister is not responsible, it will be utterly useless to come along hereafter and question my right hon. Friend as to why he has appointed Mr. So-and-so to an executive? It will be quite impossible. The question of their salaries would, I submit, be ruled out of Order on the ground that the Minister has not the responsibility. The fact is that the Opposition have got themselves into a thorough muddle as to their point of view and philosophy on this matter. They must make up their minds whether they want Parliamentary responsibility or whether they do not. I admit that all these things are a matter of fair argument —I do not complain that there should be argument. We thought in the case of the Coal Board that as these were domestic geographical units within the Coal Board organisation, it was right that they should be a domestic matter for the Coal Board itself. We equally thought in the case of
  1284
  these Executives which have very big direct executive powers, in one case over the whole of the railway field, and in another case over the whole of the road transport field—we thought it was right that the Minister should be in a position of taking responsibility for the appointment, and that this House should have the right to shoot at the Minister for the appointments which he made to these executives. I think that the Opposition ought to make up their minds as to what they want.
  6.45 P.m.
  I am told that the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) made an allegation which I am a little surprised should come from a university Member of this House; but we live and learn about university Members as we go along. I understand that he made an allegation that my right hon. Friend was not free to accept this Amendment because he had already committed himself to certain appointments. That followed on a rather low-down speech, if I may say so, that was made in the country by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) in which allegations of corruption and jobbery were made against this Government. I do not feel that I need to stand up to defend the Labour Party about jobbery and corruption. Our record is open—it is public—and I am prepared to defend it and my own.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: This is out of Order.
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I am out of Order. I thought that Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, but I will be careful in view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's great knowledge of procedure. I do not want to argue back and to say that the Conservative Party has been guilty of irregularities in public appointments. I dare say that I could make something like a case if I wanted to. But it is not going to help to hurl these cases across the House, nor will it help the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities if he makes a serious allegation of that kind against my right hon. Friend. I have known my right hon. Friend for a great many years and, with great respect, I do not believe that he is the kind of man who has engaged in or ever will

  1285
  engage in irregular practices. If the hon. and learned Gentleman says it, he ought to prove it. He should produce some evidence, or he should withdraw it, one of the two. If he is going to make accusations across the Floor of the House that my right hon. Friend has already made appointments without the authority of Parliament or without telling Parliament—
  Mr. H. Strauss: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I spoke, because, if he had been, he would have been in a better position to reply. Let me make it quite clear that whatever accusations I made—and the right hon. Member will be able to see it in HANSARD—
  Mr. Morrison: You mentioned a name.
  Mr. Strauss: —certainly applies to the whole of the Government and not to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. That is absolutely clear.
  Mr. Kirkwood: It was not in the plural. You singled him out.
  Mr. Strauss: My second point is that I did not say that he had made these appointments, I said that he had indicated, as I think the Government had indicated in certain cases, how the executive appointments were to be filled, and I gave that one example.
  Mr. Morrison: It does not much matter whether the allegations were made against my right hon. Friend or against the Government. I should have thought that if he made these allegations, and it is perfectly clear that he did, he ought not to make them irresponsibly or out of malice or in a vicious way, because he is doing that if he does not produce evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman should produce the evidence upon which he bases his allegations and if he is in a position to produce that evidence, I will willingly give way and then deal with it.
  Mr. Baxter: Since the Leader of the House is dealing at the moment with a matter of courtesy and perhaps procedure, might I ask him quite seriously whether he thinks it right that in two important Debates such as that on newsprint and that on this Amendment we should have Ministers coming in at the last minute and endeavouring to reply without having
  1286
  heard any of the speeches? The Minister of Health did not take a note of any of the speeches on the newsprint Debate and then he attempted to reply to that Debate. The same thing is occurring now in regard to the Lord President of the Council. Is that right?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is a little thin-skinned. He sees that the Opposition are getting the worst of the argument, and he wants to find some way out of it for them. I said that the hon. and learned Gentleman for the Combined English Universities had made an accusation and that the onus was upon him to produce the evidence. I am willing to, give way if he will produce that evidence
  Mr. H. Strauss: I do not desire that there should be any misunderstanding in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. who did not hear my speech. The grounds on which I said what I did, I explained in that speech, but the main ground for my suspicion—let me repeat the words "main ground" — is the treatment of our case on this Amendment. As long as the Government persist in not answering any of the points we on this side of the House have made on this issue my suspicion will remain.
  Mr. Morrison: With great respect, the Amendment has been argued on the merits. I only want to add that it is perfectly clear the hon. and learned Gentleman has no evidence whatever, and if I may say so with respect, it is not fitting for hon. Members of this House, and in particular an hon. Member who is elected to represent cultured university life, to make these allegations against my right hon. Friend or against the Government as a whole without apparently possessing the slightest evidence that that is so. I understand that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities made some reference to the leader of the London County Council. This is a free country and if the leader of the London County Council wishes to cease to be leader of that body I suppose he may be permitted to do so, but what kind of mind is it that reads suspicion into that?
  Mr. Strauss: I did not.
  Mr. Morrison: I understand so. That was what I was told. What was the point of mentioning it? The fact is—and

  1287
  I can assure the House that this comes from my own knowledge—my right hon. Friend has not approached or sounded anybody for any of these appointments. If he had done so, and if he had made provision for appointments as was done in the case of coal or of the organising committee in the case of electricity, his right course would be to tell the House. He has not done so. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that he has made no such provision at all, and, therefore, in those circumstances I say again that if these allegations, which come particularly ill from the so-called gentlemanly party, are made, if these smear tactics are to he indulged in, and if this mud-slinging is to be gone in for, then I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite if they have the courage to sling the mud, let them have the courage to produce the evidence.
  Mr. P. Thorneyeroft: I rise only for a, few moments in order to say how glad we were to see the Lord President of the Council come in to assist us at a rather late hour in our discussion.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Listen now to the bright young Tory.
  Mr. Thorneyeroft: I will get through my arguments much quicker if I do not have too much interruption. As a matter of fact, this Debate has been rather one-sided, and I regret it. I thought I saw many hon. Gentlemen opposite, who could have contributed to this discussion, showing signs of deep emotion, but at no time did they translate it into any form of coherent utterance. Now, at last, we have had the Lord President's speech. The Lord President dealt quite a lot with the question of patronage, and he that we on this side of the House were very thin-skinned. I must say that I think the Government are being a little thin-skinned. We have spent a lot of time talking about what was said to be a fearful allegation that had been made against the party opposite. That allegation was that some approach had been made to Lord Latham with the possibility of his serving on the executive.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. All that the hon. Gentleman is doing is to erect a man of straw in order to knock it down.
  Mr. Speaker: My recommendation to hon. Members is that they should not generate more heat than they can contain.
  Mr. Thorneyeroft: I am ready to accept your Ruling, Sir. I was en-deavouring to introduce a soothing note into the Debate. I think a great deal of heat has been generated about very little. It did not seem to me that the suggestion that Lord Latham was going to be invited to be a member of the executive—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —that he had been invited by the Minister to act on the executive should have been treated as a charge of gross indecency. The broad charge on patronage, if I might put it to the Lord President, was raised not by this side of the House at all, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, who devoted two-thirds of his opening speech to this question of patronage and the allegations about manipulations with regard to railway directors and the Conservative Party. That was why the matter was raised in the form that it was. I mention it only because the Lord President was not in the House, and I think he should know the way the discussion generally developed. The main point about the question of patronage was largely this: without making an allegation against the Minister of Transport, the Government or anybody else, if we go on in Act after Act putting more and more jobs at the disposal of the people who are the political leaders of the country today, it makes for a bad system. All history has shown it to be so.
  If I may leave this, following your advice, Mr. Speaker, not to generate any more heat than is necessary, may I say one word on the merits of this Amendment, because merits have been neglected in this discussion. I am not sure that the Minister, in devoting two-thirds of his speech to the question of patronage, did not hope that the merits would be somewhat neglected; but the merits are important. They have nothing to do with the principle of whether transport is nationalised or not. It is simply a question of efficiency. Therefore, I take the case which the Lord President has put forward. He said that these are very big Executives; but what has that got to do with it? The point is that somebody

  1289
  is responsible for the policy of the Commission, and the Minister is responsible for laying down the main points, just as a board of directors of a company are responsible for laying down the broad policy of the company. Surely, in those circumstances the Commission who are responsible for laying down policy should have the power to appoint the executives. What board of directors of any company, however vast, could ever tolerate the managers of the departments —however big those departments—being appointed by someone else? It seemed to me that the Lord President's point about the size of the executives was utterly irrelevant.
  7.0 p.m.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman comes along and says, "Well, supposing the Commission do in fact appoint these Executives; then the House of Commons cannot ask about them." The right hon. Gentleman says this, but personally I have never quite understood why, and I think that it is a very nice point. Whether the Executives are appointed by the Commission of the Minister, I really cannot understand why the Minister should not disclose the details of the appointments and salaries, not of the smaller people, but of the main officials. That would be a fair, courteous and sensible way of dealing with the House. It does not appear to me that the question and answer is dependent upon this particular decision.
  Why does the Minister want this power? He said that he wanted to see

  Division No. 320.]

  AYES.

  [7.4 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Daggar, G

  Allen, A C (Bosworth)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Daines, P.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem;

  Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Attewell, H. C

  Brown, T. J. (Inee)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Bruce, Maj D W. T.

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Buchanan, G

  Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Burden, T W.

  Deer, G.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

  Burke, W. A

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Balfour, A.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Delargy, H. J

  Barnes, Rt Hon A. J

  Champion, A. J

  Dobbie, W

  Barstow, P G.

  Chater, D.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Battley, J. R.

  Chelwynd, G. R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Cluse, W. S.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Belcher, J W

  Cobb, F. A.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Benson, G.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Durbin, E. F. M

  Beswick, F.

  Coldrick, W.

  Dye, S.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Collick, P.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Binns, J.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Blenkinsop, A

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Cove, W. G

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

  Crawley, A

  Ewart, R.

  Braddock Mrs E. M. (L pl Exch'ge)

  Crossman, R. H S.

  Fairhurst, F.

  men of all classes appointed to the Executives, and I am sure that everybody would like to see that, but why should not the Commission appoint to those bodies men from all walks of life: Surely, the test of whether a man is suit able for the Executives is whether he knows about transport, and not whether he went to Eton or somewhere else: [Interruption.] My remark was inspired by the sight of an old Etonian on the benches opposite. As I say, it is question of whether a person knows about transport. The Minister appoints this Commission, and surely the Commission itself is as good a judge as he is? The worst solution of all, which is thaadopted by the Government, is not really to make up their minds who is responsible, but to have someone doing some thing after consultation with someone else so that no one will, in fact, be responsible for the appointments.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The Minister will be
  Mr. Thorneycroft: It seems that while we have spent a good deal of time talk ing about patronage, which is, I admit, important, we have not had any satis factory answer from the Government on the merits of this Amendment, and in those circumstances I hope that we shall express our views in a Division.
  Question put, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Houses divided: Ayes 304; Noes, 143.

  Farthing, W. J.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mack, J. D.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Field, Capt W J.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Skeffingion. A. M

  Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)

  McKinlay, A. S

  Skinnard, F W.

  Follick, M.

  Maclean, N (Govan)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Foot, M. M.

  McLeavy, F.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Forman, J. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W)

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Solley, L. J.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Gallacher, W.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Gibbins, J.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Stamford, W.

  Gibson, C. W

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Steele, T.

  Gilzean, A.

  Martin, J. H.

  Stephen, C.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mathers, G.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mayhew, C. P

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Greenwood, Rt Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Medland, H M

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mellish, R J

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Grenfell, D R.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Grey, C. F

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R

  Swingler, S

  Grierson, E

  Mitchison, G. R

  Sylvester, G. 0

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Monstow, W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)

  Moody, A. S.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Morgan, Dr H. B.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Gunter, R J.

  Morley, R.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Guy, W. H

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Hale, Leslie

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Hall, W. G.

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Murray, J. D.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Hardman, D. R.

  Nally, W.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Tiffany, S.

  Harrison, J.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Timmons, J.

  Haworth, J.

  Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Tolley, L.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Holman, P.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Orbach, M.

  Viant, S. P.

  House, G

  Paget, R. T.

  Walkden, E.

  Hubbard, T.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Walker, G. H.

  Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, J.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Parkin, B T.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Watson, W. M.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pearson, A.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Peart, T. F.

  Weitzman, D.

  Irving, W. J

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Janner, B

  Popplewell, E.

  West, D. G.

  Jay, D. P T

  Porter E. (Warrington)

  Westwood, Rl. Hon. J.

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Price, M. Philips

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wigg, Col. G. E

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wilkes, L.

  Keenan, W.

  Randall, H. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Kenyon, C.

  Ranger, J.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Key, C. W.

  Rankin, J

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  King, E. M

  Reeves, J.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Kinley, J.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Kirkwood, D

  Rhodes, H.

  Williams, Rt. Hon T (Don Valley)

  Lang, G.

  Richards, R.

  Williams, W R (Heston)

  Lavers, S.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Williamson, T.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Robens, A.

  Willis, E.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannook)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Leonard, W.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Wise, Major F J

  Leslie, J. R.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Woods, G. S.

  Levy, B. W.

  Royle, C.

  Wyatt, W.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sargood, R.

  Yates, V. F.

  Lindgren, G. S

  Scollan, T.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Logan, D G.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Longden, F

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Sharp, Granville

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McAdam, W.

  Shinwell, Rt Hon. E

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  McAllister, G

  Shurmer, P.

  Mr. Hannan.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon L.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Baxter, A. B

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  1292

  1293

  Birch, Nigel

  Mollis, M. C

  Pickthorn, K.

  Boles, Lt.-Col D C. (Wells)

  Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Boothby R.

  Hope, Lord J

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E

  Bower, N

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm, Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Poole, O B. S (Oswestry;

  Boyd-Carpenter,

  Hutohison, Col J R (Glasgow. C)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Butcher, H. W

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Byers, Frank

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Raikes, H. V.

  Clarke, Col R. S

  Jennings, R

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Reid, Rt Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E.

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Cuthbert, W. N

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  De la Bère, R

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Digby, S. W

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Lindsay, M -Solihull)

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Dower, Lt.-Col A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Lipson, D L

  Soott, Lord W.

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklew)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Low, Brig A R. W

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Duthie, W. S.

  McCallum, Maj. D

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Eden, Rt. Hon A

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

  Spence, H. R.

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

  Maokeson, Brig. H. R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Fletcher, W (Bury)

  McKie, J. H (Galloway)

  Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

  Fox, Sir G

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Sutcliffe, H

  Fyte, Rt Hon Sir D. P M

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)

  Gage, C.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Touche, G. C.

  Gammans, L. D

  Marples, A. E.

  Turton, R, H.

  George, Maj Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

  Marsden, Cap! A.

  Wadsworth, G.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Grant, Lady

  Mellor, Sir J

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Molson, A. H E.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Grimston, R. V.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Morris, Hopktn (Carmarthen)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Morrison,'Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Hare, Hon J H. (Woodbridge)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.

  Nicholson, G

  Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl

  Head, Brig A. H.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  York, C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Herbert, Sir A. P.

  Osborne, C.

  Major Ramsay and

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

  Hogg, Hon. Q

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 37, leave out "other provision is made by such an order" and insert:
  "determined otherwise by the Commission."
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." This is an Amendment related to that which we have just discussed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 40, after the second "Executive" insert: "the Scottish Transport Executive."
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Amendment proposes to introduce an entirely new type of board into the Bill, and for that reason we disagree with it. I would recall that so far, we have established the British Transport Commission and a series of functional executives to conduct the operations of the railways, ports, hotels, and 1 catering. If the Amend-
  1294
  ment were adopted, we should be creating a new type of body. In no way have their Lordships attempted to define the duties which the proposed Scottish Transport Executive would have to perform. I would briefly indicate what the present position is and how the Amendment would work out. I think hon. Members will sec the anomalies that would develop if the. Amendment were accepted.
  The existing railway organisation in Scotland will be merged into one railway system, and the management side will be unified and strengthened. From the point of view of being able to function in the executive and management way, the requirements and railway needs of Scotland are bound to be better served. On the road passenger side, when the area schemes are developed, it is inevitable that there will be two, three, four or more road passenger transport organisations developed. The bodies that will be appointed to administer those area transport schemes will be drawn from bodies representative of the locality and will be

  1295
  largely responsible for the operation of the schemes, in consultation, conforming to the co-ordination policy of the executive at the national end. The Commission are under the obligation to consult local opinion fully, and it is only when a large measure of agreement is eventually achieved that the Minister can approve the scheme. If at any time there is a divergence of opinion, the matter must be submitted to Parliament, and it becomes subject to the special Parliamentary procedure.
  During the Debate on the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, I explained that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Commission and the ports executive, if they represented opinion on the Clyde, from accepting and putting into force a scheme similar to that reported upon by the Cooper Committee. Therefore, on the road passenger side, and on the ports and harbours side, it is clear that the type of organisation which will administer these schemes locally in Scotland will be essentially Scottish in character The Scottish Transport Executive proposed in the Amendment would have to have formulated for it a transport executive for Scotland, and would have to cut through the whole of that executive machinery. So, in fact, unless it dealt with railways alone, if it absorbed the functions of the other executives it would become a Scottish transport authority. I do not know what kind of function or responsibility, financial or otherwise, such a body would exercise within the provisions of the Bill.
  In the Amendment which comes from the Lords we are, therefore, confronted with a completely anomalous situation. I am satisfied that with the Scottish Consultative Committee which the Bill establishes, and with the machinery provided for area transport and port schemes, the legitimate desire of Scottish opinion to manage, as far as possible, their own affairs is attended to, without completely destroying the economy, co-ordination, and integration which the Bill establishes. The Bill meets legitimate Scottish aspirations.
  Further, I am satisfied that I am serving Scottish national interests by adhering to the existing structure of the Bill, because if, by any chance, Scottish transport in all its aspects is cut off cleanly
  1296
  from British transport as a whole, it meets many difficult circumstances which are peculiar to Scotland and represent heavy financial obligations upon any transport system. Therefore, from the angle of the economic interests of Scotland, there is everything to be said for it being integrated in the British transport system and for capital control and receipts passing into a common pool so that the peculiar physical handicaps which affect many parts of Scotland can be taken in its stride. Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recollect that Members representing Scottish constituencies pressed very strongly the peculiar and urgent needs, particularly of the Highlands and the Western Isles. Although I was not able to meet their requests in the Standing Committee in regard to certain shipping services, on another occasion in this House quite recently a further step was taken in that direction, and I gave a general undertaking that I hoped that when the position was established, these peculiar problems would, for the first time, receive special and sympathetic study in a way possibly to enable them to be met in the future in a form which has never been possible in the past because transport has been broken up into so many pieces.
  I have taken a little time in explaining the situation on this Amendment, not because I consider this Amendment, of itself, of any definite value to the Bill, but because it is essential that the relationship of these problems in Scotland to the British transport system as a whole should be thoroughly appreciated so that we can dispel any attempt to exploit on false sentimental or nationalistic grounds a proposal which, on the face of it, might appear to be giving Scotland an advantage but which is anomalous in the structure of the Bill and in its ultimate result. If the Government had accepted this Amendment and then attempted to clothe the Amendment with the necessary powers to make it work, I am confident that we would have injured Scottish national interests rather than advanced them.
  Lord John Hope: The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not consider this Amendment was a very valuable one in itself. I would start by pointing out that it was designed not to wreck the Bill, but to make the scheme workable

  1297
  in Scotland. There is a very remarkable circumstance in connection with this Amendment. If the record of what has gone on in Scotland is of any value, this is not and cannot be a party matter. Let me quote to the House what one or two Scottish bodies have said about this, bodies which are in no way identified with any political party. I refer, first, to the Scottish Council for Trade and Industry, which consists of members owning allegiance to every political party. This is what they say:
  "The Council feel very strongly, however, that if firm provision is not made beforehand for a system of control in Scotland which will be satisfactory in practice, there is no guarantee that a satisfactory system will in fact be provided. The Council, therefore, urge the Government to insure by direction beforehand, either by the insertion of a suitable Clause in the Bill that … that provision must be met by the Transport Commission for the fullest possible delegation of effective administrative authority to offices in Scotland.…"
  —and so on. Then we have the opinion of the Scottish T.U.C. In moving the rejection of this Amendment, the Minister said that he was satisfied with the Consultative Committee in terms of Scotland's interest being well and truly served. That is not at all what the Scottish T.U.C. thinks of the Consultative Committee.
  Mr. Scollan: Of course, it is.
  Lord John Hope: This is what it says:
  "The General Council, whilst welcoming the provision of a consultative committee for Scotland, considers that such a Committee … will not adequately meet the wishes of the Scottish people.…"
  That is what the General Council of the Scottish T.U.C. says about it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows very much better what they meant, but that is what they said.
  Mr. Scollan: Yes, very much better.
  Lord John Hope: The third non-party source which I would quote is the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, whose opinion is as follows:
  "The General Assembly, seriously considering the possible invasion of human rights and local independence by large-scale collectivism, and noting the continued disregard of Scottish sentiment and the claims of Scotland as a nation in many matters which vitally affect the prosperity of the Scottish people, declare their conviction that schemes of
  1298
  nationalisation must be accompanied by a large measure of devolution and decentralisation if the achievements of a genuine democracy is not to be frustrated."
  There are three opinions, all of them given by bodies composed of men belonging to all political parties, completely ignored by the Government. If this Amendment is not accepted, the Government will merely be fomenting Scottish Nationalism. There is no one who would regret that fomentation more than I. In its concept it is wrong, and inimical both to the interests of Scotland and of the United Kingdom, but this is just the way in which that kind of undesirable trend will be encouraged. The Government would have a precedent if they allowed the formation of a Scottish Executive. They would find it in the Transport Bill which the Labour Government brought in in 1930. That Bill treated Scotland as a separate region for the purpose of the Bill, and I cannot see why this Government could not do the same thing.
  7.30 p.m.
  I quoted at the beginning of my speech three non-party sources in favour of the setting up of a Scottish Executive, and in that connection I would quote two admittedly biased sources, both distinguished Members ef the Labour Party, in favour of this kind of decentralisation. First that distinguished Scottish Socialist, Mr. Thomas Johnston, considered the statutory creation of a Scottish Board in land transport essential
  "it the social and administrative services of the country are to be run with efficiency and with a minimum of frustration and annoyance to the North."
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Was that in the "Sunday Times," a Tory paper?
  Lord John Hope: That was from the "Sunday Times." [An HON. MEMBER: "A Tory paper."] Whether it is a Socialist or Tory paper—and whether I his is in Order or not—Mr. Johnston is surely recognised by hon. Members opposite as a distinguished and loyal Member of the Labour Party. The final authority I wish to quote from the Socialist ranks is the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council who, in his speech winding up the Second Reading Debate, made the following two observations:
  "I believe fervently that, in regard to the detailed management of an undertaking in its

  1299
  day-to-day activities, the Minister had be out of it—"
  and he added rather unkindly:
  "and Members of Parliament had better be out of it as well."
  He then said:
  "In the administrative scheme, it is the intention of the Government to prevent over-centralisation. There will be the maximum practical amount of devolution.…"—[OFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1946; Vol. 431, cc. 2082 and 2083.]
  Neither of those suggestions is being followed by the Government in their refusal to set up a Scottish Board, and I would utter a friendly but firm warning to the Minister that, if he continues to neglect non-party Scottish opinion, and the desires of the Scottish people generally in this matter, he may well have the distinction of starting a legend which will tell the story of Alfred who burnt, not the cakes, but his fingers.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: The argument,we have been hearing from the noble Lord the Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Northern (Lord John Hope) mentioned the Scottish National Party, Mr. Tom Johnston, the Church of Scotland Assembly, the Scottish Council of Trade and Industry, and the T.U.C. the most bizarre coalition of which I have ever heard. As for the Church of Scotland Assembly, even that draws a subsidy from the British Exchequer in order to continue as the Church of Scotland—but I will not pursue that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There is nothing Scotland wants more than what this Bill is trying to provide in this Clause. We have suffered from the lack of what this Bill will provide, a decent co-ordinated system of transport in Scotland; and nowhere more than in the North of Scotland where, under this Bill, we hope to see the progress we have never had under the existing system—I would call it chaos, rather than system. The noble Lord said we must not pander to the Scottish Nationalists on this issue. He said they were wrong, and then went on to argue that we should give them all they ask and so create more Scottish Nationalists.
  Lord John Hope: All I said was that Scottish Nationalism as a concept is wrong. I did not say Scottish Nationalists were wrong on every single
  1300
  point; of course, that would be better ridiculous.
  Mr. MacMillan: The noble Lord brought in all the arguments the Scottish Nationalists use. They certainly are not wrong over everything, but in this Amendment as it is framed they are wrong. We have a Bill here which implies throughout that Scotland will have the same financial consideration as England and will have an adequate transport system which has not existed before under private enterprise or any other system. Indeed, it is by State subsidies we have provided a shipping company, in the West Highlands and Islands. We have even with the subsidy an inadequate transport system, and everything has pointed to the need for taking it over completely and running it properly as a service for the people and industry. To provide such service ultimately is what this Bill is trying to do, and in trying to destroy the Bill hon. Members opposite are depriving Scotland of it. I do not suggest for a moment that is their intention, but that will be the effect; it will deprive Scotland of the hope of getting what it has never had before, a properly integrated system of transport. The noble Lord said he would not wreck the Bill, but he would do much more than that—he would rob Scotland of a decent transport system; and it is no use dragging in the Scottish T.U.C.—
  Lord John Hope: The hon. Member means it is not convenient.
  Mr. MacMillan: It is extremely convenient for hon. Members opposite to be able to quote the Scottish T.U.C. for the first time in their lives when they think it is guilty of a convenient aberration, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) might put it. We will not have Tom Johnston thrown at us, time afer time, as a leading Socialist—
  Mr. McKie: Does the hon. Gentleman repudiate him?
  Mr. MacMillan: I am not repudiating Mr. Tom Johnston's membership of the Socialist Party, but I am repudiating certain statements he has made in public which make him appear more a Member of the Scottish Nationalist Party and, therefore, at present conveniently acceptable to the Tories. He has repudiated

  1301
  us in so far as he has attacked the Transport Bill and certain other actions of the Government. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has much less reason to be sorry than I have. Let us resist this thing to the limit. What we are after here is a much bigger thing than the plaudits of a small oft-rejected section of opinion in Scotland. If the Tories want to pander to the Scottish Nationalists, let them do it, but on the same basis as the Scottish Nationalists are talking—Home Rule and self-government. If the Tories want that, let them say it and not pick out a convenient point of this kind. Let them come out into the open, either for or against the Scottish Nationalists and Home Rule and self-government, but on the merits of this Bill I say to them, do not wreck the Bill because to do so will wreck Scotland's chance of getting a decent transport system.
  Colonel Hutchison: I hoped we were sailing into, or that we were in, calmer waters than those through which we passed in considering the previous Amendment, but the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) seemed to be generating a spurious and quickly manufactured feeling of indignation as he took us towards the Western Islands of Scotland, and at the same time conveniently threw overboard Mr. Tom Johnston.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman do me the common courtesy of believing that our indignation at the inefficient and chaotic Scottish transport system is, to say the least, genuine?
  Colonel Hutchison: Of course, if it was heartfelt, as it now seems to be, and also spontaneous. I make no apology for delaying the House on this question, because, although the Minister gave the impression that this had been closely considered in another stage of the Bill, in fact that was not so. Owing, perhaps, to my unfamiliarity with the complicated technique aid machinery, Amendments down in my name and in the names of hon. Friends in this direction were in fact never called, and we thought that our opportunity of speaking to this matter had gone. I draw the attention of the hon Member for the Western Isles to the fact that this is not in support of Scottish Nationalism, but for the very purpose of
  1302
  providing an antidote. We never had an opportunity of dealing with this mater until out of the treadmill at length has come this Amendment. I ask the House to disagree with the Government in disagreeing with the Lords Amendment, and in fact to support the Amendment. We in Scotland consider this Amendment desirable and helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Lord John Hope) has already mentioned bodies which supported this course, and hon. Members opposite threw scorn on the quotations. But I would like to know from them what more suitable examples they would like given. He mentioned the Scottish Council for Industry, which advocated something very like what the Amendment proposes. The Scottish Council for Industry is made up of industrialists and trade union representatives. Can hon. Members opposite give a better example of representation for Scotland. Then, in order to clinch the matter, in case it were thought not completely representative of trade union interests, he quoted the Scottish T.U.C. who, in contradistinction to what one hon. Member opposite said, have in fact asked for this executive.
  Mr. Willis: When?
  Colonel Hutchison: When I find it I will furnish it to any hon. Member opposite who wants it, but I am afraid I have for the moment mislaid the document. Those are bodies who have asked that this measure should be taken. Is there any other body which hon. Members would like me to quote—any other body they would like me to bring into the fold, to show that Scottish opinion as a whole, is favourable to this, as indeed most of them were not so long ago?
  Major McCallum: At he General Election.
  7.45 p.m.
  Colonel Hutchison: What is this executive for which we are asking? Let me draw attention to exactly what an executive is, as described in the Bill:
  "Each executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by or under a scheme made by the Commission and approved by the Minister."
  The right hon. Gentleman threw some scorn on the fact that we have not defined

  1303
  the functions of the executive, but they are defined there. They are, in fact, the agents of the Commission, and are to carry out such tasks as the Commission think right. When we tried to consider this in Committee upstairs, we thought we were being helpful in not trying to tie it down too closely. So far from this executive being ill-defined and unfavourable to our contention, we submit that it ought to help.
  On what do we base our demands, and on what do these bodies base a demand for a Scottish executive? First, on the statement of the Lord President of the Council that devolution was to be sought in all these nationalisation Measures: we still have confidence in promises of that kind, but I am bound to admit that in the nationalisation Measures I have watched so far—and I have taken part in most of them—there has been a very poor attempt at devolution, and at carrying out that promise. We also base the demand on the special character of the Scottish problem. It cannot too often be emphasised that Scotland has separate rating, separate land tenure, and a separate law system, different geography, and different customs. Yet it is claimed that there is no foundation for our claim that we should be treated somewhat separately because of all these differences and distinctions. The next reason upon which we base our claim is that we see an overgrown colossus being established to run the transport system in London. Already many think that each of the four railways were too big to be run by one set of men. Yet here, we have the four lumped together and the whole of their policy and functioning being dictated from London. There the Government are creating a Juggernaut car which will drive—slowly, I have no doubt, as Government machines do not go fast—over Scottish aspirations, Scottish hopes, and Scottish incentives.
  In this matter there is much in the incentive there would be for a Scottish transport system of road or rail, or, as I would like to see, both, controlled from Scotland, and an element of competition, which is the lifeblood of efficiency, if a Scottish Executive were set up and given a chance of running transport in its own country.
  Mr. David Jones: How is it possible for a Scottish Executive to indulge in competition if they act as agents for the Commission?
  Colonel Hutchison: Easily. If the hon. Member will imagine the situation which will arise, he will see that there will be transport dealt with in England by a transport Executive, and a Scottish transport Executive dealing with transport in that country. Would that not be a form of competition in which one could compare results one with another?
  Mr. D. Jones: No.
  Colonel Hutchison: I suggest that the hon. Member goes to the Library afterwards and looks up the definition of the word "competition." We claim that there is another advantage in the question of speed of decision. I want to give an illustration of what has happened in the past. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because illustrations are perhaps rather more graphic than academic discussions. There was the case of a graving dock belonging to a railway company and the dock was closed down for widening. The problem went from those working the dock to the Scottish committee of the railway company concerned. They then had to submit it to London, and the London committee then had to consider it, and pass it back to the Scottish committee. I may say that each of these moves took a minimum of a month. The Scottish committee passed it back to the concern, the concern had certain questions to ask about the answer, and the whole matter took about a year before a conclusion was reached. This kind of thing is typical, and will be even greater and slower under this Measure. We say that it should be possible for a decision of that kind to be taken locally, by people who know the local circumstances, and who have the power to say "Yes" or "No."
  What, then, are we offered? In his opening statement, the Minister said that we were in fact being offered everything that was good for Scotland—perhaps he will allow us to know what we think is good for ourselves—and that he would be doing a disservice to Scotland if he agreed to what we are now asking. There was some question about financial responsibility. What difference would it make in that respect if Scotland had its own executive? That executive would have the

  1305
  same financial powers as the other executives which are being set up under the Commission. We are to be fobbed off with a consultative committee, with no executive powers, area boards for transport, approved authorities for ports, but all ultimately subjected to the main body, part of the colossus in London. Local initiative and power of decision is what we want. If the Minister would give power to these local boards, a great deal of our objection would be removed. We have seen little coming to us so far from these consultative or advisory committees which have been set up already. I do not know how many Members opposite noticed the figures given by the Minister today in reply to a Question of mine, as to the activity going on at Prestwick on the part of foreign air lines and the lack of attention which Prestwick is being given by our Corporation. That is not a great advertisement for the Scottish Advisory Committee, which was to put Scotland and Scotland's air lines on to the map.
  Mr. Willis: Is that not because international lines have been given certain freedom rights at Prestwick in order to safeguard civil aviation?
  Colonel Hutchison: I do not want to get out of Order by pursuing that matter too far, but I would like the hon. Member to reflect a little on the significant fact that there were 19 departures by British lines in the month of June—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is getting right away from the Amendment with which we are dealing.
  Colonel Hutchison: I had passed on but I was led back.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The fault of the hon. and gallant Member was that he allowed himself to be led.
  Colonel Hutchison: I am too gullible. I would say that if we are to take examples from the past of what advisory and consultative committees have done for Scotland then those in this Bill will not get us anywhere near where we want to be.
  I again quote the Scottish T.U.C., who have said that this proposal which the Government have put into the Bill, and the Bill as it stands now, will not
  1306
  adequately meet the wishes of the Scottish people—[HON. MEMBERS: "When."] This is the same quotation as before, and I will furnish the context to any hon. Member when I sit down. At the same time, they went on to say that what the Minister said is good enough for us, is not, in fact, good enough for them. What is the Government's objection to this proposal? First, they make a great deal of play with the point that everything must be functional and not regional. I cannot see that there is anything sacrosanct about functionalism as against regionalism. By geography and by distance, one place can be so different from another that it becomes functionally different. The Government have allowed the London Passenger Transport Board to have its own executive. Is there not just as big a difference in the carriage of persons and goods between England and Scotland as there is between Middlesex and London? Are the populations not comparable? In fact, is not the number of vehicles ran-fling in Scotland probably greater than the number running in London? Therefore, why should there be this clear-cut case, which no doubt existed in the Minister's mind, in favour of London having its own executive and for Scotland being denied the same?
  If the right hon. Gentleman considers it is difficult to handle a Scottish Transport executive because a train has to go across the Border, then leave that aspect cut. The more the executive handles the better I shall be pleased. It is really nonsense to say that because a train is to go from London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, and has to cross the Border, it makes it impossible for the two countries to have their own transport systems. What about a train which, starting in Paris, crosses Italy, then Yugoslavia and finally arrives at Istanbul? Is it to be argued that neither the Yugoslays, the Italians nor the Turks are entitled to have their own transport system because that train crosses their frontiers? There is nothing in such an argument; it does not make much sense. There is a growing depth of feeling about this matter. I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly to the hon. Member for the Western Isles, who, I think, purposely tried to pull wool over the eyes of the House, that this is not a question of Scottish Nationalism but one of an antidote to Scottish Nationalism

  1307
  because those Members who represent Scottish constituencies are aware, and cannot help being aware, of the growing feeling at this centralisation of all Scottish interests in London. Those who are English Members know nothing about it. I have no doubt that the Press considered that we were benefiting when they instituted the system from which we are suffering of the major English daily papers having brought out a Scottish edition, with the result that Scottish matters, such as demands for Scottish transport—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now much too wide of the Amendment.
  Colonel Hutchison: I would conclude the matter by saying that these Scottish questions are not known to the English public. They live in a watertight compartment. We who represent Scottish constituencies are very much aware of how much is felt in Scotland on this and analogous questions. We have devolution in health, education and housing, and we have a separate Scottish Tourist Board. Why, then, is it not possible for us to have an executive for Scotland on this equally important question of Scottish transport? I regret that the Government are to refuse us. For a moment, a breath of fresh air and sanity came through those doors from another place, and it blew up to Scotland, and the Scots were grateful, and approved. Now, if it is again to be stifled, I say, in all seriousness, to hon. Members opposite, that a man is appearing in front of this Juggernaut car which the Government are driving with their Transport Bill. He is carrying a red flag, but hon. Members need not cheer; he is no supporter of theirs. He is giving the warning "If you go further along this road, you do so with danger."
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. McLean Watson: It is only since the last General Election that we have seen the slightest indication the part of Tories of a desire to have Scottish affairs brought to the fore. Over and over again I have seen Scottish Home Rule Bills introduced into this House, but I have never heard a word from the Tory benches in favour of Scottish Home Rule. But here we have a Transport Bill, and there comes
  1308
  from another place a proposal that we should have a separate Executive for Scotland. I want as much control of Scottish affairs by Scotsmen as is possible, but I have never disguised the fact that even if we had Scottish Home Rule, we could not have purely Scottish railways.
  Colonel Hutchison: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are we in Order in discussing Scottish Home Rule?
  Mr. Watson: I am discussing the question of a Scottish Executive in connection with this Measure, and I am pointing out that it is impossible to separate Scotland from England when we have such organisations as the present railway system. We never had any objection from hon. Members opposite when the four railway companies, including the two which serve Scotland, were created. There was no objection to any executive, no criticism of the way in which the railways were run. It is only now, when we have this Bill before us, that there is a demand from the other side of the House for a Scottish Executive. As has been pointed out, there is no indication in the Amendment how this Executive is to function, what powers it is to have, and what financial control there will be.
  Mr. Maclay: There is no real indication that the Bill will function in any other direction.
  Mr. Watson: It will function all right, and hon. Members opposite know it. What is troubling them is that all these nationalisation schemes are coming along. As a last resort, we have this development of Scottish Nationalism. I could have understood it, had it been on this side of the House, because we have always been in favour of the largest measure of Scottish self-government. Every Measure that has been introduced has been condemned on the assumption that what we were asking for was purely separation from England. Here is a Measure which simply proposes to deal with transport. I am one who wishes as much self-government as possible for Scotland, but I am still prepared to accept this Measure. My reason is that, under it, there is a chance of a co-ordinated system, a really effective system of transport for Scotland, including the Isles and the Highlands. We know that improved transport is needed there.

  1309
  I believe that the provisions of this Bill, coupled with the assurances we have had from the Minister, are ample to safeguard our interests. We have plenty of other things to attend to in Scotland apart from transport, even if, by and by, we get a Scottish Parliament.
  I would remind hon. Members that this question is not confined to railway transport. There are English interests in other forms of Scottish transport. Finance knows no borders. English finance does not stop at Berwick. Finance crosses rivers and borders. It knows no frontiers, nor does it know nationalism. I hope that we are not going to waste more time on this. We have a considerable amount of work to get through before we dispose of all the Amendments on the Order Paper. I hope that we will not spend more time in a useless attempt on the part of hon. Members opposite to raise the issue of Scottish Nationalism, because it will cut no ice at the next General Election. This attitude has developed since the last Election. They have been attempting to show the people that they stand for Scottish Nationalism, but Scotland is not following them. The people know sufficient of the peers who have represented Scotland in another place to know that they are not the leaders of the Scottish people.
  Mr. Maclay: There are one or two points with which I wish to deal, and I hope that it will not be a waste of time. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) feels that we are wasting time, because this is very important. My first point is in relation to something which the Minister said in his speech. It was a point which was worrying me. He pointed out that there will be a large degree of decentralisation and of area control. I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting some Amendments and putting in certain qualifications which make that more and more certain. The Minister also referred to the area road passenger transport scheme. I am not quite clear whether that does away with the need for a Scottish Transport Executive. What we are really after is effective decentralisation. I think hon. Members in all parts of the House want that. What we want is proper co-ordination and the production of a properly integrated service. The Minister talked about unification.
  1310
  Before I come to the main argument on integration, I would ask, what about long-distance road transport of goods? I think I am right in saying that that does not come under the area schemes. It is to be operated by whichever Executive is responsible. In the main, it must be operated from London. There is something in what the Minister said when it is applied to passenger road transport. There is a great deal in it when applied to docks and harbours. But I would point out what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgcw (Colonel Hutchison) said, that this Amendment does not necessarily impose on the Scottish Transport Executive, if it comes into existence, the necessity of dealing with all and everything in the Bill. The Amendment would merely pit a Scottish Transport Executive there and the Executive would have such functions as the Commission for the time being delegated to it. If I understand the Amendment correctly, that is the position.
  What would be the function of a Scottish Transport Executive? I submit that before long the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) will wish there was a Scottish Executive to overcome the very difficulties about which he spoke. One thing which the hon. Member for the Western Isles is never going to overcome, is the fact that the Minch gets rough and that a certain type of ship is necessary for transport. Unfortunately, it is an expensive type of ship which must be fast, and which must co-ordinate with road transport at ore end and rail transport at the other. If the hon. Member hopes that nationalisation will solve the problem of people getting across the Minch without being sick, he is more of an optimist than I am.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Surely, the hon. Member will admit that private enterprise would never have given us any service there? That is shown by the very fact that we have to pay such immense subsidies from the State to support private enterprise which never gave us goods service until it had State assistance.
  Mr. Maclay: I think it will be agreed that we are getting out of Order—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, and I would remind the hon. Member that it was he who started it.
  Mr. Maclay: My argument was merely by way of illustration, but I submit that the hon. Member for the Western Isles went further, and I did not want to follow him. The point is that we need the proper co-ordination of the railways and other transport services. Will the hon. Member get that in this set-up? I submit that there is the strongest possible case for a Scottish Executive with powers delegated to it as the Commission may desire. If we had that, we could put to the Scottish Transport Executive the peculiar problems of certain areas of Scotland, including the area of the hon. Member for the Western Isles, which constitutes one of our great difficulties. It is going to be extremely difficult to decide on the best form of this service, and there is the problem of providing services for islands which provide very little traffic. I think that, in regard to some of the smaller islands, the problems are incapable of solution under the present set-up, and are a matter for a Scottish Executive, and I do not think this is denied by the Advisory Committee. I think that, even with passenger road transport, we shall need some body in Scotland which can do the co-ordinating which is not possible, or, at any rate, very difficult, under the Bill as it stands. For that reason, I feel bound to support the Amendment.
  Mr. Scollan: I want to say a word or two about the Amendment sent to us by another place asking for a Scottish Transport Executive. I can understand the Road Transport Executive, as mentioned in the Bill, but I cannot understand what is meant by a Scottish Transport Executive. The Bill itself is drafted very definitely on industrial lines, and it creates a Railway Executive, a Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, and others. If this particular Amendment is accepted, for the establishment of a Scottish Transport Executive, would it mean that we should have English and Welsh Transport Executives, a London Transport Executive and a Scottish Transport Executive as well, and, at the same time, a Scottish Consultative Committee in addition to the various Consultative Committees for the other areas? It does not seem to me that that is at all helping to amend the Bill in a proper spirit. All the claims that have been made for it have been made on the
  1312
  grounds that only the Scottish people, or some of their representatives, know the problems of transport that confront Scotland. Complete provision has been made for that in Clause 6 of the Bill, which says:
  "a Transport Users Consultative Committee in respect of both passenger and goods traffic for Scotland."
  Obviously, if we have a consultative committee for Scotland, it will be composed of merchants, industrialists, trade unionists and all the different interests, and there is no way in which we can get a body that can advise on their own needs better than that. But there is something more than that. The situation at present is that, under the merger that took place in the railway transport system, when the Glasgow and South-Western Railway, the Caledonian Railway and the North British Railway—
  Mr. Boothby: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Scollan: Prior to that merger, we had these separate railways, but we also had the North British Railway locomotive and wagon works, the Caledonian Railway locomotive and wagon works, and the Glasgow and South-Western Railway locomotive and wagon works; but when the capitalist merger took place, all these works were transferred from Glasgow to Crewe and Derby, and not a single voice was raised against it. But now what do we get? For the first time we are getting the right to raise on public bodies the need of some particular part of Scotland. For the first time in the history of Scotland, the people of a given locality can say to their representative, "We are not being properly catered for by the transport system, and we want you to take up the matter." What hon. Members opposite are saying is that they want some kind of Scottish autonomy, such as this ambiguous body, the Scottish Transport Executive. If they had it, it would mean that the consultative body would have to disappear; there would he no point in having the two.
  8.15 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: Why not?
  Mr. Scollan: They want a Scottish Transport Executive as well as a consultative body. Now we are getting to the

  1313
  nigger in the wood pile; somebody is looking for a job. The leopard cannot change its spots. In every public corporation set up under past Governments, some representative of the investing class, and a sympathetic member of the Conservative Party generally, found a job. I can see now what they want; the Scottish nobility have always had their eye on the big chance. I am very glad that we have been told that they want both, because we now know that somebody wants to be more ornamental than useful, and to draw £2,000 a year as a member of the Scottish Transport Executive. But I do not think we can fool the Scottish people all the time; they know perfectly well what has been the record of the Scottish nobility. I will not go into that, however, because to do so would be out of Order.
  Lord John Hope: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for that compliment. No doubt that is why I am in this House today.
  Mr. Scollan: As a matter of tact one swallow does not make a summer
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow the hon Member to continue that line of argument. Perhaps he will be good enough to come back to the original argument.
  Mr. Scollan: I will do so with pleasure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because the other subject is a very dismal and sorry one. The hopes of the people of Scotland, as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), are the main points in regard to this Bill [here is no question that, in the past. whatever the ambitions of the Scottish people have been to develop the northern part of Scotland, they have been largely frustrated owing to the fact that transport was almost impossible. That has been the biggest obstacle to the development of northern Scotland. When the new developments which are visualised actually take place, it is obvious that somebody must be prepared to spend the necessary money in order to develop that part of the country. No capitalist company ever spends money for the purpose of development; it spends money only when it is sure that it is going to get back something extra in the process.
  It will take years before the people of this country will be repaid, but the thing
  1314
  must obviously be done. It can be done only by a nationalised transport system, where there is a common pool of money, and a sensible and long-range vision about expenditure in certain places for the purpose of developing the country The potential wealth of the North has not been developed by the people who pay lip service to it. It can be developed, but this is the only way to do it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will resist this Amendment.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I rise at this stage of the Debate for the purpose of putting to the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I now see in his place, the view of this side of the House that he ought to take part in the Debate, and I think my reason for saying that will become obvious as I go along. I trust that my rising now will enable him to have time to prepare his reply while those of my hon. Friends who so desire follow me. I think it is quite clear that there is a vast number of points to be covered in this, which is, perhaps, the most important question relating to Scotland which has yet been brought up in this Parliament. I doubt whether the Secretary of State would disagree with that statement. It is certainly very much more important than points on which we have spent a whole day on the Second Reading of Bills, and the detail involved is even greater than in most Bills, and nearly as great as, and of much more importance than, the Town and Country Planning Bill which took us a very long time to consider. Therefore, I have no doubt that a number of points will be covered by those on this side of the House who will follow me.
  The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) alluded to a "bizarre coalition" opposing the Government's view on this question. It is perfectly true that in Scotland there are persons united on this issue who have probably never been united before on a political issue, and, perhaps, will rarely be united again. When that kind of thing occurs, when people who are lifelong political enemies, or who have no politics at all, take the same view, there is a very high probability that they are right. I can think of no other reason why there should be this "bizarre coalition," as the hon. Member calls it, against the Government's proposal.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that the same thing has happened on every other matter coming under nationalisation.
  Mr. Reid: I will deal in a moment with the various bodies in this coalition, but I am surprised to learn that the hon. Member should apparently think that the Scottish T.U.C. is a Nationalist body.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: I have not said that.
  Mr. Reid: The Scottish T.U.C. is one of the bodies involved. If the hon. Member does not say that, I do not see the sense of his interjection.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make his case as efficiently, as he always does, but he must not say that I said the Scottish T.U.C. is a Nationalist body. The reason this "bizarre coalition" I mentioned is so bizarre is the fact that we have on the one hand the Scottish Nationalists, and on the other hand the T.U.C., the Church of Scotland and the Tory Party. The very essence of this bizarre position is the fact that the Scottish T.U.C. is attached to such an assortment of people.
  Mr. Reid: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have paused when he found all these bodies united against him, but, apparently, such is his loyalty to the party caucus in London that he puts that before any other consideration. I will have occasion in a few moments to remark on another part of the hon. Gentleman's speech which, I think, carries more weight than it would otherwise have done, by reason of the fact that he is the chairman of the Scottish Members who sit on the opposite benches, and, therefore, he may be supposed to speak for them in this matter, to a certain extent at least.
  Coming to the merits of the Amendment, the Minister and others have said that the Amendment is vague. I do not think it lies in the mouth of the Minister producing this Bill to complain of vagueness; of course, the Amendment is vague. The Clause is vague, and it would not be possible on such a vague Clause to draft a detailed Amendment. Observe what the Clause says. It says:
  "Each executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by or under a scheme made
  1316
  by the Commission and approved by the Minister."
  There is no definition of the powers or duties of any of the executives; and, indeed, plain notice that they may vary from time to time. They may vary from time to time in the most fundamental manner. Therefore, it does not seem odd that an Amendment to such a Clause should be vague in its terms. But what is behind the Amendment is not in the least vague, as the right hon. Gentleman himself very well knows, because the Scottish Council of Development and Industry has had some communications with the Minister on this matter, and the chairman, presenting a unanimous resolution, has put forward in great detail a scheme which that Council has sponsored, and it is not in the least a vague scheme.
  It is a scheme which could be given effect to with ease under the Amendment, but it would be quite impossible for a scheme of this sort to be brought into effect if the Amendment is rejected. The scheme occupies half a column in print, and the history of the matter is this. Representatives of the Council, who represent every shade of political thought in Scotland, who represent all classes of the community, met the Minister and got the same sort of soothing syrup as we have had today—I shall say more about it in a moment—and went away completely dissatisfied. They took the view that there was no guarantee that a statutory scheme would be provided, and they set themselves to devise a positive scheme for Scotland within the framework of the Transport Bill, and they did that because, as they say,
  "Embracing as it does all shades of effective political opinion, the Council is itself strictly non-political. It is completely impartial on the question of the nationalisation as such, but is vitally concerned to ensure that the arrangements made with particular industries which are nationalised are not prejudicial to legitimate Scottish economic interests."
  That is the basis on which this Council—as I say, completely representative and unanimous—set forth to devise a scheme; and they devised a long scheme. I shall not weary the House by reading it. The Minister knows perfectly well what it is about. If he or somebody else, likes to get up to pick holes in it, to show why it will not work, let him do so. All I can say is that it is very odd, if he thinks it will not work, that he has not said so before now. I should have thought

  1317
  that, in the course of these Debates, the plain answer to this Amendment, if there is an answer, would be, "This Amendment, if it is founded on anything, is founded on the Scottish Council's scheme; I can show you here and now that it is an unworkable scheme; nobody has suggested any other reasons for the Amendment, and, therefore, the Amendment is a bad Amendment." It would have been a devastating argument, but it has never been advanced because it cannot be advanced, as the Minister knows quite well. What the Scottish Council has said is perfectly true.
  Mr. McAllister: It is surprising that, in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument he attaches so much importance to the Scottish Council for Industry, which is a non-statutory, non-elected, non-executive, purely advisory body, with no status of any kind except the status created by itself.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Reid: I do t of say anything about that. I do not think the hon. Member is right, because it is quite clear that this Council is, among other things, directly representative of local authorities. The chairman has said it in black and white, and nobody has challenged it. I do not carry with me the constitution of the body, but I am quite sure the chairman would not put that in black and white unless it were accurate.
  Mr. McAllister: I think the right hon. and learned Member knows that representatives are appointed by the associations to local authorities, and surely he would agree that that is not representation in the electoral sense.
  Mr. Reid: Of course, I know that hon. Members opposite are doing their best today, and otherwise, to diminish the importance of all local authorities in Scotland. They are deliberately doing that; they have done it time and again; and I am not surprised at that attitude, for the very simple reason that local authorities—be they Unionist, Socialist, or non-political—are Scotsmen first, whereas hon. Members opposite are showing by their conduct that they are not only Socialists first, but English Socialists first. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh but I will justify that before I have finished.
  1318
  I wish to put on record the views of representative Scottish bodies who are unanimous upon this. I think the Secretary of State for Scotland may now begin to see why I think he ought to reply to this Debate. The document before me ends thus:
  "A system of this nature"—
  that is to say, a system which this Amendment would allow, but which we have no indication that the Government will accept—
  "would ensure the co-ordination of all transport in Scotland, and would provide for decisions on transport questions being taken in Scotland. The Scottish Council is satisfied that it would be entirely workable in practice, and that it would meet the needs of Scotland without conflicting in any way with the essential principles of the Transport Bill."
  That is what the Scottish Council found it necessary to publish after having been to the Minister and having been dissatisfied with his view—and found it necessary unanimously. Let us see what the Minister said against that very detailed statement. The Minister said that this scheme was apparently attempting exploitation on false sentimental or nationalist grounds. I was not quite clear what it was attempting to exploit, but I did take down those words. Does he still say that? Does he say that the Scottish Council were attempting to exploit the situation on sentimental or nationalist grounds. Does he say that about the Scottish T.U.C., I wonder? I am not quite certain whether the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society come into this matter, but if they do, I am quite sure they take the same view as the T.U.C. and the Development Council. Perhaps the Minister might ask some of his friends there what they think about it.
  All I could gather from the right hon. Gentleman was that railway devolution was to be unified and strengthened. I am bound to say that those words did not convey any clear picture to my mind. I have not seen a clear picture in the earlier proceedings of this Bill. I may have missed it, but I have not seen it. Then we were told we would probably have an area road transport. I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman wants to call Scotland merely an area? I should have thought he might have been learning not to do that by now. But let that be. What was the only argument he put forward? I was able to detect only one. He was satisfied that it was serving Scottish interests, because

  1319
  under the Bill we are to be subsidised by England whereas under the Amendment we would not be. Now, he did not say those words, but I listened very carefully to the words which he did use and I could read no other meaning out of them. If he really meant something else I would be much obliged if he would tell us, but the impression which I certainly got was that he took the view that Scottish transport could not stand upon its own feet and must be subsidised by England. If that is right—and I very much doubt whether it is right—then let us know about it. I have not heard it stated in that way before. Let us know what calculated amount of subsidy the right hon. Gentleman thinks England should pay to Scotland for Scotland to have an adequate transport system. I am sure that the Scottish Council did not realise that that was the position; otherwise I find it difficult to understand why they should have pursued the line that they took.
  I do not want to put forward my own argument in this matter. I do not profess to be an expert in transport in any shape or form. What I am trying to do is to gather together and put before the House the consensus of opinion from all quarters in Scotland. Among those who really know about it, we have not discovered a single Scottish source which takes the opposite view, apart from those directly subordinate to the Socialist Party. I want to read certain words as part of my argument, and then say a word about them.
  "Indeed, to most Scotsmen, it would appear as if Whitehall's insistence upon long-distance control in administration is calculated to secure for these new public service ventures the worst possible start. Nothing is more certain than that other Scottish boards, and particularly in air and land transport, will require to have separate statutory creation if the social and administrative services of the country are to be run efficiently with knowledge of local circumstances and with a minimum of frustration and annoyance to the lieges in the North."
  These are the words of Mr. Tom Johnston. I think that Scotland is rather interested in this matter, because to most Scotsmen Mr. Tom Johnston appears to be the most eminent living Socialist in that country. I doubt whether hon. Members opposite will deny that he has rendered to their party in the past very great services. I was a little surprised at the chairman of the Scottish Socialist Members saying that Mr. Tom
  1320
  Johnston was no longer a Socialist, and that he was now only a Scottish Nationalist. If that is the view of Scottish Socialist Members, and if they have moved so far away from their own past that they must now disown Mr. Tom Johnston, let it be made public to Scotland.
  Mr. Scollan: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Mr. Tom Johnston found a place in the hearts of the Scottish people because of his exposure of the Scottish noble families and their clique?
  Mr. Reid: I should have thought myself that Mr. Tom Johnston found his present eminence by his successful administration of the affairs of Scotland for four years in most difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot find anything about Mr. Tom Johnston in this Amendment.
  Mr. Reid: I agree that it is not relevant to discuss Mr. Tom Johnston's peculiar status in Scotland, but it is relevant to point out that Scottish Socialists, in supporting the Government on this matter, are compelled to throw over the most eminent living Scottish Socialist, and to go back on what they have said throughout their political lives.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I appeal to you not to allow Members opposite to make the same speeches half-a-dozen times?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot quite follow the point which the hon. and gallant Member has just put to me.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: As I was directly addressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), I would ask him not to misrepresent what I said about Mr. Johnston. I said that he had pandered to a nationalist type of propaganda, and that on this issue, he was not the spokesman of the majority of the Scottish electors.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I ought to make it clear that from now onward in this Debate, Mr. Tom Johnston is out of Order.
  Mr. Reid: I will not mention his name again. [Laughter.] Things have come to a pretty pass when that name is greeted with ribald laughter in this House. I do not desire to take up any more time, except to say that unless the Secretary of State for Scotland justifies the Government's attitude in this matter, Scotland will feel that once again the right hon. Gentleman has let down the interests of his native country.
  Mr. Gilzean: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what was the attitude of the Church of Scotland?
  Mr. Reid: I could, but I will not.
  Mr. John Henderson: With a considerable amount of diffidence I intervene at this late stage in the discussion. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for Members representing English constituencies at the patience they have exhibited while Scottish Members have been discussing this Amendment. I think all sides of the House must he appreciative of, and grateful to, the Members of another place for putting down this Amendment, and giving Scottish Members the opportunity to express their views on this matter. For a moment or two I will leave Mr. Tom Johnston and the Scottish Nationalist Party alone, and try to take Members to "Bonnie Scotland." Scotland differs considerably from any part of England and Wales, because there are great areas of land divided by mountains, hills, and rivers.
  A very distinguished Member of this House asked me, the other week, where he could go to Scotland for a holiday, and I suggested a place called Rothesay, in the Kyles of Bute. I gave him the name of a good hotel, and he said he would go there. But a few weeks later he said he had changed his mind. He had wanted to take his car and his family, hut after inquiries he found that the car would take him only to a certain part of Scotland, and that he would then have to get a boat to take the car across the Firth of Clyde and land him at the Madeira of Scotland. Because of this trouble, and the fact that boats were available only at high tide for the conveyance of cars, he scrapped his arrangements, and decided to go to another part of Scotland.
  Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Member telling the House that boats travelling between the Island of Bute and the mainland are available only at high tide, because that is not true?
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Henderson: Boats will accept motor cars only at certain times of the day, when high tide prevails. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) has contradicted me, but I think I am perfectly right. I produce that evidence to prove the difficulty that bound to be experienced in connection with the nationalisation of transport so far as Scotland is concerned. I think it is most desirable that these Executives should be composed of people who will have an intimate knowledge of the difficulties of Scotland, and I am more than surprised to hear the opposition from hon. Members on the other side of the House. A great many of them I have had the privilege of knowing for a long number of years, and they have expressed the greatest concern about the conditions in Scotland, and how it has been unjustly treated by English Governments. Here is a golden opportunity for them to go into the Division Lobby today and render something more than lip service in the cause of Scotland. I was greatly struck by the speech of a noble Lord in another place, in which he wound up on behalf of His Majesty's Government. He was replying to certain riticism responsible for the Amendment being carried, and he said:
  "I am not quite sure why I have been selected to speak on behalf of the Government. I have, to the best of my knowledge, no Scottish blood in my veins."
  Mr. Willis: Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to read a speech made in another place?
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Is it not in Order to read what a Minister says in another place on behalf of the Government?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is only in Order on Government policy.
  Mr. Henderson: The noble Lord was replying on behalf of the Government and, therefore, he must have been replying with regard to the policy of de Government. He said:

  1323
  "I have, to the' best of my knowledge, no Scottish blood in my veins, but I was fortunate enough to have a Scottish godfather"—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am puzzled because I do not know to which noble Lord the hon. Gentleman is referring, and whether it is Government policy which he is quoting.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is Government policy to call upon someone who has no Scottish blood in his veins.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not for the Chair to judge whether or not the statement is true.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I hope that that will not be regarded as any reflection on the ancestry of a noble Lord in another place?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not at all.
  Mr. Mitchison: Is the question of a godfather in the distant past a matter of Government policy?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not being Solomon, I refrain from giving any decision.
  Mr. Henderson: I am quoting Lord Walkden. He said:
  "When I was younger, I had a fine sandy beard, but that is as near as I can get to being a Scotsman."
  If these are the noble Lord's only qualifications for dealing with Scots affairs, and should this ever be read by Scots people, one of two things will happen. They will hold their hands above their heads, their eyes will be turned up to heaven, and they will say, "Ma conscience," or else they will bow their heads to the ground, and say, "Puir auld Scotland."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no spokesmen in another place.
  Mr. Henderson: I did not attribute my remarks to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. These were the observations made by the noble Lord in another place, who wound up the Debate on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
  Again, I would reinforce the appeals which have been made, and I hope that
  1324
  this Amendment will be pursued so that an Executive for Scotland to deal with Scottish affairs will be set up. A great deal of the ground has already been covered. It is difficult to say anything new, because so much has already been said, but I hope Labour Members on the other side of the House will make effective their utterances regarding having Scotland's welfare so much at heart by voting with this party in the Lobby to see that justice is done to Scottish transport.
  Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I always like to follow the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. John Henderson), because he is always interesting though not very illuminating. I am still waiting for someone from the other side to tell me what this Amendment means. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), has fallen from grace for he has entered into a marriage which is a flop, politically speaking. He with his experience and his background in Glasgow knows perfectly well that the purpose behind this Amendment is just as it was described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison)—an anti dote to Scottish Nationalism. I have never known of a recovery in any country in the world which was such an antidote. If I read the Bill correctly, if this Executive were appointed they would carry out the desires and instructions of the Commission. If that is so, the Scottish Executive is not even an antidote; it is a negative commodity. The amazing thing about this is—I have known many hon. Gentlemen opposite, including some on the Front Bench, who hoped some day to qualify for higher office, on every conceivable occasion express this intensive desire to remove the remote control of Whitehall. As a matter of fact the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) had ample opportunity of removing the clammy hand of Whitehall. Instead of that he transferred his services to the Ministry of Agriculture in England.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman going a little out of the way?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am wondering in what manner the hon. Member was going to use that illustration.
  Mr. McKinlay: I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) will not think ill of me because I am fulfilling a function at the moment for the Conservative Party, namely to keep this Debate going—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that is the business of the Amendment under discussion.
  Mr. McKinlay: It is a party Amendment, and I was saying that this is a deliberate attempt to keep the Amendment going until the main army has been fed, even at the risk of the emaciation of the Scottish Members on the Front Bench. When I hear of this desire and demand to get away from Whitehall, I have to point out that every single Member on the Front Bench opposite at the moment knows perfectly well that so long as the Treasury has its clammy hand on Scotland, there is nothing any Executive or any other body can do about it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is the hon. Gentleman challenging me?
  Mr. McKinlay: No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is only one of the crowd.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman challenges me as one of the crowd. He did me the honour of saying that I had been in control for a time of a certain Government Department. Does he realise that when I set up the Milk Board, I gave it no power over Scotland, but provided a separate Scottish Milk Board which had powers similar to those held here? If the party opposite will do in this case, what I did for the Milk Board we will be satisfied as Scotsmen.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have a discussion on the Milk Board now.
  Mr. McKinlay: I am surprised at the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, introducing such a subject as that. In any case, so far as concerns the much boosted Milk Board—and I am using this by way of illustration, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—there was a man whose name has been unfairly dealt with here tonight and who was the father of organised milk distribution among school children, which is the most important thing. I myself have had to drink milk imported from England.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not doubt that, but it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
  Mr. McKinlay: I do not wish to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaks r, but I am trying to develop my point as to how the Board could improve its transport system to bring that milk to Scotland in a more orderly way. Even the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who seems to have forgotten but who used to sit for one of the Belfast constituencies would agree that an efficient transport system could distribute Ulster milk in the West of Scotland rather more quickly than can be done at the moment.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman alluding to me as sitting for Belfast?
  Mr. McKinlay: I did not really, because I said "the hon. and gallant Gentleman who used to represent Belfast." The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a Member of the House at present. The gentleman in question still represents a constituency in the dirty, black North.
  Sir R. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing—I will not say his own representation with mine but the fact is that I have always been in the North-West and have never represented Belfast. I have always represented Londonderry. And when we distribute milk to Scotland we do so by sea—oddly enough.
  Mr. McKinlay: The antidote contained in this Amendment has evidently net penetrated to the North of Ireland. What really brought me to my feet is the fact that Scottish devolution is receiving stir-port from the most peculiar quarter, so much so that I am beginning to think that I have been wrong all my life. I am suspicious. If any hon. Member on the other side believes that the appointment of the Scottish Executive will strengthen Scottish transport, will he please explain how, so long as the Treasury control the purse strings, what the purpose is of creating the proposed Scottish Executive, to act under the directions of a Commission still located in Whitehall? I have not heard any hon. Member try to explain that point.
  I am speaking on behalf of all the Labour Members without exception, who have discussed this matter inside out. If we cannot get the reasonable explanation for

  1327
  which I am asking I do not think that there is much hope of our departing from our decision to support the Minister. We think he is correct, and that a co-ordinated service can only come by the methods which he proposes and which are contained in the Bill.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir T. Moore: I would like to bring the discussion back to the Amendment which has been sent from another place. I have listened to all the arguments that have been used and I have not found one answer given by the Minister or any of his supporters that appeals either to the reason or the intellect. To passion and to prejudice, yes, but not to reason. I sometimes wonder whether there may be a discrimination taking place by which Scotsmen are not to be given executive jobs in their own country but are to be dragged out of Scotland, with the object of giving them jobs in England. Is England indeed so short of men of capacity and experience that Government policy is designed to make good the deficiency with Scots. Is there any plan to deny Scotsmen work in their own country?
  After the fantastic farrago of nonsense that has been talked by hon. Gentlemen opposite, one wonders how the Government can carry on its work at all. One is torn, in discussions of this kind, between two clashing interests. One is how to give more control to Scotsmen over Scottish affairs in Scotland. The other is how to maintain as close as possible the link between the two countries, Scotland and the larger though less important country South of the Border. Despite the economic depths into which we are about to be hurled and in which we may lose everything that we have been building up for so long, I say that the point in the proposed Amendment means a great deal to Scotland.
  I see the Secretary of State here in his place, I hope ready to abandon his participation in this surrender. I warn him that Scotland is getting rather tired of control by England, and of being included in every piece of English legislation. Occasionally we get a sop like the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, or the National Health Services Bill but still the control remains here. Whether or not we get those sporadic last Clauses
  1328
  in a Bill saying that the Bill applies or does not apply to Scotland does not alter the fact that control still remains in Westminster and that we still suffer from the old overlordship of England. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) who has just spoken, referred to the power of the Treasury. We cannot deny that, but we want to ensure that Scotsmen in Scotland are permitted to administer such funds as they receive from the Treasury, and to use the knowledge they have of Scottish affairs.
  I referred to the Secretary of State just now. I would like to say, that I like him personally very much, as he knows, but I blame him for some of the results from which we are suffering and especially for the result that we are discussing tonight. I do not say that he did not fight in the Cabinet for this Amendment—I am sure he did—but he does not fight for the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which should dominate not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but every other English Minister, because the Secretary of State for Scotland is the Prime Minister of Scotland, and he should recognise himself as such and not allow himself to be treated as a shuttlecock between the various contending interests in England. The time has come for us to put our foot down on this question. I ask the Secretary of State to realise the strength of the feeling that exists and urge him to exercise his authority in order to ensure that Scotsmen get the chance of running Scotland as they want to run it and not as the Minister of Transport wants to run it.
  Mr. Spence: The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) asked if anyone on this side would tell him what an Executive Committee would do in Scotland. He referred to the fact that if it were set up in Scotland, it would have no power of its own because it would be under the Commission. Why should any Executives be set up at all? Five or six other Executives are laid down in the Bill to work under the Commission, but if they work independently and have a certain autonomy of action on occasions, surely the Scottish Executive set up would have an autonomy of action? If a Scottish Executive is set up, the result would be that we should have men and women who know the conditions in Scotland taking

  1329
  action on the spot when it was needed and not a month late, as would probably happen if the matter is done by Whitehall. The Minister rather misled us when he implied that Scotland would be worse off financially if we had our own Executive. That has been debunked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). There can be no doubt that if Scotland got an Executive it would be no worse off financially than it would be working under the main Committee from Whitehall.
  The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) said that the call for an Executive for Scotland was a flash in the pan and an isolated case. He has faithfully attended at the Scottish Grand Committee and he will know the feeling in Scotland today and the continuous efforts that have been made from this sid of the House to get as much local control as possible of our own affairs. I quite understand the uneasiness of hon. Members opposite. They remember their Election speeches. I remember them, too. They will have to explain to their constituents when they go back this weekend why they did not go into the Lobby on our side.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: When this Debate is read in Scotland tomorrow, there will be a considerable amount of disappointment at the smallness of the arguments from the other side directed to the merits of the Amendment. The other side have attacked this Amendment almost wholly on political grounds. They have attacked it with ridicule and levity. But they have done nothing whatever to argue the case for the coordination in Scotland of transport in Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) argued that even this Executive would have to take orders from London. What is likely to be the order of the Executive in London? Surely, it wil be, "Get on with the job, co-ordinate transport in Scotland, and leave us alone as far as possible." That is what Scotland wants and that is the kind of order we expect to be given by the Commission. So far as co-ordination with England is concerned, that can be done between the Scottish Board and the Commission, or with any separate board or Executive that may be set up in England, but the essential thing is that the co-ordination in Scotland should be
  1330
  done in Scotland by those who have the needs of Scotland in mind. For that reason, I strongly support the Amendment.
  Mr. Boothby: This has been a very interesting Debate, rather an epoch-making Debate for Scotland. I was very astonished at the remarks of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) when he said that he thought our object in putting down the Amendment was to get jobs for ourselves. One thing we are absolutely certain of on this side is that as long as the present Government remain in power, there is not a hope of any of us getting a job. We know there are many jobs going and we know where they are going. I am not bitter about it. It is one of the unpleasant facts of life which has to be faced.
  I did not follow the argument of the hon. Member for West Renfrew in that connection. Little did I think that I should live to see the day when Tom Johnston would be thrown to the winds by the party opposite. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. H. MacMillan) threw him out and described him as an ex-Socialist. I hope this does not mean that he will be sacked from the Hydro-Electric Board, because he is doing a very good job there. I beg the Minister to give some assurance on that point. Nevertheless, it is another indication of the rising tide of anti-Scottish prejudice which is gripping hon. Members opposite, particularly the Scottish Socialist hon. Members. I cannot understand what has come over them. If we read their Electron addresses, we find—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I hope the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the matter before the House.
  Mr. Boothby: With great respect and all humility, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I submit that we are discussing a project of devolution and a project to set up a separate executive for transport in Scotland. That raises in a most critical form the whole question of self-government in greater or less degree in Scotland. That is the issue tonight.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I certainly cannot allow the hon. Member to develop an argument on that very large subject.
  Mr. Boothby: I shall not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I do not think you can rule

  1331
  me out of Order if I confine myself rigidly to what the Minister of Transport himself said. He said the Scottish Transport system must be integrated with that of England. We say that it should be dis-integrated from that of England to a certain extent. We want decentralisation and devolution, and that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite have in the past always claimed they wanted for Scotland. We have never been great advocates in the past of a marked degree of separation between England and Scotland. They have. How do we know it was not purely for the purpose of getting votes from the Nationalists in Scotland?
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member will do it, too.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: Not only did the Minister of Transport say that the Scottish transport system had to be closely integrated with that of England but he went on to refer in what I regarded as rather an offensive phrase, to the peculiar physical handicaps of Scotland. What did he mean by that? [An HON. MEMBER: "He was looking at you."] No further remarks of that nature, or I shall have to claim your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I propose to overlook it on this occasion. Nevertheless, the Minister referred to the peculiar physical handicaps of Scotland. I did not like the phrase. It showed a certain prejudice against Scotland. Do not let us have any "havers" now from the party opposite about decentralisation, devolution and self-government for Scotland. "Government of the people of Scotland by Whitehall, for Whitehall" is their slogan now, and at least we know where we are.
  There is very little we can do to rectify the situation. We are bound to be outvoted in the Lobby tonight, but I think many hon. Members of the Labour Party will go into the Lobby with a heavy heart, and with an uneasy, queasy feeling in the pit of the stomach that they are doing the wrong thing. I think Scottish Members of the party are unhappy about this thing, but do not wish to make a rift in the party. Nevertheless, they are dealing a very damaging blow at the economy and the general interests of Scotland. Not a single argument has been adduced in the whole course of the Debate to show why the proposal we are making in this
  1332
  Amendment should not be adopted, and why we should not run an executive in Scotland. It would do no harm whatever to the general structure of the Bill, or to the transport system of the country as a whole. Not a single argument has been put forward to show what is wrong with this proposal, or why it would not work.
  We in Scotland must reconcile ourselves to the fact that the only way in which we can have any say in the conduct of our affairs is to come down to Whitehall to run them from there. That, of course, is what we are doing to a great extent, but it is no great consolation to those who remain faithful in body as well as in spirit to the land of their birth, and who want to have some say in our affairs in Scotland. To throw cut the suggestion of Newcastle as a sop is not good enough; the Executive should be in Scotland.
  Commander Galbraith: While this Amendment is being treated with a certain amount of levity by hon. Members on the Government benches, it is nevertheless a matter of supreme importance to Scotland. It is a matter on which much of the future of Scotland depends, and it should have been debated in all seriousness. It is perfectly obvious from representations which have been put forward, and to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) referred, that this matter is considered as serious to the future of Scotland.
  Hitherto, at least as long as I have been in this House, I have always understood that the Secretary of State for Scotland was the champion of Scotland's rights. I should have thought it would have been fitting for him to rise tonight to answer the very serious problems which have been put forward in argument from this side of the House. Not only so, but I think he has a duty to tell the people of Scotland why it is that he does not agree with the Lords in this Amendment. There have been many cogent arguments put forward, and many public bodies truly non-political in Scotland, representing what I believe to be the true voice of Scotland, have made representations on the subject. Yet the right hon. Gentleman does not think it is a worthy subject on which to rise and reply to a Debate in this House. I have waited all the evening for the right hon.

  1333
  Gentleman to rise in his place. I am astonished and astounded, as Scotland will be tomorrow, that he has not had the courtesy to do so.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are, of course, only at an early stage of this Debate, and, therefore, I apologise for intervening so soon, but we are determined to have an answer from a Scottish Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are perfectly entitled to say that the Debate should go on. There are many arguments which can be adduced, and which will be adduced, until Scotland hears from its own Minister some answer to the case put by Scottish Members on this side of the House. Hon. Members opposite have adduced no argument against this Amendment, save the one that in any nationalisation scheme no devaluation of any kind or discretions such as this Amendment envisages may be permitted. This is, therefore, the beginning of a very serious process, which we intend to withstand. The Minister of Transport insisted that not merely an integration but a complete assimilation of the two systems was necessary before his scheme could work at all. This is not the only nationalisation Bill which is now before the House of Commons, and if that is to be so, we must take it as the stated policy of the Government, which is to he extended in many other directions. I see in his place the Lord President of the Council, who himself on a previous occasion steered a considerable Transport Measure through the House of Commons. He did it with great acceptance, but he was wise then not to bring forward any such extravagant claims as those which are being made by his successor the present Minister of Transport. I would that the Minister of Transport might borrow some of that sweet reasonableness with which the Lord President of the Council proceeded on those occasions.
  Mr. H. Morrison: It is time that something nice was said about me.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am only too willing to give credit where credit is due and honour where honour is due. The right hon. Gentleman was a great Minister of Transport. If he has since fallen from grace a little, it only shows how the gnawing years advance upon us. There has been nothing to justify this rigid and unthinking opposition which the Minister
  1334
  of Transport is advancing against this Amendment. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) put forward the vigorous defence of the Government which we expect from those who are working their passage, and working it pretty hard.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Might I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be honest just for once in these Debates, and say exactly what he means?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I have no objection whatever to stating that what I said, I said with the utmost honesty and sincerity, and I stand by every word of it.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Then would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain what he meant?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I have no difficulty in explaining what I meant. The hon. Member, who has been a long time in this House, and who has totally failed to get office under any Government, is very anxious to get it now.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, against that most scurrilous attack. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will cast his mind back to 1945, he will recall that there were Governments in office for ten years with which I would not be associated on any terms, and of which he was a distinguished Member and is now an extinguished one. I never sought office, I do not want office and I would not take office if it were offered to me. It is a scurrilous attack, and I demand a withdrawal.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that these personal animadversions are desirable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand, Major Milner, that you consider personal animadversions undesirable and you consider that my remark partook of that character. I can only say that I have heard remarks of a very much stronger character on many occasions about many hon. Members but, Sir, in deference to the Chair, and only in deference to the Chair, if you so consider, I certainly withdraw anything which the Chair considers out of Order.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Might I ask, on this point of Order—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that honours are now even and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be allowed to continue.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: On a point of Order. One would expect that a gentleman of so many years experience of this House, as he said himself, and who has himself been kicked out of every office he has held, would have the decency to withdraw more gracefully.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Whether or not honours were even before, I think it may be said that the hon. Member has done his best to get down as far as he can just now. The hon. Member for the Western Isles, whose incursions into our Debates we always greet with hilarity, has been pleased to make some animadversions upon his fellow Scotsmen. He says that he finds it impossible to believe that a Scottish Executive situated in Scotland will do justice to every part of Scotland. He totally failed to advance any argument to show why that should be so. He totally failed to justify in any way the many animadversions which he cast out against his own fellow-countrymen and, Sir, more particularly against that fellow-countryman, the most distinguished member which the Socialist Party has ever had, one whose boots he is not fit to black, Tom Johnston.
  The difficulties in which the House is placed by the action of the Government are simple and obvious. The Government have put up a Minister who is not acquainted with the affairs of Scotland to justify their action in connection with this matter which is of the greatest importance to Scotland herself. We have attempted to elicit from a Scottish Minister on a Scottish subject justification of actions which will be of the greatest importance to Scotland. The Executive for which we ask here is certainly not an Executive which anyone would describe as a wrecking of the Bill. In one of his wilder moments, the hon. Member for the Western Isles described this as an attempt to wreck the Bill although his own colleague pointed out that from their point of view the danger of the Amendment was that it was not sufficiently important and would not do anything to justify putting it in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite must have it one way or the
  1336
  other. They cannot have it both ways. I take it that they wish—
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Which of these two arguments does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accept—that it will wreck the Bill or that it is unimportant?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for the Western Isles, not for the first time, is placing an entirely false dilemma before the House. It will not wreck the Bill and it is not unimportant. I hope that he will be able to understand that plain answer. It is important and it will not wreck the Bill. It is important because it will place in Scotland the executive power over Scottish transport. The suggestion that before one changes a bus fare or a tram fare in Glasgow or Camlachie one has to get permission of the Minister of Transport—for that is what it comes to—that and other questions, as we all know ourselves, are questions of principle. They have to be brought down here before they can be answered and when we ask, "How do we obtain redress?" the answer is, "You obtain redress by putting a Question on the Floor of the House." That is a point which has been put time and again as an answer to the complaints made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House that an impossible degree of centralisation is being carried out.
  The possibility of managing the great affairs of Scotland by Questions on the Floor of this House may be judged by the rigid refusal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Under-Secretary to make any reply tonight on a very much more important question than some small point of procedure, or even of principle, in the management of some portion of Scottish administration. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to his great office and owes it to the House to make some answer to this point which we have pressed upon him, because of the arguments which have been put forward, the far-reaching argument which will certainly stop any similar devolution being carried through in any other Bill before the House.
  9.30 p.m.
  Surely on this occasion, the Secretary of State for Scotland will give us an answer? I am perfectly willing to resume my seat if he will do so. I am offering

  1337
  to facilitate the Government's business by resuming my seat to receive an answer from the Minister. If we are not to have it, then we must do our best to try and press our point of view. Will anybody, on behalf of the Government, explain why an executive in Edinburgh should be regarded as damaging to the prospects of this Bill? It still is subject to the overriding authority of the Commission. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McKinlay) said that, as long as the executive power remained in the Commission, and as long as the clammy hand of the Treasury remained, this Amendment would really not be of any great importance. [Interruption.] Well, let him say that to the T.U.C., and to the Industrial Development Council for Scotland, and to those many bodies and hon. Members—
  Mr. McKinlay: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? I have said that to 4,000 delegates in St. Andrew's Hall drawn from trade unions and other organisations throughout Scotland, and I will say it again to any trade union branch in the country.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Well, the hon. Member has certainly done what we begged the Secretary of State to do—to attempt some sort of reply on behalf of Scotland. Is it to be that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will do nothing in any way to defend themselves on their own case? The hon. Member who has just spoken explained that he has put the point before a delegate conference, and we must accept that horn him, but

  Division No. 321]

  AYES.

  9.35 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Blyton, W R.

  Daines, P.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Bowden, Flg.-Ofr. H. W.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Alpass, J. H

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W)

  Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell>

  Deer, G,

  Attewell, H. C.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Delargy, H. J

  Awbery, S. S

  Bruce, Maj. D. W T

  Diamond, J

  Ayles, W. H.

  Buchanan, G.

  Dobbie, W

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Burden, T. W

  Dodds, N. N

  Baird, J

  Burke, W. A.

  Donovan, T

  Balfour, A

  Champion, A. J.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Chater, D.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Barstow, P G.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Dumpleton, C W.

  Barton, C.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Battley, J. R

  Cocks, F S.

  Dye, S.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Coldrick, W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

  Belcher, J. W

  Collide, P.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Benson, G

  Collins, V. J.

  Edwards, Rt, Hon. Sir C (Bedwellty)

  Beswick, F.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Bing, G H C.

  Corbet, Mrs. F K (Came well N. W.)

  Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)

  Binns, J

  Cove, W. G

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Blackburn, A. R

  Crawley, A

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Blenkinsop, A

  Daggar, G

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  the Secretary of State has not answered or explained how he thinks this modest Amendment from another place could be regarded as injuring the Bill nor has he given any reason to suppose that the Minister of Transport, if he were to put the case strongly to him, would not concede this point. We beg him to do so, and, if he refuses, we must continue to ask him to do so, but at the present moment, it is clear that he is not going to rise, and all I can say is that we shall continue our opposition to the Government's proposal on every occasion when we can.
  Mr. Boorhby: On a point of Order. Would it be in Order, Mr. Speaker, to ask leave to move to report Progress?
  Mr. Speaker: During proceedings on the consideration of Lords Amendments, a Motion to report Progress is not in Order.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Further to that point of Order. Would it be possible to move the Adjournment of the Debate in order that a representative of the Government may have an opportunity of replying?
  Mr. Speaker: It would be in Order, but I might not accept it.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley)rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 312; Noes, 129.

  Ewart, R

  Longden, F.

  Sharp, Granville

  Fairhurst, F.

  Lyne, A. W

  Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H (St Helens)

  Farthing, W. J.

  McAdam, W

  Shurmer, P

  Fernyhough, E

  McAllister, G

  Silkin, Rt Hon. L.

  Field, Capl W J

  McEntee, V La T.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Follick, M,

  McGhee, H. G.

  Silverman, S S. (Nelson)

  Forman, J C.

  McGovern, J.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Foster, W (Wigan)

  Mack, J. D

  Skeffington, A. M

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Solley, L. J.

  Gallacher, W.

  McLeavy, F.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Gibbins, J

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Gibson, C W

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Stamford, W

  Gilzean, A.

  Mallalieu, J, P. W

  Steele, T.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Stephen, C

  Gooch, E. G.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Stress, Dr. B

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Mathers, G.

  Stubbs, A E

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mayhew, C. P

  Swingler, S.

  Grenfell, D R

  Medland, H. M.

  Sylvester, G. O

  Grey, C. F.

  Mellish, R. J

  Symonds, A. L.

  Grierson, E

  Mikardo, Ian

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Monslow, W.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Haier John E. (Wycombe)

  Moody, A. S,

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Hale, Leslie

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

  Hall, W. G.

  Morley, R.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Thorneycrofl, Harry (Clayton)

  Hardman, D R

  Moyle, A.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hardy, E. A.

  Murray, J, D.

  Tiffany, S.

  Harrison, J.

  Nally, W.

  Timmons, J.

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Naylor, T. E.

  Titterington, M. F

  Haworth, J.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Tolley, L.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J (Derby)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  O'Brien, T.

  Viant, S P.

  Holman, P.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Walker, G. H.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemswortn)

  Oliver, G H

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  House, G.

  Paget, R. T

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Hubbard, T.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Watson, W. M.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, J.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Parkin B T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pearson, A

  West, D. G.

  Irving, W. J.

  Peart, T. F.

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Janner, B

  Piratin, P

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Plans-Mills, J. F. F.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Llchfield)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Porter E (Warrington)

  Wilkes, L.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Price, M. Philips

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchln)

  Randall, H. E.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Keenan, W.

  Ranger, J.

  Williams, Rt. Hon T (Don Valley)

  Kenyon, C.

  Rankin, J.

  Williams, W R. (Heston)

  Key, C W.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Williamson, T.

  King, E. M

  Reeves, J,

  Willis, E.

  Kinley, J.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Kirby, B. V

  Rhodes, H.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Lang, G.

  Richards, R

  Wise, Major F. J

  Lavers, S.

  Robens, A.

  Woodburn, A.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Woods, G. S.

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Yates, V. F.

  Leonard, W.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Lever, N. H.

  Reyle, C.

  Zilliaeus, K.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sargood, R

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Scollan, T

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell

  Logan, D. G

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  1340

  1341

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Osborne, C.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Herbert, Sir A. P.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Pitman, I. J.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Bsamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Bunnett, Sir P.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Boles, Lt.-Col D. G. (Wells)

  Hurd, A.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Boothby, R.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Rayner, Brig, R

  Bossom, A C.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bowen, R

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cot. W.

  Kerr, Sir J Graham

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lambert, Hon. G,

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Byers, Frank

  Langford-Holl, J.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Channon, H

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

  Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Spence, H. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

  Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Sludholme, H G.

  De la Bère, R

  McKie, J. H (Galloway)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Digby, S. W.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  MaoLeod, J.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Mailland, Comdr. J. W.

  Touche, G. C.

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Turton, R. H.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Marlowe, A. A. H

  Vane, W. M F

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Marples, A. E.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marshall, D (Bodmin)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Marshall S. H. (Sutton)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M

  Molson, A. H. E.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Gage, C.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  While, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Grant, Lady

  Nicholson, G

  York, C.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Noble, Comdr. A H. P

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  Major Conant and

  Malor Ramsay.

  Question put accordingly "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

  Division No. 322.]

  AYES.

  [9.45 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Diamond, J

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Dobbie, W.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Donovan, T.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Buchanan, G.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

  Burden, T. W.

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Burke, W A.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Champion, A. J.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Chater, D.

  Dye, S.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Baird, J.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Balfour, A

  Cocks, F. S.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whilechapel)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

  Coldrick, W

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Barstow, P G.

  Collick, P.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Barton, C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Battley, J. R.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Ewart, R.

  Bechervaise, A E.

  Corbel, Mrs. F K. (Camb' well, N.W.)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Belcher, J W

  Cove, W. G

  Farthing, W. J.

  Benson, G

  Crawley, A.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Beswick, F.

  Daggar, G.

  Field, Capt W. J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Daines, P.

  Fletcher, E G M. (Islington, E.)

  Binns, J.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Follick, M.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Forman, J, C.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Foster, W (Wigan)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Deer, G.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Bramall, E. A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Delargy, H, J

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  The House divided: Ayes, 314: Noes, 129.
  The House divided: Ayes.314: Noes, 129.

  Gallacher, W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Ganley, Mrs. O S

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Gibbins, J.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Gilzean, A.

  McLeavy, F.

  Smith, C (Colchester)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Solley, L. J.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Stamford, W.

  Grey, C. F.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Steele, T.

  Grierson, E.

  Mathers, G.

  Stephen, C.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Medland, H. M

  Strauss, G. R, (Lambeth, N.)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Hale, Leslie

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Swingler, S.

  Hall, W. G.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Monslow, W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Moody, A. S.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hardman, D. R.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Morley, R.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Harrison, J.

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Haworth, J

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Murray J. D.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Nally, W.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hobson, C. R.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradlord, N.)

  Tiffany, S.

  Holman, P.

  Nioholls, H. R (Stratford)

  Timmons, J.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J. (Derby)

  Titterington M. F.

  House, G.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Tolley, L.

  Hubbard, T.

  O'Brien, T.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Paget, R. T.

  Usborne, Henry

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Irving, W. J

  Parker, J.

  Walker, G. H

  Janner, B.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E)

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Pearson, A.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Peart, T. F.

  Watson, W. M.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Piratln, P.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Weitzman, D.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Porter E. (Warrington)

  West, D. G.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Price, M. Philips

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Proctor, W. T

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Key, C. W.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A B

  King, E. M.

  Randall, H. E

  Wilkes, L

  Kinley, J.

  Ranger, J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Kirby, B. V

  Rankin, J.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Lang, G.

  Rees-Williams, D R

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Lavers, S.

  Reeves, J.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Lawson, Rt Hon. J J

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Rhodes, H

  Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Leonard, W.

  Richards, R

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Robens, A.

  Williamson, T.

  Lever, N. H.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Willis, E.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Wilmot, Rt Hon J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Wise, Major F J

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Royle, C.

  Woodburn, A.

  Logan, D G.

  Sargood, R.

  Woods, G. S

  Longden, F

  Scollan, T

  Yales, V. F.

  Lyne, A. W

  Segal, Dr. S

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  McAdam, W

  Shackleion, E A A

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  McAllister, G

  Sharp, Granville

  Zilliacus, K

  McEntee, V. La T

  Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H (St Helens)

  McGhee, H G.

  Shurmer, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McGovern, J.

  Sitkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  Mack, J. D

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr P. G.

  Baldwin, A. E

  Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Boothby, R.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon R

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Bossom, A. C

  Astor, Hon. M

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Bowen, R

  1344

  1345

  Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

  Hurd, A.

  Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

  Hutchison, Cot J. R. (Glasgow. G.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Butcher, H. W.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Buller, Rt. Hon. R A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Rayner, Brig R

  Byers, Frank

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Channon, H.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col W H

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow.)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H F C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A H

  Ropner, Col. L

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Ross, Sir R. O. (Londonderry)

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Low, Brig A R W

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lucas, Major Sir J

  Scott, Lord W.

  De la Bère, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Digby, S. W

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Mackeson, Brig H. R.

  Spearman, A. C M

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  McKie, J. H (Galloway)

  Spence, H. R.

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Maclay, Hon J S

  Sloddart-Scott, Col. M

  Drayson, G B

  MacLeod, J

  Strauss, H G (English Universities)

  Dugdale, Mai Sir T. (Richmond)

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Studholme, H G

  Elliot Rt. Hon Walter

  Mailland, Comdr. J W

  Sutcliffe, H

  Errsll, F. J.

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, S)

  Fletcher, W (Bury)

  Marlowe, A. A H

  Thorneycroft, G E P. (Monmouth)

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Marples, A. E.

  Thorp Lt.-Col. R A F

  Fyfe, Rt Hon Sir D P M

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Touche, G. C

  Gage, C

  Marshall, D (Bodmin)

  Turton, R. H.

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D.

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Vane, W M F

  Gammans, L. D

  Medlicott, F

  Wadsworth, G.

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Molson, A. H E

  Wakefield, Sir W W

  Grant, Lady

  Moore, Lt.-Col Sir I

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Gridley, Sir A

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)

  Nicholson, G.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Noble, Comdr. A H. P

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V

  O'Neill, Rt Hon Sir H

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon Sir C

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

  Herbert, Sir A. P

  Osborne, C

  York, C.

  Hogg, Hon Q

  Peto, Brig C H M

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Pickthorn, K

  Major Conant and

  Hudson, Rt Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Pitman, I. J

  Major Ramsay.

  Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 4, leave out "and Edinburgh" and insert "Edinburgh and Belfast."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." —[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  Mr. C. Williams: I should like to congratulate the Government on having accepted this Amendment It will be seen that this Amendment extends publicity to the Belfast Gazette. In expressing my congratulations, I would at the same time express surprise, in view of the Government's actions in regard to publicity. I should like also to congratulate the Government that, owing to their mismanagement of a previous Amendment, we can do this so beautifully without any waste of time.
  Question put, and agreed to
  Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 13, leave out from "where" to "abolish" in line 14, and insert "the Commission."
  Motion made, and Question "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 19, leave out from "Commission" to end of Clause and insert:
  "the scheme shall include, or, where there is no such scheme, the Minister shall by order make such transitional provisions as to the parties by and against whom, legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued, and such other transitional provisions, if any, as appear to the Commission and the Minister to be expedient."
  Motion made, and Question "That this; House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move. As an Amendment, in lieu thereof, to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 9, to leave out lines 20 to 24, and to insert:
  "shall include such transitional provisions m to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued, and such other transitional provisions, as any, as appear to the Minister, or to the Commission and the Minister, as the case may be, to be expedient."
  The first part of this Amendment is consequential on the decision which has already been taken by the House in regard to the Executives. This Amendment ensures that an Executive shall carry on when there is some legal case pending for the purposes of that case.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 17.—(Valuation of securities for compensation purposes.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 43, at end insert:
  "(d) The reasonable costs incurred by the directors as such representatives in connection with any proceedings before the Arbitration Tribunal under the provisions of this subsection shall be paid by the Commission"
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  10 p.m.
  Mr. C. Williams: This Amendment covers a financial point, and I think we might have some explanation from the Government as to why they are accepting it. When we are accepting Amendments from another place I do not think that we should accept them all without discussion. There is, presumably, a good reason why the Government are accepting this Amendment, and I think the House is entitled to know what that reason is.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The reason is simple. The Amendment enables directors of a railway and canal undertaking which is transferred to decide whether they want to appear themselves before the arbitration tribunal on behalf of their stockholders. If they do the Commission may pay them reasonable remuneration for the work which they do on that occasion.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 20.—(Payments by Commission in respect of profits for period preceding date of transfer.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 27, at end, insert:
  "(7) In addition to any sums payable under the preceding provisions of this Section, the Commission shall pay—

  (a) to the bodies specified in the next succeeding Subsection the sums therein specified; and

  (b) to any other body, being such a body as is specified in Subsection (1) of this Section, such sums, if any, as the Minister may direct, being sums which—

  (i) could properly have been brought into account as net revenue (or as an appropriation in aid thereof) by the body in question in the final period if they had followed the same accounting practice as in the base period, or, where the base period is more than one year, in the last year of the base period, applicable to the body in question for the purposes of the relevant agreement mentioned in the said
  1348
  Subsection (1), not being amounts appropriated from reserve; and

  (ii) do not arise in respect of any ownership of, or interest in, any part of the body's undertaking which is an excluded undertaking within the meaning of the said agreement; and

  (iii) are not required to be brought into account in the net revenue account of the body under and for the purposes of the said agreement

  (8) The payments which the Commission are by paragraph (a) of the last preceding Subsection required to make are—

  (a) to the Great Western Railway Company, the sum of five hundred and seventy four thousand pounds;

  (b) to the London and North Eastern Railway Company, the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds;

  (c) to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, the sum of seven hundred and ninety-nine thousand pounds;

  (d) to the Southern Railway Company, the sum of two hundred and twenty-seven thousand pounds;

  (e) to the London Passenger Transport Board, the sum of sixty-three thousand pounds.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." —[Mr. G. R Strauss.]
  Mr. C. Williams: Here, again, a question of finance is involved in this Amendment, and I wonder whether we might be told by the Government what sums are likely to be incurred. I can imagine some Members opposite being suspicious at being asked to incur expenditure by another place, and I do not see why we should not have some idea as to what may be involved in this Amendment.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: It is in the Amendment.
  Mr. Williams: I am always willing to learn from anyone, and I rejoice in the fact that sometimes there can be found people who can give information instead of asking for it. Can we know from the Government how this money is apportioned, and what the total cost is likely to be?
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: This Amendment was agreed to in another place. It is the result of discussions which took place with the interested parties following on discussions which we had in Committee when we were considering this matter. It was there alleged that the Bill provided an inadequate amount for the railway

  1349
  companies to distribute to their shareholders, and the wording was drawn so tightly that they would only be able to distribute certain net revenues and would have to exclude certain amounts which they would, in the ordinary way, have been enabled to distribute to their shareholders. We undertook in Committee to consider the case which was put up, and to see whether any injustice was in fact being clone, and whether the shareholders were properly entitled to a greater distribution than the Bill as drafted allowed.
  We considered this matter very carefully with the interests concerned, and it seemed to us that they put up an unanswerable case in respect of some parts of their claim. We met that case. Each railway company concerned was considered on the merits of their claim and the principal circumstances affecting them. Finally, we agreed that they would be allowed to distribute the extra amount shown in Subsection (8) on the Amendment Paper. The sums differ because each railway company is in a different situation, and one company is able to substantiate a greater claim than another. The total sum is quite substantial—£1,800,000—but we are satisfied that this amount could justifiably be paid out to the shareholders. We invite the House to accept the Lords Amendment because we have gone into the matter exceedingly closely, and we can assure the House that no one is receiving more than they are properly entitled to get.
  Mr. McKie: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very clear explanation? It is so seldom that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman that I feel additionally surprised tonight. It is customary to declare one's interest, and I declare my interest in the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, the largest beneficiary under the proposed Lords Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary invites the House to accept. I only hope that his belated conversion is a happy augury, and that when we come to discuss the more detailed matters of compensation, the hon. Gentleman will show himself just as reasonable as he has been on this matter. I am sure that these five crumbs of comfort will be gratefully accepted by those who are concerned, and who, up to the present, have thought that they have not been
  1350
  treated very generously by the compensation proposed.
  Major Legge-Bourke: How will the payments authorised by this Amendment be made by the Commission: Are they covered in a Financial Resolution, or not?
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: These payments are not to be paid by the Commission, but are moneys which the railway companies will be authorised to distribute to their shareholders.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 25.—(Application of preceding provisions to local authorities.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 9, after "authority" insert
  "or any sinking fund established for redemption of any such securities."
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. C. Williams: We are passing these things very quickly and very satisfactorily, but I should like to know in regard to this Amendment precisely why it was not in the Bill when it was first brought in. If it is an essential Amendment it should have been put into the Bill at the very latest during the Committee stage in this House. Is it a fact that it was due to incompetence and to the way in which the Bill was originally worded. I should like to know at what period it was discovered that this was really necessary and if at any time this could have been put in except for the guillotine.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I always want to answer any question put by the hon. Member. This Amendment is consequential on one we have already passed, and it was put in when it was found that it would be desirable for drafting purposes. That could only be done after the Bill was published unless one had dis. cussed all these matters with the railway companies beforehand. It is usual to find that certain small drafting Amendments are necessary as a Bill such as this proceeds.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 39.—(Certain road transport undertakings to be acquired by Commission.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 24, leave out "forty," and insert "eighty."
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Strauss.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On a point of Order. Before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport begins I think it would be for the convenient of everyone if it is possible to take this Amendment and the next Amendment to line 27 for discussion together.
  Mr. Speaker: There are several Amendments which follow each other here and deal more or less with the same subject. I thought it was agreed that we would have a general discussion on the first Amendment to cover the lot.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Further to that point of Order. I think it would be convenient if we discussed these two together, that is, line 24 to leave out "forty" and insert eighty"; and line 27, to leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty." They are a test in regard to long distance haulage. The other Amendment—in page 66, line 8, to leave out "twenty-five" and to insert "fifty"—which looks rather similar actually raises a different point, and might he more conveniently discussed by itself. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me, and I hope that my suggestion will commend itself to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. Members generally.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Amendments which it is desired to discuss together are those in page 48, lines 24 27, and 32 that the other Amendment is that in page 66, line 8 referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. C. Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that we are agreeing to discuss the Amendments in page 48, lines 24 and 27 and that we then go on to the next one in line 29 which deals with the carriage of goods and which does seem to be a different point? It might be very easy to discuss the first two Amendments concerning the words "forty" and "eighty" and "twenty-five" and "fifty," which is a point upon which the whole House would like to be clear, and then to go on to the other point winch does seem to be rather different and to be more suitable for a, separate discussion.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that if the hon. Member will listen to the opening argument he may perhaps find the answer to his question.
  Mr. G. Strauss: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  We are confining ourselves on these two Amendments to the definition of long-distance road haulage. According to the Bill as considered in this House and in the Committee, and finally passed by the House, long-distance road haulage was described as road haulage where the haulier did most of his work over distances greater than 40 miles within a radius of 25 miles from his base. The arguments for and against that particular definition were advanced on many occasions in the House and in the Committee, and it was agreed that the figure was an arbitrary one and that there was no scientific figure which one could say was the correct one. Nevertheless we believed that it was right, but the Lords in their Amendment have exactly doubled it.
  I suggest that if we accepted the Lords Amendment we would, in fact, be saying that the Commission should have no road haulage organisation at all, because if only those vehicles which came within the definition suggested by the Lords could be taken over, the number of vehicles would he so exceedingly small that it would be quite impossible for the Commission to have the resources with which to carry on long-distance road haulage work and which it is essential for it to have for the integration purposes defined in Clause 3. I say quite definitely, and I think it is generally accepted outside this House in responsible circles, that this is, in fact, a wrecking Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No "]—in so far as if it is carried it will be impossible for the Com mission to do long-distance road haulage effectively, if at all.
  I noticed that hon. Members opposite disagreed with me just now when I said that this was a wrecking Amendment. Perhaps I may quote a few lines from a source which I am sure they would not consider biased in our favour—an article in the "Financial Times" of 23rd June in which this matter and other Lords Amendments were considered. On that occasion, the "Financial Times" said:

  1353
  "The Lords have now, for all practical purposes, deleted long-distance road haulage from the scope of the Bill, and has done much the same for harbours and docks. These deletions —particularly the former—strike at the heart of complete co-ordination, which means that the economies of fusion cannot be secured and the possibility of making both ends meet is remote."
  That is a fact. I quote this independent source, which is unbiased, but which clearly indicates what the effect would be if this definition of long distance road haulage were accepted.
  Under the provisions of the Bill as they stood when the Bill left the House, we anticipated that there would be approximately 20,000 "A"-licensed vehicles taken over and about 2,500 "B"-licensed vehicles, as well as a number of vehicles taken over with the railway companies. If we are to take over only those vehicles which do long distance work of over 80 miles instead of 40 miles, the number of vehicles which will be taken over by the Commission will be reduced—I cannot say exactly how much because there is no means of saying with any certainty—probably to a third of that amount and it may be to less.
  Mr. Frank Byers: that is a very interesting argument, but are we to understand that the Commissioners are never to have any new vehicles in the future and that they will always use the vehicles taken over?
  Mr. Strauss: Nothing of the sort. They have to get going. If the Commission are to start with about 8,000 vehicles, it will not be able to give a long distance road haulage service to the country and there will be all the disadvantages of disintegration. We shall have competition from the road hauliers with the Commission. The Commission will be unable to take those unremunerative services which are so essential. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill of getting a properly integrated road and rail service will be frustrated. For those reasons we invite the House to say that the definition put in by the Lords, just doubling the figures which were inserted by this House, is unreasonable, and that we cannot accept it.
  I would say further that any definition of long distance road haulage which has been put forward in the past by representatives of road haulage concerns, has been in the neighbourhood of 25 miles,
  1354
  and not of 50. There was one definition put before the Royal Commission which sat in 1930, in which the road haulage industry said they considered that 30 miles was the boundary between the long distance and the short distance road haulage. On another occasion, as I have already cited to the House on the Third Reading, many leaders of the roar haulage industry considered for another purpose that 20 miles was correct.
  After careful consideration we are convinced that 25 miles is the correct radius, and that the journey of 40 miles is the correct criterion to judge whether a haulage activity is long distance or short distance. Because we believe our figure is correct; and because we are convinced that if the Commission takes over only those concerns which do long distance haulage on the basis of 80 miles that it will have so few vehicles as not to be able to give a proper service to industry; and because we feel that this is a wrecking Amendment, we ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is not without interest that this Amendment, which has been so contemptuously rejected with such an economy of words by the hon. Gentleman, is the Amendment on which the House was engaged when the Guillotine fell at the end of the Report stage and discussion was prevented, and even the few crumbs contained in the speech of the hon. Gentleman show that there are certain matters on his side of the argument which might profitably be discussed. I observe also that none of the arguments which we advanced have been discussed or met in any way. I will take the hon. Gentleman, first, through the arguments which he has put to us tonight. He commenced—and so far we are in agreement with him—by saying that the declared object of the Bill was to nationalise long-distance road haulage. Therefore, it is necessary to decide—and, we suggest, to decide by ordinary commonsense rules and tests—what is long-distance road haulage.
  The hon. Gentleman has confessed that this is an entirely arbitrary figure, and we are still waiting, after seven months' consideration of this problem, for some reason why the figure has been suggested. Today we have had from the hon. Gentleman one or two tentative suggestions. He said that 30 miles was put

  1355
  before the Royal Commission and that 20 miles was mentioned on another occasion by some leader of the road haulage industry, and so those two had been put together and divided by two and this figure had been arrived at. That is not the sort of basis on which the businesses of thousands of hardworking people who have built them up should be taken away. When we come to this stage we are really entitled to have some reason for the test which the Government have attempted to put into operation.
  I ask the Government once again to try to find a test by ordinary reasonable considerations of the most important parts of the country. Greater London is being planned, and the arrangements of London for a great variety of purposes are being based on the area of Sir Patrick Abercrombie's plan for Greater London. There we have an area of approximately 2,700 square miles, with a diameter of approximately 60 miles and a radius, therefore, of approximately 30 miles, so that from the point of view of London in this problem anyone on the outskirts of the Greater London area cannot come in to Hyde Park Corner and remain a short-distance haulier. That is the test for London.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I understood that at his request we were discussing only the definition of long-distance road haulage from the point of view of taking it over. I understand that he is now arguing about the distance which hauliers who are not being taken over will be allowed to run.
  10.30 p.m.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: the hon. Gentleman has quite misunderstood me. I am certain that he must have misunderstood the basis of this argument, or else he could not have put before the House the arguments he did. What I am saying i3 that he has totally failed to give any basis for his figure of 25 miles, that he has admitted it is an arbitrary figure, and that I am, therefore, trying to find a test or what is long-distance road haulage by taking the circumstances on the most important parts of the country I submit that is a most reasonable way of approaching the matter. First, I take the Metropolitan area. I have defined what is the Greater London area, and I go to an
  1356
  area which has general acceptance in all parts,of the House—the area of the Abercrombie plan for Greater London. My argument, I submit, is a sound one. The radius of 25 miles is less than the radius of the Greater London Area as laid down by Sir Patrick Abercrombie. In my own part of the country, take the distance between Liverpool and Manchester. Even on the short haul from Liverpool to Manchester, the Government s test again fails. I will go further North, to the town where I was born, Edinburgh, and there again say that if the test is less than the haul between Edinburgh and Glasgow—and it is an understandable test—it fails.
  I ask the House to travel with me to the rural counties. 1 care not whether it is in Devonshire or in the North of England, or the counties In the North of Scotland: I say that any test which prevents a man from going more than 25 miles from his operating centre and does not allow him to make a total mileage of over 40 miles is a test which is utterly out of touch with reality, judged by rural conditions today. That is the first point I make. Surely, the hon. Gentleman follows the argument I am making; I do not ask his agreement, of course, but I ask him to appreciate that argument, for I am seeking to find a reasonable test. The hon. Gentleman will remember that these figures which we have put forward are the ones on which I was engaged when we last discussed this matter in the House. They are the same figures If the hon. Gentleman could give us any criterion, on the basis I have endeavoured to put before the House, that is, the basis of the needs of important sections of the community, then we would be prepared to consider it.
  Mr. John Paton: I am very anxious to understand the purpose of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument There has been a series of distances chosen and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned a number of distances, and apparently contends that on the figures as they stand, haulage over those areas will become impossible.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to explain the matter we are now discussing. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that as a test of long distance the Government suggest that a haulier is not to go beyond a radius of 25 miles from his operating

  1357
  base. That is one of the things he must not do, and while he must not do that, he must not, at the same tine, make his total carriage more than 40 miles Suppose that he starts 20 miles on one side of his operating base, he cannot go more than 20 miles on the other side of it. That the is effect of the test in Clause 39
  Mr. Paton: I am still uncertain about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention. It seems to me that he is arguing that on a 25 miles limit we shall stop traffic beyond that distance.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman will read a copy of the Bill, and particularly Clause 39, he will see that the test that is being suggested for taking away the businesses of road hauliers is the one I have stated. If he does not accept the test I have stated, I ask him to read the Bill again, and he will then see that I have correctly stated it. If he will look at Clause 52 in the Bill, he will see that the other point which I mentioned is dealt with in that Clause. It is important that before people's businesses are taken over, the test should be understood. The test is a flat rate of 25 miles and being confined to the radius of 25 miles, which is not commonsense or reasonable test of what is long-distance haulage.
  The Parliamentary Secretary fortified his argument on the question of the effect on the number of vehicles taken over. As I understood him, he said that now it is 20,000 "A" licences, 2,500 "B" licences, and, of course, all the railway vehicles, which includes Carter Paterson, and the like. But he said that he would reduce the 20,000 "A" licence vehicles to about one-third. The hon. Gentleman, with the frankness which he has always shown during the consideration of this Bill, was the first to admit that that was entirely a guess. When the Government attitude on this point was indicated in another place by the Government spokesman, he said that he anticipated that, roughly, the number of vehicles now being taken over would be nearer 2,000 than 20,000. He said that he put it in that vague way, but he did not think anyone could make a better guess.
  That is the position which the Government have always taken—that this is entirely guesswork; and it is, surely. If that argument is to be adduced against what I. suggest is the commonsense and
  1358
  reasonable basis of test, then we ought to hay more information than has been given to us on this point. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary and the House that, apart from this test, the acquiring body has two other great factors in its favour; it is allowed to go either on a basis of weight or on a basis of cost, in applying the test; that is in deciding whet traffic falls into the alleged long-distance and the short-distance classes. It had the further advantage, until an Amendment was made to the Bill which will come before us shortly, of not even having to prove its case on that very favourable test which has been put forward. When these points are taken into account, we come back to consider what is the purpose of this Bill as originally put before us. It was to take over long-distance haulage.
  As I understand the Parliamentary Secretary's argument today, he has said that this Amendment would interfere with integration and co-ordination. May I point out two answers to this? First, the Government have deliberately chosen to set up under this Bill, Executives which perpetuate functional differences, and Executives based on functional differences. Secondly, when this long-distance road haulage which it is sought to nationalise has been treated by this legislation, what one will really have to deal with, as I understand it, is the goods road haulage which would compete with the railways over the distance where it is desired to limit that competition. Taking that point of view—and that is what co-ordination has come down to—I ask bow will it help to make the carrying of goods over 25 miles a co-ordinated matter? I entirely fail to see that. The difference between the results of which the Parliamentary Secretary has complained bitterly tonight and results originally intended by the Bill cannot seriously affect that point
  But we on this side are back to the point which we have always maintained; that is, that before one takes away a person's business on the plea that it is a long-distance haulage business, one must fix a test as to what is long-distance haulage. The 25 miles contention is not common sense. In another place they have taken a distance much more in accord with common sense, and I hope the House will face up to its original determination to apply the common-sense test once again.
  Mr. Byers: I was surprised at the casual way in which this important Amendment was rejected by the Parliamentary Secretary. I suppose that casual manner comes from the knowledge of the support of the great majority behind him, but I think we must not be dispirited, but rather we ought to examine the case as it really is. The Parliamentary Secretary's case is not a sound one. He gave some arguments, but the arguments he put forward would cause me to vote for this Amendment. I would say at once that I agree that no figure can be correct. Any figure must be an arbitrary figure although we would prefer to see road haulage free of nationalisation. We have always made that clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] I repeat that we have always made it quite clear. If one is going to take over these vehicles, the wider the radius one gives the less problems one will have to face in administering the Measure. I think the actual calculations necessary for running vehicles on this formula of 25 miles and no farther will be necessarily tremendous. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to extend this radius as far as we can. The Government would do this if they were reasonable people. What really stops the Government from widening this radius is the fact that they fear competition from road haulage concerns against the nationalised undertakings. Quite frankly, I think that is a fantastic way in which to go into public ownership.
  We on these Benches are supporters of a limited amount of public ownership. Hon. Members opposite cannot complain. We have supported them on a number of nationalisation Measures.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Yes, we have. I make no apology for it; but I say that, in an industry like this, public ownership ought to be able to stand up to the test of private enterprise competition. The Parliamentary Secretary says, "If we extend this radius, instead of taking in 20,000 vehicles we should take in 8,000, and, therefore, the Commission would not be able to provide the service." I ask hon. Members opposite to note that. The emphasis should be on the fact that the Commission would not be able to provide the service. But the service would be there all the same. Those 12,000 vehicles would not disappear. They would run, and I believe that we would get very efficient service.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Benn Levy: Why take any of it over?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Member says, "Why take any of it over?". The hon. Member is on my side. I am in difficulty because I do not believe in any of these figures; but I suggest that the wider we make the radius the better. The reason the Government want to take over these vehicles is, not to give public service, but to get rid of those vehicles as competitors. Do not let us make any mistake about that. I say it is a pretty shocking thing—that the first thing public ownership is to do is to knock competitors out of business. Is not that what we have rightly been attacking the Conservative Party for doing over a good many years? I suggest that the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) made a very interesting intervention when he tried to prove that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was trying to say, in his argument, that, as a result of the Government's rejection of the Amendment, there would not be a service. My point is that there will be a service. The service up to 80 miles will be by private enterprise. Does the hon. Member object to that?
  Mr. Paton: Yes.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Member says he does not believe in private enterprise in this industry.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —I believe it is the only way in which it can work, and I believe we have got to put forward our case. That service will still be there. What the Government are trying to do is to clear competition out of the way. They know they cannot stand up against it. I suggest that it is not 'common sense. Let us suppose we went to a place tonight and said to a man running road haulage between one town and another—a distance of 30 miles —"So you are a long-distance road haulier." Do hon. Members think that he would call himself a long-distance road haulier when he runs 30 miles one way and back? Of course, he would not. That is not long-distance road haulage. I consider that the Government have been motivated by one concern, and that is to get out of the way competition they know they cannot face. If they cannot stand up against that competition, then it is a rotten system which the Govern-

  1361
  ment are bringing in. On those grounds, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. Poole: It is not a very great surprise to me that the Parliamentary Secretary, in moving the rejection of this Amendment, did not give any very clear reasons why the particular figures of 25 miles and 40 miles had been selected by the Government; because throughout all the stages of this Bill, in Committee upstairs and in this Chamber, we have had no clear guidance from the Government as to what really actuated them in selecting those figures, when we ourselves have pressed these alternative figures, for these figures in this Amendment are the same figures as hon. Members of this side have proposed.
  We have been told that the Amendment is designed to wreck the Bill, and far mere time has been spent by the Parliamentary Secretary in trying to prove how wrong are our figures than in showing that the Government's figures are right. That is all the more remarkable since we have had it clearly stated by the hon. Gentleman that the Government's figures were necessarily purely arbitrary. It is, therefore, reasonable that we should be allowed to argue other figures on the basis that any figure chosen is an arbitrary enc. We are trying to select a middle position, in view of the fact that there are great differences between localities in different parts of the country. I do not think it is reasonable to say this Amendment is a wrecking Amendment without giving reasons or logical arguments.
  In point of fact, a very great deal more argument can be put forward for the 80 miles limit than for the 40 miles. I base part of my argument on the statement made during the war by the Road Haulage Organisation which operated on a 60 mile limit. Experience showed that 60 miles was not far enough. A Select Committee made a report on the work of the Road Haulage Organisation in which a most scathing criticism was made, and it was pointed out how impossible it was for the Road Haulage Organisation to take over vehicles working over such short distances. It must be borne in mind that the Road Haulage Organisation was working during the war to a limit of 60 miles. Yet the Government are now bringing in a figure 20 miles less than that of the Road Haulage Organisation, and with a limitation of radius as well. I should have
  1362
  thought that on that argument there was a great deal more to be said for our figure of So miles than for the figure put forward by the Government
  Another argument mentioned briefly by the Parliamentary Secretary is in reference to the number of vehicles being taken over. The Parliamentary Secretary made a rather curious statement. He estimated the number of vehicles to De taken over on the 40 miles and 20 miles basis, and said it would be impossible to calculate the number of vehicles to be taken over on a wider basis. If the Government can bring out the number of vehicles for the one, it would be perfectly simple to find out the number of vehicles for the other. I believe that the figures the Government are working on are built up on the experience of the Road Haulage Organisation which was based on 60 miles, and had no radius limitation.
  I suggest that the Government have not the slightest idea of the number of vehicles they are taking over, and that it will be vastly more than they have budgeted for so far. If one accepts what the Parliamentary Secretary said--that it is impossible to estimate the nurnber of vehicles which would be taken over under the Amendment—it might be suggested that this is a wrecking Amendment; but in fact it has been clearly shown that the distances of 40 miles and 25 miles will be absolutely impracticable in many parts of England. They can lead only to inefficiency in the transport services. Vehicles would run empty and a large number of vehicles being taken over by the Commission would be engaged solely on short distances and never embark on long distances at all. For these reasons I urge the Government not to treat this as a wrecking Amendment, but to treat it on the merits, and to see whether there is not some possibility of taking it into the Bill, because if it is rejected great chaos and disturbance will be created especially in tie earlier stages.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is again most unfortunate that this is a one-sided Debate. I feel that hon. Members opposite must have something to say. Even the Communist Party and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) apparently have no views about this.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I have no intention of giving way. It is entirely open to the hon. Member to follow me.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member allow me—?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member can make a speech later. I am glad to see that the Minister of Transport has returned. We realise he is having a hard day, but he will probably have a harder night. From the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) he would have learnt that we are wholly unsatisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's reasons for rejecting this Lords Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary's main case, I would remind the Minister, was that if the Lords Amendment were accepted, he would not be able to take over a sufficient number of vehicles. That was his main case. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will not contribute to the Debate, they might at least listen to those who do. The case which the Parliamentary Secretary put forward was that if the Lords Amendment were accepted, he would take over an insufficient number of vehicles. The point struck me that he quite obviously had not the faintest idea whatever of how many vehicles he was going to take over. It is a remarkable thing that we should have reached this stage in the Bill without any ascertainment of what the practical effect would be on the transport industry. I should have thought that some inquiry would have been made before this stage. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted the "Financial Times" as lending some support to his arguments. He said it was an unbiased newspaper. I am sure it is, and I would like to quote this extract from today's issue:
  "This all goes to show that the Government would have been better advised at the outset either to leave transport alone or wait until they have devised something better than a series of half-baked proposals for a problem which would tax Solomon himself"
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that as an unbiased view.
  What we are discussing are the terms and circumstances in which road haulage lorries are to be taken over, and the Clauses which deal with it are Clauses 39 and 41. A very complex system of tests is laid down. Those tests involve the distance that a vehicle travels: they also involve, quite separately, the radius of its
  1364
  operation from its operating centre; they involve the weight of goods which it carries and the amount of takings which should be appropriated to long-distance and short-distance. At the same time, some tribunal—and I have a great sympathy with it—has to decide, within an appropriate period of time, which distances broadly are long and which are short. My first criticism of the Government is that I do not really see that this is practical at all. I hope the Minister will give at least a little further explanation of what this 40 mile distance and 25 mile radius really mean. I do not believe that anyone on either side of the House understands it.
  11.0 p.m.
  Let me give to the right hon. Gentleman an example with which he might deal in his reply. Supposing a vehicle starts off in the morning—it does not go to one place but to six places—with a mixed load. Let us call the places, A, B, C, D, E and F. Supposing A and B are inside the 25 miles limit, no problem arises there. Supposing it goes to C, still within the 25 miles limit, that is well and good. But supposing that, in order to get to D, it has to make part of the journey outside the 25 miles limit. It drops its load at D and then returns to E and F doing a total of 70 to 80 miles, part of which is caught up in Clause 39, because it went outside the 25 miles radius. How is the tribunal supposed to differentiate as to the weight of that particular operation? Is the route or the double journey to be taken into account, are the supplies for that particular customer to be taken into account, or is the whole of that journey to be treated as long-distance haulage? That is the sort of thing which will have to be decided, because this is a fantastic, complicated arrangement which the Government have set up.
  The question is what ought to be a proper distance? In my reading of this Bill, it is difficult to find. I cannot see why we have the distance and radius factor. I do not see why we should have the radius factor. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain that when he replies. I do not know why. It seems to me that the whole thing is an unnecessary complication as to what should be the distance. All sorts of tests could be applied. Take the case of the Road Haulage Association. They suggested 60 miles, and the right hon. Gentle-

  1365
  man knows that that was not a radius, but 60 miles from the point of collection to the point of delivery, which was more generous to the road haulage industry. Why has that been abandoned? May we have an explanation? What factors in the operation of the road haulage system caused the right hon. Gentleman to abandon a system which was tried out? He may have some practical experience of that matter, and if he has, could we be informed of it?
  For my part, I agree with the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) that the test should not be what some road haulage association said at some time or other, but should be a practical test. Again, if there had been some inquiry before this, if someone had paused a moment before launching into this particular scheme and had looked at the operation of practical hauls in this country, we would have had some better argument than that which has been put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. The sort of test which should be applied is such as was suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend—a long-distance haul which a haulier operates between distant and differing towns. That is the sort of long-distance haulage picture that I have. Short-distance haulage means operating in the Greater London area or between Cardiff and Swansea or between Glasgow and Edinburgh or some regular orbit of that kind.
  The right hon. Gentleman has not the slightest idea where the preponderance of traffic is, because he has never troubled to find out. If he had done so we would have been able to apply practical tests to these things. We would have been told the particular number of haulage lorries which would, in fact, have been taken over by the Commission, and what number would have been left. We could have looked at the thing objectively, and would have been able to judge it on the basis of adequate co-operation and coordination Instead of that, we are invited to judge matters on some basis put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. That is a wholly unsatisfactory system and for that reason, I would reject it. I do not know whether the Amendment itself is satisfactory, but it does make some extension in this matter and offers some measure of freedom to the road hauliers.
  1366
  There is only one other thing I want to say. I believe that the Government have got themselves into a difficulty over this matter in another way. This point was made by a well-known transport authority in "The Times" this morning. The difficulty the Government have get into is the result of making it the duty of the Commission to take over all the men who happen to fall into their own arbitrary definition. If they had made a definition that would have allowed the Commission to have exercised some common sense, and to say that in the Greater London area, for example, or in the Scottish Region, or something of that kind—
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to mislead the House. The Commission have latitude, wherever they think there is a special reason, or there are special conditions b refrain, by agreement, from taking over a road haulage firm.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. If the point is conceded and there is no compulsion, though it does come within the definition, naturally I withdraw what I was saving. I do not want to make a false point. But in the matter of distance my point is this: I think it is based on no evidence whatever, but on guesswork, and that it will do an extraordinary amount of harm and little good. I hope the House will support the Lords Amendment, extend this area, and reduce the number of men whose businesses are to be taken away.
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of the bait thrown out by the hon. Member, it is necessary for me to say that I do not like the Amendment, I do not like those who are supporting it, I do not like being drawn into a silly campaign of obstruction, and so with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will resume my seat.
  Brigadier Mackeson: I wart to ask the Minister one or two questions which I think have not yet been raised. It is very important that when we are asked to reject these Amendments, we should think of what the effect will be. I want to ask how the Minister envisages that the limit of 25 miles will he enforced There can be no doubt that a very heavy burden will be placed on the police. Serious crime, as we, know, is giving Home Secretary and the Government—and indeed all of us—very great anxiety.

  1367
  When this Bill becomes law, there will be a very heavy burden on the police. If it is not to be on the police, the right hon. Gentleman may be forced to imitate his colleague the Minister of Food and employ "snoopers."
  Some of these people who are not being taken over will find it very difficult when they are going in and out of the 25 miles radius. I cannot envisage that an ordinary driver will not be able to get past any police block or check if he wants to do so, particularly in the London area, or any area where there is a large number of side roads. In the case of the coastal towns it might be possible to use some scheme of colours, but there are not enough colours in the rainbow to put marks for every village and town. It might be possible to use blackboards with the name of the town, but what a frightful waste of time and money that would be I am certain that what will happen is that the police will be spending their time checking petty little breaches of these regulations instead of getting on with their job. Furthermore, just at a time when manpower is stretched to the full and when we are all being asked to work harder, unnecessary work will he placed on an already overworked force. If the Amendment were accepted, there would still be a certain amount of additional work put on the police, but not so much.
  From the point of view of the coastal towns, I regard this refusal to accept the Amendment as most unjust and unfair. It does not need anyone of brilliance to work out that in a place like Cornwall or East Kent, not only will an operator be restricted to half a circle, but sometimes to a segment of a circle. I cannot understand why an inquiry is not being held in connection with these coastal towns. I regard it as absolutely fatal to the horticultural industry, and am perfectly certain that no one will be able to get fresh fruit to town. If a lot of forms have to be filled in, the situation will be a great deal worse. It is a first-class scandal.
  Mr. Walker Fletcher: I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. Let him take a map of Lancashire and he will see clusters of towns engaged in textile and other industries. Movements of goods in different stages of processes have to be made from one town to another. With that background, let him take his "notional callipers," fxed arbitrarily,
  1368
  and with these not very snbtle planning instruments, let him start to measure out what it will mean if he puts this scheme into operation. He will sec that it will produce complete chaos. This is not a wrecking Amendment; it is an attempt to stop a wrecking scheme which will do a great deal of harm in Lancashire
  Mr. Turton: I want to try to find out what the Government have in mind. I oppose this nationalisation of road transport and believe it is a form of lunacy which will result in a great deal of unpopularity for the Government Let us assume a right to nationalise the long-distance haulier, leaving the vehicles of the local carriers unnationaliseo How are you going to apply that in the country area of Britain—to local carriers in Yorkshire, who go far beyond a radius of 25 miles—to lorries that collect milk in tanks, which go up to 30 miles and hack and are the only way in which the milk can be got to the towns for the children to drink? The vehicles of these carriers, who are really local carriers, will be taken over by the Government. I am speaking for the men who are producing the milk, the men who want to get on to their farms the fertilisers which have to be moved in the moorland areas a good deal more than 30 miles.
  I ask the Government whether they a wise, in their experiment of road nationalisation, to undertake the task of feeding the most difficult areas in England—the dales of Yorkshire and, equally I suppose, the Highlands of Scotland That is what they have to do under this Bill. Local carriers at present serving those areas are predominantly working over 25 miles, and often more than 40 miles. I cannot find that the Parliamentary Secretary had any argument against this Amendment. I thought he had one. I thought there was one argument in which he referred to some special cases that were regulated under this Bill presume that he means C1ause 40 Subsection (3). If not, per taps he will enlighten us. Clause 40, Subsection (3), will not help +he remote areas
  11.15 p.m.
  I ask the Government to think over this matter again. They ought to have a different yardstick for the built-up areas and the remote country districts, and if they do not make an Amendment, I warn the Government that they are going to get

  1369
  themselves into very great administrative difficulties. One cannot have a state of affairs in the remote areas of Britain where, under State transport, there is a 30 miles basis. In the case I am thinking of, there is a distance of some 60 miles, and I ask the Government, in their own safety, to try to get some compromise on this matter, and to arrive at a limit that will exclude the remote areas while securing that private transport collects the milk it, churns and brings the fertilisers and materials to the farms. One of the tasks that will face the right hon. Gentleman, if he adheres to the basis in the Pill, will be to get his transport over most difficult roads for 40 or 50 miles in the northern areas of Britain. At the present time it is being done by local carriers. I do not see that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench are fitted to take on that work, and I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in the discrimination that has been made.
  Brigadier Peto: We have heard of the position in Yorkshire and West Derbyshire, so I think that Devonshire should be mentioned. The Bill applies in all its worst aspects to a countryside that is full of winding, twisting roads, and which is a segment of a circle bounded on one side by the sea. There are two points which I want to raise. They have been mentioned already but not in detail. One relates to how the Bill is to be enforced. I noticed that, in the Debate in another place, it was said that records of road hauliers were not in all cases available, but that there was a good deal of information available from their applications for petrol licences. That may hit the road haulier rather where he does not wish to be hit, because when he applies for a petrol licence he makes out that he has to go as far as possible. If that evidence is to be used, the majority who have applied and who are just over the margin owing to their licence being for more than 25 miles radius, will presumably be taken over.
  The second point, as I understood it, is that within the limit of the 25 miles radius a carrier may go any distance he likes; he is not limited to any distance of 40 miles, or any other distance. I should very much like the Minister of Transport to confirm this, so that people in the country may understand it. It is rather difficult. If a small cage were erected and one were allowed to rotate within
  1370
  that cage as much as one liked, one would not escape from it, and could not get out beyond the 25 miles. That, I am sure, is not understood in the country. I can only say that I shall strongly oppose the Measure and Vote in favour of this Amendment.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: My brief support of this Amendment is based on an inherent dislike of injustice. I suppose that injustice is inevitable in nationalisation schemes; but in this scheme we find it in a number of peculiarly vicious forms-First, we find it in the compensation pro-visions. It is easy to see that this is-inescapable if we throw our minds back to the words of the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies), for I was aghast to hear him say that the amount of compensation which should be paid—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am afraid that is not the subject we are discussing now.
  Colonel Hutchison: I will pass on to another matter. It is clear that whatever arbitrary yardstick is taken for measuring the distance in a Bill of this kind, some concerns will be left with a reasonable trade and others with something which is quite unworkable and not worth having. I can understand the Government's dilemma. They have put themselves in the difficult position of trying to solve what is I think, an insoluble question, That is not our fault. The Government are there to produce a Measure with an amount of equity and reasonableness behind it which will commend it to the community. In that they have failed. Tacitly, the Government's dilemma has been admitted. The Parliamentary Secretary said that if, in fact, this change were made from 25 and 40 miles to 50 and 80 miles, he would be left with an unworkable amount of business under the long-distance definition.
  I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that he will be left with an unworkable amount of business now. I have heard remarks made when concerns were seriously discussing whether they should now buy their own vehicles and run them under "C" licences. A smile may pass over the Minister's face, but when I said to these men, "Are you so satisfied that this is going to be a failure before it has even been tried?" They said that they were. Here was a set of men who,

  1371
  after all, are not going to cut off their noses to spite their faces. They were hard-headed business men, but they were so satisfied that the scheme would. be a failure that they were talking about purchasing their own property. What will be the use of the Minister's 20,000 vehicles if, in fact, there is no trade left for them to carry? I believe the scheme is un- workable, and because I believe this definition will lead to a large measure of injustice, I support the Amendment which has come to us from another place.
  Captain Marsden: I rise only to endeavour to get information on a point which has been raised. I, too, read the letter in "The Times" this morning, and I thought it contained a valuable suggestion. According to the Minister, the letter was unnecessary and redundant be- cause the matter was provided for. I am only asking for information. The matter is not clear to me. In the first line of Clause 39, it says
  "Where the Commission are of opinion,"
  and it goes on to refer to certain long-distance undertakings—
  "it shall be the duty of the Commission to give, in accordance with the subsequent pro-visions of this Part of this Act, a notice of acquisition in respect to the undertaking"
  The latter part of the Clause gives them no option at all. They must acquire it. I assure the Minister that I am only asking for information, and I think that many other hon. Members are interested in this matter. I hope he will make this provision clear.
  Mr. Spence: I have listened to most of the arguments tonight, and having listened to them, I think there can be no doubt that this rejection of the Lords' Amendment by the Minister is for the purpose of eliminating competition and creating a "closed shop" in the transport industry. It is not a good augury for this nationalisation Bill that the Minister feels so touchy about a little competition from the road hauliers. If he rejects this Amendment and leaves the restriction of 25 miles, it will create chaos in the rural areas—and I am speaking for Scotland, whose voice has only been heard for a few moments tonight—and it will bring chaos to our agricultural life. There are a number of provisions later in the Clauses which deal with exemptions for livestock, and so on, but that does not cover the
  1372
  whole picture. If the Minister can show us tonight where the powers lie and where is the direction that carriers are, in certain circumstances, not to be taken over, we shall feel grateful. Can we have a statement that Edinburgh and Glasgow, and I might say, Aberdeen, are to be treated as local areas?
  Mr. Assheton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and other hon. Members on this side have made a most impressive case in support of why the House should agree with the Lords Amendment. On the other hand, we have had a short and rather sketchy speech from the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have been waiting to see whether the Minister would get up, but he has shown no inclination to do so. If I deal first with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), it will clear the air a bit. Some of us found it difficult to understand, in view of Clause 39, how it was that the Parliamentary Secretary could give the assurance that the Commission would have a discretion for taking over any particular road haulier, but I observe that in one of the Lords Amendments we have this provision. There was much ribald laughter when my hon. Friend made that point, but I do not think that any of the hon. Members opposite who joined in the ribald laughter understood what they were laughing at. In the Standing Committee, the Government refused to give way and we assumed that the Clause remained as it was originally in the Bill. The last Amendment, which was passed without any discussion, had not been entirely appreciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth and certainly not by myself, nor, I think, by other of my hon. Friends. Those who laughed did not know what they were laughing about. I am not suggesting, of course, that the Parliamentary Secretary did not know the answer, but those behind him did not.
  11.30 p.m.
  We have had no answer to the case made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby. He gave three very good examples; he spoke of Greater London, Liverpool and Manchester, and Glasgow and Edinburgh, and pointed out how ludicrous it was that road hauliers within those areas should be

  1373
  called long-distance hauliers. The only case made by the Parliamentary Secretary was that if we accepted the Lords Amendment, it would reduce to a very small number the vehicles that were to be taken over. Of course, that is a thing we should naturally welcome on this side of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), on the Liberal benches, was quite right in what he said. He said the reason the Government reject this Amendment is to get rid of as much competition as they can. They know it perfectly well, and I hope the Minister will tell the House that that is the real reason. The road hauliers who are being dealt with in this Clause are being dealt with in a most frivolous manner. They are not being given a fair deal. It is entirely an arbitrary test, for which no sound reason has been given in the House. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted and confessed that it was an arbitrary test, and he did not give any reason for it that we could accept. It is not a reasonable test of what long-distance haulage is. I suggest that the Lords Amendment is a reasonable and sensible one, and I hope the House will accept it.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: With the permission of the House, I should like to answer one or two of the points that have been made in the Debate. Let me first repeat to the House, as there has been some confusion, what is the purpose of the Clause we are discussing. The Clause lays down which road haulage firms shall and which shall not be taken over by the Commission. It has nothing to do with permits for running over certain distances by the firms that are left free; it merely lays clown criteria as to which firms should be taken over completely. The Commission is charged with the duty of running long-distance road haulage, and, therefore, it is essential to lay down some criteria.
  The question is, what shall the criteria be? I can understand the views of hon. Members opposite, who believe that the Commission should not run road haulage at all, and that it should be left entirely to the free competition of the existing firms. They argue that the limits we have put in are not satisfactory, that the much bigger limits put in by the Lords are better, and that if there were bigger limits still, it would be better still. That is logical from their point of view, because
  1374
  if that happened, no firms would be taken over by the Commission, and long-distance road haulage would remain entirely, or almost entirely, in the hands of the existing road haulage companies. But the purpose of the Bill is to effect the integration of transport, and the most important integration and the most urgent, as is recognised by everybody in the transport industry, is that of rail and long-distance road haulage; and it is essential, if this Bill is to be a success, that the Commission should be empowered to take over long-distance road haulage.
  What is long-distance road haulage? I ask the House this question in reverse. What is short-distance road haulage? Our object has been to leave out the local haulier, because we think it is desirable that he should be able to carry on his work as he does at the moment. It does not interfere with the rail services and the railways' short-distance to al haulage. Surely, the radius of 25 miles that the local haulier has is a generous one? A radius of 25 miles includes an area of 2,000 square miles, and I suggest that anything larger than that area would be quite unreasonable. The definition laid down by the Road Haulage Association itself some years ago—the House must bear it in mind—was 30 miles. We think that for the purpose of setting up a national road haulage service—it has to be a good service for industry, it has to be efficient, it must have resources, 25 miles is the correct radius, with a 40 miles distance. That is definitely our view, and I would point out that some of the figures that have been men-tioned—
  Sir Ian Fraser: If the area is 2,000 square miles, and the operator lives in the middle of it, can he work both ways, making his calls over a distance of 49 miles?
  Mr. Strauss: Yes. The definition is 25 miles from the place where he keeps lorries.
  Sir I. Fraser: That was not the question. Supposing the area in which he operates covers 2,000 square miles, can lie live in the middle and go 25 miles north and 25 miles south, so that his real distance is 49 miles.
  Mr. Strauss: He will be allowed to operate 25 miles north, south, east or

  1375
  west. I was making this point in reply to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), who said it would be difficult to work this scheme at all with the 25 miles and 40 miles proposal. In some cases it will not be easy, I agree, but it would not be any easier if one made it 50 and 80 miles. The same difficulties would arise, and the method of ascertaining whether a firm came within the definition or not would be exactly the same whether the Lords Amenament were accepted or whether the Bill is allowed to stand as it is. I have been asked to amplify the statement I made, and on which the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) touched, about compulsion, that is, whether the Commission is bound to take over road haulage vehicles.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Before the hon Gentleman leaves the point about the 40 miles and 80 miles limit, will he answer the question I put? When a journey is of go miles, part of which, for one delivery, is outside the area, does the whole of that journey count for long distance, or only that portion of it which arises from the delivery outside?
  Mr. Strauss: To decide whether a firm comes within the category of long-distance, the records over the year will be examined and the case will be argued before the tribunal. There will be difficult cases, I agree, where it will Le difficult to decide; but the, work of the vehicles and the records, where kept, will all he put before the tribunal, and the tribunal will be able to decide, not one journey, but on the records of the firm for a Year, whether it falls within or outside the definition. Exactly the same problem would arise regarding long distance if the Lords Amendment were accepted, so it is quite irrelevant to the discussion we are now having
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The Parliamentary Secretary should understand his own Bill sufficiently to give me an explanation which I am entitled to have It has nothing to do with the particular difficulties of the tribunal. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary knows what the Clause means, it is very unlikely that the tribunal will know. Will he answer the the specific point I made? Will a journey of over 40 miles—say, go miles, if you like—part of which is outside the radius,
  1376
  be considered, when the tribunal comes to consider journeys of that kind, long distance or short distance, or a portion as long distance in respect of.,nods delivered outside the area?
  Mr. Strauss: I have answered that point. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear me, I will repeat it. The records of the firm, which would show the journeys each vehicle had made over the year, would be taken and would be considered. These total records—not one tricky journey—would be considered, and on them the tribunal would decide whether they constituted long-distance journeys or not.
  Secondly, it. is quite impossible to establish a road haulage service—a national service—which is efficient and which gives industry what it wants, unless the Commission have a sufficient number of vehicles and proper resources with which to carry out that work. For those two reasons, I ask the House to accept what was originally in this Bill, and which was with great care put before the House and discussed at length in Committee. All that another place has done has been to double the figures, making 25 miles 50 miles and 50 miles 80 miles. As the "Financial Times," which is opposed to this Bill, has said, if we were to accept this Amendment it would make impossible the fusion which the Bill seeks to provide.
  Brigadier Mackeson: I asked two questions of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have not had an answer. Has he anything to say about the coastal areas?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already spoken once, and he may not speak twice.
  Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall): I have not yet intervened in this Debate, and I want to ask a question about administration. How is it possible to administer the provision about carriers going over the 25 miles limit or the 50 miles limit? If a carrier goes from Sheffield to Wakefield and beyond, how it is to be held against him if he goes outside the 25 miles area? The Parliamentary Secretary must have some idea, and at the same time it is absolutely fantastic that he should come to the House at this late stage and not give us any idea of how he proposes to carry this out.
  Mr. Levy: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it really in Order or

  1377
  has it any relevance to the Amendment under discussion to ask whether the distance should be 25 or 50 miles?
  Major Roberts: I must press this point. It is absolutely vital that we in this House, in passing legislation, should know how the Government propose to carry it out. From an administrative point of view it is difficult for the police or anyone else to say when a vehicle has gone beyond the 25 miles. My hon. Friend has suggested boards or placards, but the Government must give us some idea of how this is to be carried out, and we should have an answer from the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. C. Williams: There is a terrifically long coastline in this country and there is a very large number of vehicles operating in my own constituency, and a much larger number if one takes in the whole of the Cornish coast as well. We ought to

  Division No. 323.]

  AYES.

  [11.45 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Crawley, A

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Crossman, R. H S

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Daggar, G.

  Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Daines, P.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Alpass, J. H

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Gunter, R. J

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Guy, W. H.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Hale, Leslie

  Awbery, S. S

  Deer, G.

  Hall, W. G.

  Ayles, W. H.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Delargy, H. J

  Hardman, D R

  Baird, J.

  Diamond, J

  Hardy, E. A.

  Balfour A

  Dobbie, W

  Harrison, J.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Dodds, N. N

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Barstow, P G

  Donovan, T

  Haworth, J

  Barton, C.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

  Battley, J. R.

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Bechervaise, A E.

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Herbison, Miss M

  Bellenger, Rt Hon F J

  Durbin, E F. M.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Beswick, F.

  Dye, S.

  Hobson, C. R

  Bing, G. H C

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Holman, P

  Binns, J

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  House, G

  Blenkinsop, A

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Hubbard, T.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr H. W

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L' Exch'ge)

  Ewart, R.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Farthing, W. J

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Fernyhough, E

  Irving, W. J

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Field, Capt. W. J

  Janner, B

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Fletcher, E G. M (Islington, E.)

  Jay, D. P T

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Follick, M

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W T

  Foot, M. M

  Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Buchanan, G

  Forman, J. C

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Burke, W. A

  Foster, W (Wigan)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Carmichael, James

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Keenan, W.

  Champion, A. J

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Kenyon, C.

  Chater, D.

  Gallacher, W.

  King, E. M.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Ganley, Mrs C. S

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Cobb, F. A.

  Gibbins, J.

  Kinley, J

  Cocks, F. S.

  Gibson, C W

  Lang, G.

  Coldrick, W

  Gilzean, A

  Lavers, S.

  Collick, P

  Glanville, J E (Consett)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Collins, V J.

  Goodrich, H E

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Gordon-Walker, P C

  Leonard, W

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G.

  Greenwood. A W J (Heywood)

  Lever, N. H

  Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Grey, C F

  Levy, B. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Grierson, E

  Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)

  know what the position is in these areas, for in many cases the operators cannot have half the area to go over, and when the Parliamentary Secretary refers to a great number of square miles, it must be remember that our position is entirely different from that which exists in the centre of England. Considering the enormous number of these vehicles operating in coastal districts, I hope that in some other part of the Bill they will be given consideration. This matter affects many ports and all the seaside towns. I do not want to go back to my constituency with tie message that the Government absolutely refuse to think about them, but I shall have to do so if I do not get an answer.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 128.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Pearson, A.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Peart, T. F.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M

  Piratin, P.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Logan, D. G

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Longden, F

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Popplewell, E

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  McAdam, W.

  Porter E, (Warrington)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  McAllister, G.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Price, M. Philips

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  McGovern, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Mack, J. D

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Tiffany, S

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Randall, H E

  Timmons, J

  McKinlay, A S

  Ranger, J

  Titterington, M F

  McLeavy, F.

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Tolley, L.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Rhodes, H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Richards, R.

  Usborne, Henry

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Robens, A.

  Walkden, E.

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Mathers, G

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Watkins, T. E

  Mayhew, C P

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Watson, W. M

  Medland, H. M

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Weitzman, D.

  Mellish, R. J

  Royle, C.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Sargood, R

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Scollan, T.

  West, D. G.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R

  Shackleton, E A. A

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Sharp, Granville

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Morgan, Dr H B

  Shurmer, P.

  Wigg, Col G. E.

  Morley, R.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A B.

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  Wilkes, L

  Murray, J. D.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Wilkins, W A

  Nally, W

  Skeffington, A. M

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Skinnard, F. W

  Willey, O G (Cleveland)

  Nichol, Mrs M. E (Bradford, N.)

  Smith, C (Colchester)

  Williams, D J (Neath)

  Nicholls, H R (Stratford)

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Williams, W R (Heston)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J (Derby)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Willis, E.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Solley, L. J.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  O'Brien, T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilmot, Rt Hon. J

  Oldfield, W. H

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Wise, Major F J

  Oliver, G H.

  Soarks, J A

  Woodburn, A.

  Orbach, M.

  Stamford, W.

  Woods, G. S

  Pagel, R T

  Steele, T.

  Wyatt, W.

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Stephen, C.

  Yates, V. F.

  Paimer, A M. F

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Pargiter, G. A

  Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Zilliacus, K

  Parker, J.

  Stubbs, A E

  Parkin, B. T.

  Swingler, S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Sylvester, G. O

  Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.

  NOES.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Low, Brig. A R W

  Baldwin, A. E

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Lucas, Major Sir J

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Gage, C.

  McCallum, Maj. D

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Bossom, A C.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Bowen, R.

  Grant, Lady

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Bower, N.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Maclay, Hon. J S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Butcher, H W.

  Hare, Hon J. H (Woodbridge)

  Maitland, Comdr. J W

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Haughton, S G

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Byers, Frank

  Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C

  Marlowe, A. A H

  Clarke, Col R. S.

  Herbert, Sir A. P.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Mellor, Sir J

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)

  Molson, A. H. E

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

  Hurd, A.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Nicholson, G

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Noble, Comdr A. H P

  De la Bère, R.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Orr-Ewing, I L

  Digby, S. W.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Osborne, C

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Peto, Brig C. H. M

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G. (Penrith)

  Law, Rt. Hon R. K.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Drayson, G B.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Linstead, H N

  Prescott, Stanley

  Eden, Rt. Hon A.

  Lipson, D. L

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  1380

  1381

  Raikes, H. V

  Snadden, W. M.

  Vane, W M F

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  Spearman, A C M

  Wadsworth, G.

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Spence, H. R.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Reed. Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Strauss, H G (English Universities)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H U.

  Roberts, Maj P. G (Ecclesall)

  Teeling, William

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

  Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)

  York, C

  Ropner Col L

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A F

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Touche, G. C.

  Cmdr. Agnew and Mr. Studholme.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 27, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty."

  Division No. 324.]

  AYES

  [11.55 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Irving, W. J

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Janner, B.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Jay, D. P. T

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Dye, S.

  Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Attewell, H. C.1

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Jones, J. H (Bolton)

  Baird, J.

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Balfour, A.

  Ewart, R

  Keenan, W.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Farthing, W. J

  Kenyon, C.

  Barstow, P G

  Fernyhough, E.

  King, E. M.

  Barton, C.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Bechervaise, A E.

  Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E.)

  Kinley, J

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Follick, M.

  Lang, G.

  Beswick, F.

  Foot, M. M.

  Lavers, S

  Bing, G. H. C

  Forman, J. C.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Binns, J.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Blenkinsop, A

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Leonard, W.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Levy, B. W.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

  Gallacher, W.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Ganley, Mrs. C S

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Gibbins, J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Bramall, E. A.

  Gibson, C W

  Logan, D G

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Gilzean, A

  Longden, F

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Granville, J E (Consett)

  Lyne, A. W

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  McAdam, W.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  McAllister, G.

  Buchanan, G.

  Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Burke, W. A.

  Grey, C. F

  McGovern, J.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Grierson, E

  Mack, J. D.

  Carmichael, James

  Griffiths, D, (Rother Valley)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.)

  Champion, A. J

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  McKinlay, A. S

  Chater, D.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  McLeavy, F.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Gunter, R. J

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Guy, W. H.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Haire, John E (Wycombe)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Coldrick, W.

  Hale, Leslie

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Collick, P.

  Hall, W. G.

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Collins, V. J.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

  Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Mathers, G.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Hardy, E A

  Mayhew, C. P

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb well, N.W.)

  Harrison, J.

  Medland, H M

  Cove, W. G

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Mellish, R J.

  Crawley, A

  Haworth, J

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Grossman. R. H S

  Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Daggar, G.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

  Daines, P.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Moody, A. S.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Morgan, Dr. H B

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Holman, P

  Morley, R.

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  House, G

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Deer, G.

  Hubbard, T

  Murray J. D.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)

  Nally, W.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Diamond, J.

  Hughes, H D. (Wolverhampton, W)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E (Bradford, N.)

  Dobbie, W

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

  Dodds, N. N

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Donovan, T.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J. (Derby)

  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 122.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Shackleton, L A A

  Titterington, M. F

  O'Brien, T

  Sharp, Granville

  Tolley, L.

  Oldfield, W. H

  Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

  Orbach, M.

  Shurmer, P.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Paget, R. T

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Usborne, Henry

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Vernon, Maj. W F

  Palmer, A M. F

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Walkden, E.

  Pargiter, G A

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Parker, J.

  Skinnard, F W.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Parkin, B J

  Smith, C (Colchester)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Paton, J (Norwich)

  Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

  Watson, W. M.

  Pearson, A

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Weitzman, D

  Peart, T. F

  Snow, Capt. J W.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Piratin, P

  Solley, L. J

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Sorensen, R. W

  West, D. G.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Sparks, J. A

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Porter E (Warrington)

  Stamford, W

  Wigg, Col. G. E

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Steele, T.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A B

  Price, M. Philips

  Stephen, C.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pritt, D. N

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

  Proctor, W T

  Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)

  Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Stubbs, A E

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Randall, H E

  Swingler, S

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Ranger, J

  Sylvester, G O

  Williams, W R. (Heston)

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Symonds, A. L.

  Willis, E.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

  Wills, Mrs. E A

  Rhodes, H.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Richards, R.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Wise, Major F J

  Ridealgh, Mrs M

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Woodburn, A.

  Roberts, A.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Woods, G. S

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Wyatt, W.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Yates, V. F.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Royle, C.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Sargood, R

  Tiffany, S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Scollan, T

  Timmons, J.

  Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr P O

  Haughton, S. G.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Baldwin, A. E

  Hogg, Hon. Q

  Prescott, Stanley

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hope, Lord J

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon R S (Southport)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Boles, Lt.-Col D C. (Wells)

  Hurd, A.

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bowen, R

  Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Bower, N.

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Butcher, H W.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ropner, Col L

  Byers, Frank

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Clarke, Col R. S.

  Linstead, H N.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lipson, D. L

  Snadden, W. M

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spearman, A. C M

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W

  Spence, H. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E.

  Lucas, Major Sir J

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Strauss, H G (English Universities)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Studholme, H. G

  De la Bère, R.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Digby, S. W.

  Mackeson, Brig H. R.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A (P'dd't'n, S)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Teeling, William

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr, P. W

  Maclay. Hon. J S.

  Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)

  Dower, Lt.-Col A V G. (Penrith)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)

  Drayson, G B

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Touche, G. C.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W

  Turton, R. H.

  Eden, Rt. Hon A

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Vane, W. M F.

  Elliot Rt. Hon Walter

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Fletcher, W (Bury)

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P. M

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Gage, C.

  Mellor, Sir J

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Molson, A. H E.

  Willink, Rt Hon. H U

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Grant, Lady

  Nicholson, G

  York, C

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H P

  Grimston, R. V

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Osborne, C.

  Major Conant and

  Hare, Hon J. H (Woodbridge)

  Peto, Brig C H M

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp

  Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 29, after "that" insert:
  "the carriage of goods in a vehicle authorised for use under a licence granted under subsection (I) of section seven of Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would point out that this Amendment is grouped with three later Amendments in page 66, lines 8 and 19.
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The effect of this Amendment is to exclude from the computation to determine whether an undertaking is long-distance road haulage or not, the type of traffic that is carried in an "A" contract vehicle. Under Section 7 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, a road haulier can enter into a direct contract to carry the commodities of a particular firm in an "A" contract vehicle, and very often part of the arrangement is that the hirer arranges for the name of his firm or company to be also inscribed on the vehicle. The argument which has been advanced to support the exclusion of the "A" contract vehicle has been that this type of vehicle is very similar to the "C" licence vehicle. I have never been able to accept that position, because the "A" contract vehicle is in fact hired for reward and a variation, in so far as it is tied to one particular company, does not alter the character when the vehicle is plying for hire and reward. Therefore, as it is essential that this type of vehicle should be treated in the same way as the haulier who generally takes on any type of contract, we are unable to accept this Amendment. The Commission obviously can undertake work of this description in the same sense as any private haulier can do so, and I do not consider that any case has been made out for this Amendment.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: One of the things that used to endear the Minister to us in Committee was his ability to indicate agreement with a nod of the head, and then, when he got up to speak, we found that he was going directly contrary to what he had indicated earlier in the day. Recently, he was the recipient of the hospitality of the shareholders of one of the great shipping companies, and today we hoped that he would be somewhat more generous in the acceptance of some
  1386
  of these Amendments sent down from another place. But the way in which he has treated this particular Amendment is extremely brief, and I cannot see the logic in his refusal.
  I will deal very briefly with the object of this Amendment as I see it. It is to exclude from the acquisition, as he has said, any vehicle under an "A" licence which is subject to a licence limiting its use to the goods of a particular undertaking. It is often the custom for a specific undertaking to have one, two or three vehicles. It is not economic and efficient for it to run as a single unit, but much better to operate with others in a pool. A group of firms in a town will get together and have one individual to run the business for them. The individual firm, whether a laundry or someone sending perishable foodstuffs about, or whatever it may be, has its name inscribed on the side of the vehicle, and it is, to all intents and purposes, a "C" licence run by someone else for that firm for the sake of economy and efficiency of operation. I say efficiency, because I think, as some hon. Members will be aware, that perhaps the one case where it was not efficient was when the Government tried to do this sort of thing during the war. On one occasion two hundred trailer films were to be taken round. The Post Office was invited to distribute them, but this distribution by the Post Office broke down and a private undertaking had to be brought in to do it. That was not a good augury for what the Government are proposing to do, namely, to nationalise these "A" contract vehicles.
  The second point I want to make is that of economy. Obviously, if a firm has one or two vehicles, it has certain overheads to meet. It must have the vehicle overhauled, and once a week it must give the driver his day off. If it wants to use the vehicle for six or seven days a week, it is more economical o run it in a group under some appointed individual. The firms may appoint this person for a year and, if at the end of the year they find that he has not been very satisfactory, they can change to someone else.
  The Minister will probably say, or at least imply, that the Government could carry this out as effectively as could private enterprise; but I think he would find that his colleague, the Secretary of State

  1387
  for War, and even his well-known and very respected war-time colleague, Jane, would not place one R.E.M.E. company in the same class as another. With those who had any choice, one R.E.M.E. company would go up rapidly in favour, while another would pass out altogether. Under the proposals in the Bill, there will be no consumers' choice. This "A" licence system ensures that choice to the users of road vehicles. Those are two reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. The system of running a comparatively limited number of vehicles is more efficient.
  Another suggestion put forward elsewhere which the Minister may consider, and which I believe was elsewhere not unfavourably considered is that a number of these people in a certain town should be permitted to run a pool of vehicles on a certain basis, and see if that would work. I ask the Minister to say whether it would not be possible to make an attempt of this nature, running it on a co-operative basis by some person for the individual users of vehicles, who could contract in or contract out of a particular pool as they wished.
  I put it to the Minister that this seems to us to be another instance of the fear of competition. The Government maintain that the nationalised services will give the country and the individual trader who employes this type of vehicle the service he needs and that, therefore, there is no need for the contract "A" vehicle. Why not let them go ahead and see? If the Government's services were good, in a year or so there would be no need for contract "A" vehicles. Why not give them a chance? Just as in another place it was urged by the Government that the Commission should be given a chance, let us give this system of "A" contract licence vehicles a chance and see which comes out best from that competition. If what the Government have maintained throughout this Bill, is correct, that the Government's system will be perfect, and no one else will want to run any vehicles and even the "C" licence vehicles will go out, let them try it. Then we shall see.
  Finally, I would put it to the Minister that we believe and fear that this is another example of the Government wanting to set up an absolute monopoly. Of
  1388
  course, the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) holds the view that the figure ought not to be 25 miles, but nought miles. We see the Government creating an absolute monopoly to do away with the consumer's choice, and we see that the small employer is not to be allowed to do what he has done in the past. I suggest that the Minister, who sometimes starts by saying "No" to the first Amendment and then changes his mind on later Amendments, should, in this case, say "Yes".
  12.15 a.m.
  Major Houghton: The proposed rejection of this Amendment would be more easily understood if there were any certainty that the business connected with contract "A" licence holders would be brought into nationalised transport, but the whole situation changed during the Committee stage when it was decided to give freedom to the "C" licence holders. The contract "A" licence is a very specialised thing and a trader does not enter into a contract of that kind without good reason. One of those reasons is that he uses a particular type of vehicle and he does not want to run his own transport, but gets a haulier to do it for him. What will happen? If this Amendment is rejected on the general idea that all these Amendments must be rejected, it will e. that an individual or firm requiring that specialised type of vehicle will have to get one made and run it as a "C" licence holder. It may well be that he will not use the vehicle to full capacity and, speaking in general terms, transport will not be as efficient as it ought to be. The proposal to reject this Amendment which would enable contract "A" licence holders to have the same freedom, more or less, as "C" licence holders appears to be very petty, and it would compel traders of the sort to whom I have referred to place orders for vehicles. That would be undesirable in the present state of the motor industry, and in the end none of this particular business would he brought into the nationalised transport undertaking.
  Mr. Poole: I apologise for not having been in my place during the whole of this discussion, but I would like to speak particularly on the points made about the contract "A" licences. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary were here, could he say that this was a "wrecking

  1389
  Amendment," or that it was a matter of great party difference? It is a technical matter, and I hope that we can argue it on those lines. I think that even the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) would support me when I say that the whole aspect of the contract "A" licence was changed when the regulations about the "C" licences were changed. Certain trades have certain reasons for contracting vehicles rather than having vehicles of their own. They prefer to go to a haulier who manages the vehicle for the trader, who advertises on the vehicle. If that situation is changed, one of two things will happen. Either the trader will try to acquire a vehicle with a "C" licence and will run it himself, or he will have to go to the Commission and ask for his goods to be carried. He will consider that less efficient. If that were a satisfactory arrangement, he would have a haulier providing those services for him. I cannot see any justification for including the "A" licence contracts in the Bill.
  I think there is at the present time—I hope the situation will be changed in due course—one other factor to be taken into consideration. If the Commission takes over haulage with "A" licences, it will take over the "A" licence men's vehicles. Many of these vehicles are of a specialised nature, and the trader will have difficulty in acquiring a new vehicle in getting a "C" licence. Therefore, there will be a considerable gap between his losing his "A" licence vehicle and getting his new vehicle and the "C" licence.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman inform us why those vehicles should not be used by the Commission for the carrying of that trader's goods in the same way as they are carried by "A" licence contractors?
  Mr. Poole: I think the answer is because, in practically every case, there is a special reason why a trader prefers to have an "A" contract vehicle provided for him permanently, rather than to have a vehicle provided casually. These people are not competing against any particular road haulier. They will not be putting up enormous competition against the Commission. This will not make a great hole in the work that the Commission carries out. Obviously, it is undersirable from
  1390
  many points of view to increase the number of "C" licences more than is absolutely necessary. I should have thought that in this case it would have been worth the Government's while to have accepted the Amendment, since it does not seem to me to be a major issue, and it does not affect the principle of this Bill.
  Mr. C. Williams: I was very anxious earlier in the day that this Amendment should be discussed separately.
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member does not want to detain the House.
  Mr. Williams: It does not involve major principles as did the last two Amendments on which we divided. It is rather a matter of small, specialised traders in "A" contract businesses for the special purpose and special convenience of small firms. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman really wants to make things more difficult for the little firms which, in the main, will be affected by this Amendment. I do not honestly believe he wants to do that. These little firms like to have a van provided by a haulier, with their own names and advertisements on them, to carry specialised goods. When the vehicles come under the enormously powerful, large system of the Government, these firms cannot hope to have the same special consideration and special vans which carry their own advertisements.
  Mr. Mikardo: Why not?
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, I am sure we shall be delighted to hear him. I know he is an expert, and I am just an ordinary person who happens to see and hear people. I do not move in his high falutin' circles. I think the Ministry of Transport has a kind spot in its hear if only one can find it. I plead for the smaller people, as my friends have done By this Amendment we would help the small specialised businesses. It is exceedingly unlikely that one great, colossal transport business is going to dead with them. I ask the Minister on this Amendment to give something to this side of the House. It would be a concession which would show the human side of the Government to those outside the House and show them that the Government do not use their power ruthlessly to squash every section of the community.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to deal with one point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, and which I think i., vital to this special problem. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had noted the arguments that the contract "A" licence was in a similar position to the "C" licence. He rejected that argument because the contract ' A vehicle is a vehicle that is hired to carry goods for reward. The position of doth these types of vehicle under the old Road and Rail Act should be borne in mind. It seems to be a most material and consider, able factor. The right hon Gentleman will remember that under that Act, so long as a holder of the contras, "A' vehicle tied himself down to carrying goods for one particular person for a period of up to a year, he was not able to carry the goods of another person. When he put that limitation on himself, he was, under Section I of the Act, in exactly the same position as the holder of the "C" licence under Section 6; that is, he could make application and the application could not be refused.
  That is statutory history. I am sorry to have inflicted it on the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he will see the effect it has on the present position. It means that up to now, the contract "A" vehicle has been in the same position as the "C" licence holder. Therefore the problem the right hon. Gentleman now has to face is why he should change the position that has obtained up to the present. I have tried to appreciate the arguments, but I cannot see why the fact that the person who wishes goods to be moved wants to hire a vehicle which is confined to his goods, should alter the position. At the same time it is perfectly rational that he should want the servicing of his vehicle, or a number of vehicles of which his is one, to be done by an expert; but none the less, the governing factor that the vehicle is being restricted to carrying his goods, and his goods alone, still remains and still, brings it into the same position
  12.30 a.m.
  If that is so, then what we are really asking for here is that there should not be a mileage restriction on the contract "A" vehicle, and that the vehicle, by reason of the longer carry that it may do, should be brought in to swell the amount of what is long-distance carriage under the Bill. That seems to us very reason-
  1392
  able, and there is not a very large number of vehicles involved, because the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he has to take the whole of the contract 'A" vehicles and diminish that number in proportion to the number that carry over the 25 miles and the 40miles.agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) that this Amendment falls into a very different category from the others. It is a very practical one which will affect number of people who have wanted a particular and individual vehicle appropriate to their own needs for special reasons, and they have wanted the upkeep and maintenance of the vehicles to remain with the haulage business. That is not an unreasonable position The Amendment affects a very small number of vehicles, and I suggest that it would not do any harm to the right hon. Gentleman's principles, or affect his Bill, if he were to make a concession in this matter.
  Mr. Wadsworth: I still feel that the actual significance of this service has not been understood. This service of "A" contract vehicles has grown up side by side with the "A" licence, the "B" licence and the "C" licence, and has definitely filled a need for which none of the other services catered. The firms which use these types of vehicles—and I illustrate my point by giving the instance of chocolate firms, which require a special type of van and also a specialised type of driver—could not be served by pool vehicles. In many cases the drivers have to collect cash, to return empties, to give receipts and credit notes, and have to build up at the same time the goodwill of the firm for which they carry. All these services could not be done by a nationalised transport service.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "]—Because they not only require a specialised type of van, but trusted workpeople who know the firm's customers, and in a nationalised pool service I cannot believe that they would have the same service. I hope the Minister will reconsider this Amendment sympathetically because there is a need for this service. If he does not give it himself, he will be driving all these services into "C'' licences. By conceding this point—and it is a very little one—he can surely give greater efficiency to the transport services'
  Mr. Maclay: I intervene in this Debate with a strong desire to be helpful, because

  1393
  judging from some of the speeches tonight, some hon. Members do not know what they are talking about. I hope that, if the Minister is going to reply to this general discussion, he will clarify one point in regard to the "A" licences. Is it true that it is possible, having surveyed a firm to see whether it is eligible to 'be taken over, that its contract "A" vehicles need not necessarily be taken over if they operate outside a 25 miles' limit? It would be a great help to the House and to the country, if we could get it absolutely clear whether, under the Clause we are now discussing, that is correct. As I understand it, we are concerned with whether it is predominantly a long or a short haul. If it is predominantly a long haul, it will be taken over, but if it is a short haul under an "A" licence, it will not he taken over even if it should happen to operate outside the 25 miles' limit.
  Mr. Byers: Are we not going to have an answer?
  Mr. Barnes: I am only too pleased to intervene again in this Debate if it is really necessary, but I think I have stated the facts fairly without—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he can speak only by leave of the House, as he has spoken already.
  Mr. Barnes: By leave of the House, then—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Earl Winterton: As we want to hear the right hon. Gentleman, can we have a Division on the Question whether the right hon. Gentleman should have the leave of the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House cannot divide upon the question of leave being refused.
  Mr. Turton: It the right hon. Gentleman cannot control his own followers, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, who presumably knows the Minister's case on this Amendment, can put forward the Government's point of view. This is a very important matter. A great deal of laundry is carried in rural areas with the help of these "A" contract vehicles, and if the Minister is to take them over, it will mean great inconvenience in rural areas, with the present shortage of soap. It might even lead to unhealthy conditions for those
  1394
  who live in the rural areas. As usual, the Government have hit the small man, and the big sinner—in their view—gets oft because he is a "C" licence holder. It is the very small man who has vehicles for this purpose. With this encouragement, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will now have sufficient courage to address the House on this matter and not convey that he knows nothing about the "A" licence holder. We have the advantage of having the Solicitor-General with us, and he is at present reading the Minister's brief. If I can go on a little longer, it will give him more time in which to grasp the essentials in that brief, and knowing his capacity for grasping quickly a point put before him, that will be sufficient time for him to understand the Amendment and its implications, as well as the Government's view on the matter. Perhaps he will now be able to address the House and give us an answer to the arguments that have been adduced on this Amendment.
  Mr. Barnes: If I may have the leave of the House, perhaps we can, without developing a controversy on a subject which does not really justify it, have a solution to the problem. I do not accept the view put forward that the "A" contract vehicle requires a specialised driver with a particular knowledge of delivery. The average person who undertakes "A" licence work performs it daily and weekly, and there are thousands of such persons in the country. The real point at issue is whether, in equity, a vehicle is for hire and reward. There is no dispute that an "A" contract vehicle comes under that definition. It represents a special contract, and it is probably tied to a particular firm by agreement with the road haulage undertaking. There are many other contracts that are not tied in the same specific form as 'A" contract vehicles, but nevertheless they are carrying goods of other firms regularly week after week. On the point of equity, I cannot possibly see how Parliament should apply to one haulier this test of whether the majority of his journeys are over 40 miles or not while another contractor, because of his special type of contract, is excluded from the Bill. Any "A" contract journey that is below the 25 miles will count in his favour; any journey over 40 miles will count for the long-distance calculation.
  When we talk about the small contractor, who is often trotted out on these occa-

  1395
  sions, I would remind the House that "A" contract operators would come in only if the majority of their journeys were over 40 miles distance. There are from 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles hired under this system and it is too big a block of vehicles to be treated in any special way. What I have added does not alter substantially the explanation I gave in asking the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment. I hope the House will now come to a decision.
  Mr. Byers: But the Minister will admit, in rejecting this Amendment, that he is preventing there being any consumer's choice in the future? If a firm that uses

  Division No. 325.]

  AYES.

  [12.43 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Dodds, N N

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

  Donovan, T.

  Hughes, H D (Wolverhampton, w)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Driberg, T E. N.

  Hutchinson, H L. (Rusholme)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Attewell, H. C

  Durbin, E F M

  Irving, W. J

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Dye, S.

  Janner, B

  Awbery, S S

  Ede, Rt Hon J. C.

  Jay, D. P T

  Ayrton Gould. Mrs. B

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Baird, J

  Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

  Jeger, Dr S W (St Pancras, S.E.)

  Balfour A

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepoole)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Barstow, P G

  Ewart, R.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Barton, C.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kenyon, C.

  Beswick, F.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  King, E M

  Bing, G. H C

  Fletcher, E G M. (Islington, E.)

  Kinghorn, San.-Ldr E

  Binns, J

  Foot, M. M

  Kinley, J

  Blenkinsop, A

  Forman, J. C.

  Lang, G.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Lavers, S.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Lee. Miss J (Cannock)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L', Exch'ge)

  Gaitskell, H. T N

  Leonard, W.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Gallacher, W.

  Levy, B. W.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Lewis, J (Bolton)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Gibbins, J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Gibson, C W

  Lipton. Lt -Col M

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Gilzean, A.

  Logan, D G.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W T.

  Glanville, J E (Consett)

  Longden, F.

  Buchanan, G.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Lyne, A W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Greenwood, A W J (Haywood)

  McAdam, W

  Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

  Grey, C. F.

  McAllister, G

  Carmichael, James

  Grierson, E

  McGhee, H. G

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mack, J. D.

  Champion, A J

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Chater, D.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull. N. W)

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Guest, Dr. L Haden

  McKinlay, A. S

  Cocks, F. S.

  Gunter, R. J.

  McLeavy, F

  Coldrick, W.

  Guy, W. H.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Collins, V. J.

  Haire, John E (Wycombe)

  Macpherson, T (Romford)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Hale, Leslie

  Mallalieu, J P. W

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

  Hall, W. G.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Corbet, Mrs. F K (Ca b we. N W.)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Cove, W. G

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

  Crawley, A

  Hardman, D. R

  Mathers, G.

  Crossman, R. H S

  Hardy, E A.

  Mayhew, C. P

  Daggar, G

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Medland, H M

  Daines, P

  Haworth, J

  Mellish, R J

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Herbison, Miss M

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Deer, G.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Moody, A. S.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Holman, P

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Delargy, H. J

  House, G

  Moyle, A.

  Diamond, J.

  Hubbard, T

  Murray, J. D

  Dobbie, W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Nally, W.

  "A" contract licences is dissatisfied with the service it gets from the Commission, its only alternative is to buy a vehicle—not go to another firm.
  Mr. Barnes: It is quite true that they have that opportunity and it appears to me that they have an effective consumer's choice. On the other hand, we do not accept the view that the Commission cannot provide an equal and even a better service than the private undertakings.
  Mr. Byers: No competition.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 110.

  Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)

  Scollan, T

  Tolley, L.

  Nicholls, H R (Stratford)

  Shackleton, E A A

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)

  Sharp, Granville

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P J (Derby)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St Helens)

  Usborne, Henry

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Shurmer, P

  Vernon, Maj W. P

  O'Brien, T.

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  Walkden, E.

  Oldfield, W H

  Silverman, S S. (Nelson)

  Walker, G H

  Orbach, M.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)

  Paget, R. T

  Skeffington, A M

  Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Skinnard, F. W

  Watkins, T. E

  Palmer, A M. F

  Smith, C (Colchester)

  Watson, W. M

  Pargiter, G A

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Weitzman, D

  Parker, J

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Parkin, B. I.

  Solley, L. J.

  Wells, w. T (Walsall)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Sorensen, R. W

  West, D. G

  Peart, T F

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Piratin, P

  Sparks, J. A

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Plaits-Mills, J. F. P.

  Stamford, W.

  Wigg, Col G E

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Steele, T.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt C A B

  Popplewell, E.

  Stephen, C.

  Wilkes, L

  Porter E (Warrington)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Wilkins, W A.

  Price, M. Philips

  Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Stubbs, A. E

  Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

  Proctor, W. T

  Swingler, S

  Williams, D J. (Neath)

  Pryde, D. J

  Sylvester, G O

  Williams, J L (Kelvingrove)

  Randall, H E

  Symonds, A. L

  Williams, W R (Heston)

  Ranger, J

  Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

  Willis, E.

  Rees-Williams, D R

  Taylor, R J (Morpeth)

  Wills, Mrs. E A

  Rhodes, H.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Wise, Major F J

  Richards, R.

  Thomas, D E (Aberdare)

  Woodburn, A

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Woods, G S

  Robens, A.

  Thomas, I O (Wrekin)

  Wyatt, W

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Yates, V F.

  Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Zilliacus, K

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Tiffany, S

  Royle, C

  Timmons, J

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Sargood, R

  Titterington M P

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Pearson.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Gridley, Sir A

  Peto, Brig C H M

  Assheton, Rt, Hon. R.

  Grimston, R. V

  Pickthorn, K

  Astor, Hon M

  Hare, Hon J H (Woodbridge)

  Pitman, I J

  Baldwin, A E

  Haughton, S. G

  Poole, O B S. (Oswestry)

  Barlow, Sir J

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Prescolt, Stanley

  Beamish, Maj T V. H

  Hope, Lord J

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Birch, Nigel

  Hudson, Rt. Hon R S (Southport)

  Rayner, Brig, R

  Boles, Lt.-Col O C. (Wells)

  Hurd, A.

  Reid, Rt. Hon J S C. (Hillhead)

  Bossom, A C.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bower, N

  Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Roberts, Maj P G (Ecclesall)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Roberts W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Butcher, H. W

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Ropner Col L

  Byers, Frank

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Scott, Lord W

  Clarke, Col R S.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A R

  Snadden, W. M

  Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G

  Linstead, H N.

  Spearman, A. C M

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spence, H. R.

  Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon H F C.

  Low, Brig A. R. W

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot O E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Strauss, H G (English Universities)

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Studholme, H G

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Brig. H R

  Sutcliffe, H

  Davidson, Viscountes

  McKie, J. H (Galloway)

  Teeling, William

  De la Bère, R

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thomas, J P. L (Hereford)

  Digby, S W.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Maitland, Comdr. J W

  Thorp, Lt-Col R A F

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Touche, G. C.

  Dower, Lt.-Col, A V G. (Penrith)

  Marlowe, A. A. H

  Turton, R H.

  Drayson, G B

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Vane, W M F

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Eden, Rt. Hon A.

  Marshall S H. (Sutton)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Elliot Rt. Hon Walter

  Mellor, Sir J.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Fletcher, W (Bury)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Sallsbury)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earn

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  York, C

  Gage, C.

  Nicholson, G

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. D

  Noble, Comdr. A H P

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  Major Conant and Major Ramsay.

  Grant, Lady

  Osborne, C.

  Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 32. after "meat" insert "the carriage of milk."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should announce that with this Amendment we take the Amendment in page 66, line 19.
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  In some respects, this is similar to the previous Amendment—that milk should be excluded from long-distance traffic. This, too, has been debated at length through all the stages of the Bill, but those who desire to accomplish this purpose have, I consider, signally failed to make out a case. Therefore, I should like to repeat again the facts of the situation before the House comes to a decision. A very considerable quantity of milk is carried by rail. Therefore, under the terms of this Bill it would continue to be carried by the Commission. Also, there is a considerable quantity of milk carried in the owners' own vehicles, the "C" licence vehicles. Glass-lined tanks that carry milk are exempt because of the character of the vehicles. The percentage of milk carried by road hauliers probably is not more than from 10 to 20 per cent. of the total. Many of these road haulage organisations pick up the milk—that is, the churns—at the farm gate and carry them either to creameries, processing plants, or the rail head as the case may be; and I consider that no case has been made out to suggest that the picking up of the churns and taking them either to the creameries or to the rail head requires any special qualification. The Commission will be able to perform that function quite as well as, and probably better than, it is done at the present time, and therefore, I ask the House to disagree with this amendment because there is no reason why the carriage of milk should be exempt.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am very disappointed. This is an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman could well accept without feeling that he had given way on a substantial point. The supply of milk is a very serious matter, and hon. members opposite should realise it. Many of us feel that we want an assurance on many points. First, it has been argued—and the Minister would be the last to deny it—that meat has been accepted and that milk is a very perishable food commodity. On this side we join issue with the Minister, for we maintain that under the Commission there would be delay. The Minister says that the Commission would give as good service, but we do not think there will be the personal touch.
  1400
  This matter requires personal knowledge and experience in many cases. Those who are engaged in the collection and delivery of milk are farmers or ex-farmers, and they make a point of knowing all the various circumstances. One day milk may be required to be collected at a certain time. The flow of milk changes and arrangements have to be made to meet special circumstances. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may enjoy themselves to their hearts' content, but it will not prevent hon. members on this side of the House from doing their duty. There is another essential required in this matter of the collection and delivery of milk, and it is that the service should be a flexible one, ready to change, whatever circumstances may arise, such as a change in the weather or a change in the place where the milk has to be sent under the orders of the Ministry of Food.
  1.0 a.m.
  The last point I wish to make is that in the past, the collection and delivery of milk has been a very intricate and complicated organisation. It has been built up very largely by the Milk Marketing Board, and it has, as far as I know, given most efficient service. I suggest that the Minister should think two or three times before he is prepared to smash a service which it has taken so long to build up, and which has given such excellent results. The right hon. Gentleman, during one stage of the Bill, said that he would like to be made aware of what the Milk Marketing Board thought about this. The Board has expressed its opinion in no uncertain manner. I hope hon. Members will bear with me if I quote from a letter sent to me by the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on this matter. He says:
  "The sudden diversion of loads—and we collect from 120,000 farms"—
  so it is not so small—
  "is a feature in the day-to-day marketing of milk."
  He then goes on to say:
  "The Board determines which individual farm supplies shall be carried by each haulier, and the destination to which the load is to be conveyed. This transport service represents one phase of the wider service of marketing milk which is the Board's primary function, and there would be unnecessary duplication if a second authority"—

  1401
  It is not only the Ministry of Food, but the Transport Commission—
  "Intervenes in this service."
  He then states:
  "The service is under constant review and is being constantly amended to meet the flow of milk."
  At the very last moment they may have to change their orders. It may be found that only a certain amount of milk is going, or that instead of its going to a certain place, it has to go somewhere else. Hon. Members cannot possibly maintain that these people could get the same quick alteration of plans from the Transport Commission as they get when they have made these arrangements themselves. I have never known a Government organisation or board to act with the same swiftness as one gets in private enterprise. Hon. Members may have had contrary experiences, but I have not. The chairman of the Milk Marketing Board finishes with these serious words:
  "I trust, as chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, that after a final review of our case, the Minister will feel able to add the carriage of milk to the lost of excluded traffic, in the same way as meat and livestock. In that way duplication of control by two statutory bodies can be avoided, and the delay which that would cause."
  That is our case, and we put it forward with all earnestness to the right hon. Gentleman. The supply of milk is a vital service, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will ask himself seriously whether that service will be carried out as efficiently under his proposals. We on this side of the House do not believe it. I am prepared to concede that the Minister is earnest in his views, but at the same time I would like him to know of the responsibility which he will be taking over. I would like to point out to him that if the milk is not delivered he will be responsible all over the country for the supplies being carried in an inefficient way. It is a responsibility which I would not be prepared to assume if I were in his shoes.
  Mr. Wadsworth: I must say that, of all the Amendments in the Order Paper, I am most surprised that the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment. I feel that the reason is partly that the right hon. Gentleman has not got all the facts correctly in connection with the supply of milk. First, this Bill applies only to 18 per cent. of the total milk
  1402
  supplies of the country. I know that there are certain exempted traffics—tanks and the like, and milk which has not travelled more than 25 miles from the farm—but there will be a disorganisation in not allowing that 18 per cent. of milk traffic to be exempted. The Milk Marketing Board have clone excellent service in co-ordinating the milk traffic, and they actually take milk from 120,000 farms in England and Wales.
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member is reacting all this.
  Mr. Wadsworth: I hope I can use a few notes on this occasion.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. Wadsworth: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It has been stated that a great deal of milk is transported by rail. In fact, the figure is 0.4 per cent. of the milk traffic, and that, I suggest, is not a high figure. In the Committee stage of the Bill, the Minister, in reply to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), said that this business of transporting milk was not so much one of a contracting, interest as an accounting interest. In other words, it was a matter of figures. The Minister said that he was speaking not so much as a Minister, but as one who had had great experience in this trade. What are the facts? In addition to operating its own fleets, 3,945 vehicles are operated on its behalf. I give these facts because the Minister should know them. The Government speakers in another place said that the Milk Marketing Board did not actually carry milk. The Boards owns between 200 and 300 commercial vehicles collecting and carrying milk, and with that number I suggest that they are very large hauliers. The motion to reject this Amendment is based on false information. There is a co-ordination of transport in existence. If the Minister takes over this 18 per cent. he will create great chaos in the distribution of milk, and of all perishable articles, milk is perhaps the most perishable. I ask the Minister to reconsider his view.
  Mr. York: I would like to deal with the question of how the Milk Marketing Board is to be treated. The Minister has not mentioned that co-operative organisation, I am sorry to say, but it is the producers' main weapon, and so far as I can see from the figures that have been

  1403
  given, there are to be three different types of operator to deal with the milk supply. Today, under a very carefully worked out scheme, the Milk Marketing Board has the complete confidence of the Ministry of Food. It delivers the goods to the satisfaction of all concerned, and it uses one type of organisation—in addition to the amount that comes in glass lined tanks on the railways, I admit. I am surprised that the figure is only 0.4 per cent., for I should have thought it was rather larger.
  What will happen if this Amendment is not accepted? First, most of the milk will be handled by the small carriers who operate over distances of less than 25 miles. In addition, we shall get the Commission coming in for those areas which extend beyond the 25 miles' radius, unless the Commission use the powers contained in the Amendment with which we agreed a short time ago. I shall have a word to say about that in a minute Thus we shall get two separate organisations working in the same area, and, if not in the same area, certainly under the mantle of the Milk Marketing Board's co-ordination scheme. In addition to that, we shall get a third type of collection, and that will be by the "C" licence dairy companies.
  I had some experience of milk distribution during the war, and I have no love of anything in the way of organisation or of investigation handled by a Government Department. I had in my own constituency a case which shows how much reliance we can place upon the investigation which may take place under the Commission. In the particular circumstances, in Nidderdale, there was a small haulier, and the Ministry of Food, in their wisdom, decided to put that man out of business, because they said the job could be done much more economically by a larger haulier. So they set to work to try to do this. Fortunately, the whole of the dale was up in arms, and, with a certain amount of pressure from myself, we fought that case. I was actually given a categorical set of figures and information by the Ministry of Food which proved in the end to be wholly inaccurate. As a result of my finding what the proper figures were, we did eventually—it took about six months—get that decision reversed. That is exactly the type of case which will come before the Commission, and which may get the same cursory and
  1404
  inadequate investigation as was given by the Ministry of Food; and it may be a very much more difficult case to undo than in that instance I have mentioned. Therefore, I say we should not place much reliance upon the possibilities of investigation by this Commission.
  1.15 a.m.
  It has been stated that specialised vehicles are not required for this work; but that I believe to be inaccurate, in a number of cases—I am not quite sure how many. There is a large number of vehicles operating on the roads today which are used almost wholly, if not wholly, for the carriage of milk churns I believe they could also carry beer barrels if there were any beer. I doubt very much if a joint organization for carrying milk and beer would be an easy one to handle. If there are specialised areas where there is a large number of vehicles used in the carriage of milk churns, I think we ought to know. I think the Minister has got to show us what the position is in regard to the Milk Marketing Board.
  Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, there is no safeguard that the Commission will investigate and pronounce accurately and fairly as to whether a particular case is or is not to be exempted. I am sure that if the Minister persists in refusing this Amendment, he will not only break up—break down, if you like—what is now acknowledged on every side to be a thoroughly efficient organisation, but he will also have to bear the onus when the market supplies slow down as a result of bringing this part of the Bill into force. Therefore, I hope that he realises what he is doing in breaking up this organisation. The effect of his inability to see the practical difficulties of what he is doing will place upon him the responsibility for a breakdown in the milk distribution industry which it has taken farmers and the Milk Marketing Board many years to build up. That is not the sort of thing which should happen as a side wind under the Transport Bill.
  Mr. McKie: I hope the Minister will think again on this matter. I represent the biggest dairy constituency in this country, and I cannot for one moment accept the figures given by the Minister with regard to their difficulties vis-à-vis long-distance haulage. Nearly all the farms in my constituency are between 80 and 100 miles from the Glasgow distribut-

  1405
  ing centre. I can assure the Minister that if he does not think again, chaos will immediately ensue in that very important milk producing area, and I am sure that is not what the Minister wants. I impress upon him the fact that he certainly did not give the House an accurate picture of the situation, especially so far as Scotland is concerned.
  The effect of the policy of this Government as also of the previous Government and the Government before that, has been to encourage milk production above everything els in agriculture. Possibly that has been overdone; perhaps the true balance has not been held But what do we see in the Bill as it now stands? The carriage of meat is to be allowed and the carriage of milk is to be excluded as a result of the Minister's refusal to accept the Lords Amendment. This certainly mystifies me. If the Government live up to their maxim and encourage milk production over meat, why include meat and exclude milk? I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have joined with us, if there was to be a choice, by including milk and excluding meat. We are told that too much eating of meat is bad for blood pressure, and that the consumption and production of milk should be encouraged. Surely, if the Minister thinks on those lines and is prepared to act accordingly, he will see that this is a reasonable Amendment and on second thoughts, in order to avoid a complete breakdown which undoubtedly there will be, particularly in Scotland, he will agree with the Lords Amendments.
  Mr. Hurd: I should like to tell the House that it is not only farmers from the North of England and Scotland who are concerned in this matter. Those in the South are equally anxious that the economies in their co-ordination schemes should not be lost. One of the most interesting exhibits in the Royal Show at Lincoln was on the stand of the Milk Marketing Board, where they had a demonstration of the whole of their collecting system, how it was planned, routed, and how many churns a lorry could take up. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that this is not a specialised job, for it is a specialised job, and that is how the Milk Marketing Board have achieved their economies. It is difficult to believe that nationalised transport will achieve the same results, and the Minister would be well advised to
  1406
  leave well alone. I cannot see what advantage he or the Commissioners will get from this provision of the Bill. They will not do the job more economically from the point of view of the producer or the consumer.
  Major Haughton: During the last six months quite a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked me to give them particulars about the Northern Ireland Transport Board of which I have been a member since its inception, with the exception of the war years, and I think it is not without significance to point out that milk was excluded from the operations of the Northern Ireland Transpert Board in the 1935 Act. Over there milk production has increased out of all knowledge, and during last year millions of gallons have been supplied to the city of Glasgow from the surplus of whole milk produced in Northern Ireland. At present there is a surplus which cannot be taken by that great city, and I think it gives some idea of the production, and a better one than could be obtained by quoting figures.
  Being very interested in this Transport I have re-studied the system of the transport of milk which enables the supplies not only to come to the cities, but to be shipped overseas. It is a tremendously specialised job which involves seven days' work a week, at all hours and I am very doubtful whether it could be handled successfully by a nationalised scheme of transport. The.-e is in this case, a working example to be seen by any Member who cares to look at it in operation. The transport industry has been doing a very successful job, and it has been left on its own to accomplish it. Instead of disagreeing with the Amendment, would it not be possible for the Minister to say that later on, having gone into the matter and seen what is taking place in Northern Ireland, a scheme would be framed? At any rate over there, the transport of milk has been kept outside the operation of the Northern Ireland Transport Board, and I think that is worthy of note.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I want to add one word by way of a request to the Minister to look at this matter again and do something about it. I represent one of the Divisions of the County of Somerset, which is one of the

  1407
  oldest milk-producing counties in England. I will not quote figures, but everyone knows that a high proportion of agricultural activities in Somerset is devoted, as has always been the case, to the production of milk. I have been looking at this thing on the spot to try to get some picture of how it will work in my own county. The picture I have is very alarming indeed. What strikes me most is the question of elasticity. The difficulty is once we get a system which is as centrally controlled as this system is bound to be—I do not say that it is to be controlled from Whitehall, or any nonsense of that kind, because it will not be, though it is bound to be more centrally controlled than the present system—the reaction to sudden diversion is slowed down, just at the moment when sudden diversion has to be carried out.
  That would not matter very much if a perishable commodity like milk were not being dealt with, but we have to remember that, in addition to dealing with such a perishable commodity, we are dealing also with a most intricate network of narrow lanes and roads in the country. If, suddenly, supplies are diverted down one of those side roads, there are bound to be most appalling difficulties when there are zones centrally controlled. There will be long delays in picking up supplies, and deliveries will be made at the wrong place. During the war years, and in the recent extreme weather, we had some experience of sudden diversion. I do not think the Minister, no matter how strongly he believes in this system, would claim that it is likely to be more elastic than the present one. If he is claiming that, I hope he will tell us so, though I do not see that he has really any grounds for so believing.
  In the present elastic system the greatest problem is that of handling. The men working in this business and dealing with the milk have been engaged in it for years, especially in a county like Somerset. Long before there was any Milk Marketing Board, Somerset was a great milk supplying area for such places as Bristol and South Wales. The men who are engaged in milk production in that county know what they are talking about. They are unanimous in declaring that the Minister's proposal will not work as efficiently as the present system. The
  1408
  Minister will make a grave mistake if he does not accept this Amendment.
  Mr. Turton: It is interesting to note that the argument about milk appears to be a one-sided argument tonight. There are a number of Socialists who represent agricultural constituencies, and I should have thought it would have been interesting to the House and to their constituencies for them to give their views on a matter which cannot be a controversy between parties. It is a question of what will be best for agriculture and for the health of our people. The hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise), who occupies a distinguished position in the Socialist Party in regard to agriculture, should tell the House what he thinks of the Minister's proposal to take away from the Milk Marketing Board and the Ministry of Food the question of allocating milk supplies, for that is what it boils down to. It is true to say that in certain areas school children are not going to get supplies of milk sufficient to meet their needs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It means that in certain parts the hospitals are going to have their supply of milk delayed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am trying to explain to hon. Members how the existing organisation operates. I should have thought that if they had listened carefully while I was trying to explain it, they would have understood why.
  1.30 a.m.
  Mr. Baird: The hon. Gentleman has not explained anything.
  Mr. Turton: In another place, when this matter was raised, the Lord Chancellor drew attention to the fact that the carriage of milk was not a specialised carriage and that the vehicles could be used for the carriage of other commodities. That is against the regulations of the Milk Marketing Board and the Ministries of Food and Health. That is why, if there is a system of having milk sent with other loads by the Transport Commission it will jeopardise its safety for hospitals. [Interruption.] I should have thought the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) would have had a more humble attitude towards his leaders. After all, the Lord Chancellor is now a Socialist. If the Minister of Food were to regard the Transport Commission as the best body, the safest body, to transport this 18 per cent, of milk, even if we did not disagree with this Amendment it would be open to

  1409
  the Minister of Food and the Transport Commission to turn over this work to the nationalised industry. This Amendment would not stop that happening. The allocation is made at the present time by a reputable board under the Milk Marketing Act and by the Ministry of Food. Why does the Minister fear the competition of the men at present carrying milk for the Milk Marketing Board? I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent agricultural constituencies, will give the House their views on this Amendment. Are they prepared to say that what the Minister is proposing is a safe thing for the children and other consumers of milk, and an economic thing for this country?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to disagree with this Amendment on the ground that no sufficient argument had been put forward in favour of the case for it. The arguments in favour of the Amendment were fully set out in another place, and I think we have heard substantial arguments in favour of the Amendment since the right hon. Gentleman spoke. If he really meant that he wished this Amendment to be rejected, lie did not show the reasons why the change in the present system should be made. I venture to think that his opinion may have been altered after he has heard many opinions put forward for his consideration.
  Moreover, I think the argument should be the other way round. The right hon. Gentleman has adduced no reasons whatsoever why the present system should be changed, and if a change is to take place in the present system, surely the House is entitled to receive some argument in favour of that change. We have, on the other hand, had the benefit of the acceptance of the maintenance of the existing principle with regard to the carriage of other perishable commodities. No argument has been put forward to show why this particular perishable commodity should be separated from meat, livestock, and other things of that sort. I am not surprised that neither the Minister of Agriculture nor his Parliamentary Secretary is present. Both of them would have great difficulty in sitting on that Bench and listening to the proposals now being advocated for the disruption of the organisation of milk distribution which they have played a great Dart in building up.
  1410
  An argument has been advanced against some other Amendments that they were wrecking Amendments, because they were of so much substance. I do not accent that argument as correct. But now the Government advance, in regard to this Amendment, the argument that it is of little substance because it affects so small a part of the trade that is carried. The Government cannot have it both ways. Why should they seek to impress the House with an argument one way on one Amendment, and at another time use an argument the other way? Naturally it is a small proportion of the trade that is carried, but it is a vitally important proportion, and if—owing to the disruption of the system that has been built up over many years, and which has, in consequence of trial and experience, reached something that is near perfection—the milk distribution system of this country is jeopardised, the one claim that the Government can make at the present time about increased food supplies will go by the board. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind when he ha s to face his Cabinet colleagues about the breakdown of milk distribution.
  May I put another point for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration? We why are in closer association with the question of agricultural distribution realise, perhaps even more than he has had the opportunity of doing, how essential it is to have a flexible service. Often it happens that for one reason or another, the collection from the farms, and the distribution, has to be switched in regard to both time and place. Suppose a lorry is collecting 10 miles from its centre, and is delivering within a radius of 25 miles, and it is switched to deliver to a point which takes it outside the 25 miles; is the driver or the owner of that lorry going to be able to obey an instruction, and switch in that way, without feeling that he is jeopardising his position as a shortdistance haulier? He will be going outside his radius to fulfil a necessity, but I think that will be an occasion when the delivery and distribution of milk will be jeopardised.
  If that happens, what will arise in connection with claims relating to this perishable commodity? Many claims are bound to arise, and hardship will be caused to farmers if, because of delays due to this or many other reasons, the milk goes bad. It will be very difficult to decide

  1411
  when the milk went bad. It is hard enough to do that under the present system, but in future, when questions such as those I have described arise owing to the switching or alteration of routes, it is going to be infinitely harder, and the claims for compensation will be substantial and extremely difficult.
  Finally, I appeal to the Minister to revise his original opinion—first, because he has given no ground whatever why the present system should be discarded and the new system brought into force, and, secondly, because in the interests of the consumers of the country there is no clue or indication, and no presumption, that they will be better served by whatever plan, if any, the Minister has. He has given no indication of his plans for carrying out his new proposals.
  Brigadier Rayner: May I hark back to the West Country. In Devonshire, we produce even better milk than Somerset, and we are very proud of our milk transport system—both as regards the county and the Milk Board organisation. I would like to echo the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) that the Minister should leave well alone in this matter, and accept the Lords Amendment.
  Mr. Assheton: I think my hon. Friends have built up a formidable case for the Minister to answer. We had some discussion on these matters, as the Minister will remember, in Committee and at that time I suggested that he should take account of the views of the Milk Marketing Board on this subject. I was not at that time aware of the views of the Board. I received a letter from the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board only today in which he expressed his views most clearly and enclosed a copy of a letter he had addressed to the Minister. The Ministry have acknowledged the letter formally, but no further reply has been received. The chairman of the Milk Marketing Board has very considerable responsibilities with regard to marketing, and I should have thought the representations which he made would be considered very carefully by the Minister. He put a very strong case in his letter to the Minister and most of the points have already been admirably put by Members on this side of the House. I do not propose to go over them again. I urge the Minister to think again on this
  1412
  matter, and particularly not to take the very unnecessary risk which it appears he is going to take in this regard. Nobody has suggested that this question of the transport of milk is not being satisfactorily tackled at the present time by the Board, and it does seem very extraordinary that a new Board should be set up to take on some of the work of a Board set up by a previous Government.
  I suggest that the difficulties of milk transport are rather more considerable than the Minister has so far recognised. There are all sorts of fluctuations to which attention has to be paid. There are occasions when there is a glut of milk in particular parts of the country, and others when there are considerable reductions of supply. There are times when great variations are caused—such as at school holidays, at weekends, during holiday rushes, and so on. There was an occasion not long ago—I hardly dare to mention it—when there was a strike of workers of the Co-operative Society, and that resulted in a considerable diversion of milk suddenly from Essex to another county. All these things happen, and it is rather a difficult job.
  1.45 a.m.
  The Milk Marketing Board have had very considerable experience of doing this job, and they have done the job very well indeed. I cannot understand how it is that the Minister wants to take away from the Board this job which they are doing satisfactorily and to take upon himself the unnecessary risk of depriving himself of their services and doing it himself. Surely, he has enough troubles on his hands. All the new tasks which the Ministry is taking upon itself now will need a great deal of doing. This is a job which has been perfectly well done by the Board, which was set up under the approval of Parliament. It has done the job very satisfactorily, and I ask the Minister to reconsider his opposition to this Amendment, and to accept it.
  Mr. Barnes: If, with the leave of the House, I may speak again, I will reply to one or two points. I take the figures which the hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth) gave, that approximately r8 per cent. of milk supplies at the outside are affected by this Amendment. I also gather that there is practically complete unanimity, among those who have asked me to reconsider the position, that the Milk Marketing Board are doing a good

  1413
  job on this occasion. The Milk Marketing Board are a statutory body and they are working on the lines of centralised control of the milk supply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Co-ordinated."]—Centrally co-ordinated.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not centrally."] I thought hon. Members said that the Milk Marketing Board were doing the job. Are they doing it or not? Surely, there is no dispute now among hon. Members. I cannot see their point in introducing the Milk Marketing Board into this discussion, unless they are satisfied that the Milk Marketing Board, with centrally controlled distribution, is doing a very good job. I would like to know if that is their case or not; otherwise, the Milk Marketing Board has nothing to do with this matter.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Centralised control is a quite different thing from administration. Of course, it is centralised control, but the actual action and order given is decentralised to a very high degree. The system would never work under the Milk Marketing Board unless there were decentralisation.
  Mr. Barnes: If that is the case, I cannot understand why, when we are to shift to the Transport Board, it should be assumed that the Transport Commission will not be able to do the job as efficiently as the Milk Marketing Board. Let me come to the question of decentralisation. I made it plain that there is nothing in this Clause or in the measure of control which we are proposing to institute that will affect 80 per cent. of the milk that is now handled through the machinery of the Milk Marketing Board. Of the 18 per cent. that is in dispute, I think hon. Members will agree that a very large proportion of it is short-distance milk carried by road. I say that it is, and hon. Members in argument have proved that case.
  The only point really raised in this Debate concerned the occasions when it is necessary to divert the milk. In the ordinary way the bulk of the milk carried by road is within the 25 miles radius. It is not affected at all. The only point I am now dealing with under the Amendment is whether the milk traffic of an operator should be computed within the test of whether he is in fact a long-distance operator or not. If an operator is carrying a quantity of milk in churns—because it cannot be in a glass-lined tank—it can-
  1414
  not be a "C" licence vehicle; if that operator, for hire or reward, is carrying churns of milk for 40 miles, on what grounds of equity should that traffic be excluded from this Bill?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Meat.") In the case of meat, 80 per cent. is carried less than 25 miles, and the majority of long-distance meat is carried in insulated vehicles of the meat organisation. When one comes to milk, the question is raised whether the small percentage of traffic carried for 40 miles could not be equitably excluded from the long-distance provisions. I have listened to the discussion on milk all through the proceedings on this Bill, and I know of no matter which has been subject to greater exaggeration or more grossly misunderstood that this commodity. If a long-distance operator is carrying mill: and his business is taken over by the Transport Commission and passes to the Road Executive, the business of the Mill: Marketing Board need not be interrupted because a haulier business ceases to belong to a private company and becomes part of the Transport Commission. If the Commission has to carry out any particular milk transport, it can fall in with the scheme just as well as any private operator.
  Mr. York: Will the Milk Marketing Board have the same control over the Executive as it now has over the private haulier?
  Mr. Barnes: It certainly will not have control over the Executive, but it will have the same service and will be able to give the same directions, if you like, with regard to a consignment of milk carried on a lorry operated by the Transport Commission, as it could to any private haulier carrying its milk supplies.
  Mr. Hurd: Will that be the case in regard to routing and such matters?
  Mr. Barnes: Certainly. The Commission will be able to carry out the task of moving milk, just as it can carry out the task of moving any other commodity. My final observation is that the arguments put forward today, and on another occasion in another place, about disturbing the machinery of distribution of the Milk Marketing Board have not been sustained.
  Mr. Assheton: It will be necessary to get a permit if a haulier exceeds the 25 miles radius. If a sudden emergency arises and a milk haulier wants to take milk for more than the permitted distance,

  1415
  is it not the case that he will not be able to get the necessary permit from the Transport Commission in the necessary time?
  Mr. Barnes: I do not consider there would be any difficulty in the Road Executive of the British Transport Commission coming to arrangements to deal with any sudden traffic emergency. One might imagine that these things are not done every day in the field of road transport. Actually, they are quite a common occurrence in the industry, and the British Transport Commission, with its organisation and the extensive range of vehicles and services under its control, will be equal to them. Any suggestion that the organisation will not be able to perform these services as well as the limited organisations do today would not stand a moment's examination. With regard to the issuing of permits, I am sure that the Commission, working in co-operation with the Milk Marketing Board, will be able to meet all emergencies. In fact, day by day, in all kinds of industries, and under all kinds of circumstances, there will be similar transport emergencies.
  Mr. Assheton: But can one get a permit in half-an-hour out of any Government Department? The thing is preposterous.
  Mr. Barnes: I do not know that, but what I do know is that our policy is right. We are convinced of that, and this Amendment represents a difference of view on policy.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I would like to ask one question. Is this Commission going to be available at any hour of the day or night, as in the case 'of the Milk Marketing Board?
  Mr. Byers: Are we really to be fobbed off in this way? I am certainly not clear about this matter, although I have listened to at least the last sir speeches, and I was on the Standing Committee; and I am quite sure that other hon. Members on this side are as uncertain. Hon. Members opposite think that every question can be answered merely by saying that the Commission can give just as good, or better, service than the private people are giving today—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is being done with coal"]—The Government have still to prove that it can be done with coal, but, in any case, that is not the argument. My argument is that
  1416
  it is of no use saying the Commission can and will provide a better service, and then sitting back with the hope that it will. Hauliers are restricted to the 25 miles limit, and we are all agreed that, in the case of milk, sudden diversions are likely and necessary—diversions which would normally take the vehicles outside the 25 miles limit.
  There are three things which can be done. The haulier can, first, break the law, secondly, he can get a permit, or, thirdly, he can transfer the milk to one of the Commission's lorries. Of course, what will happen, if the haulier is keen to get the milk to the right place at the right time, is that he will break the law. Is it suggested that one can get a permit to divert a lorry over 25 miles within two or three hours? I ask the Minister, can one?—[HON. MEMBERS: Why not?]— Well, if one can get the permit which becomes necessary, it is quite obvious that there is to be machinery set up to enable these diversions to be catered for. But it has to be remembered that these diversions occur daily. If we are to have a permit issued with that ease every day, what is the purpose of having permits at all? One has to make a proper application and say for what one needs it. Or is one, as in the Army, going to ring up and say, "Can we go to such and such a place?" These are all important matters. I do not mind telling hon. Members opposite that, within a year or eighteen months, they will be answering these questions when the crisis has occurred.
  The Minister has certainly not given an explanation of why he is now seeking to introduce the Transport Commission into part of the milk distributing system when the Milk Marketing Board are apparently running the thing properly. I have no interest in milk, except that I represent a rural constituency. It is not, indeed, a question of milk: it is a question of proper administration. I do not believe there is an atom of foresight on the Government Front Bench. I am quite convinced that the reason the Minister cannot give satisfactory answers tonight is that he does not know what is going to happen. He has not looked into it, and he is just hoping.
  Mr. C. Williams: This Debate has served two or three useful purposes. I had always understood that the Socialist Party were rather proud of the Milk Marketing

  1417
  Board. It took a considerable time to build up its transport system. Having built it up, largely by the help of outside people—at least, by the help of their knowledge—and having created a system which is really doing something to help agriculture and to bring good food in the form of milk to the people, the Government are now setting up this new system. We are to tack the present system on to another system which is far bigger. It cannot have any other than one effect. It means the reorganisation of the milk apply all over again. When we have built up a system in this way, it is rather a pity to throw it over in the manner the Minister is doing.
  It is rather interesting to note this further point. We have had on a good many occasions from hon. and right hon. Gentleman on the other side, the profession of a desire to organise agriculture and milk and other things in a high degree; a profession of concern for them. It is, however, quite obvious from the Minister's reply that he shares the rather common feeling on the Government Front

  Division No. 326.]

  AYES.

  [2.5 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Cove, W. G.

  Grey, C. F.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Crawley, A.

  Grierson, E.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Daggar, G.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Daines, P.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Awbery, S. S.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Gunter, R. J

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Guy, W. H.

  Baird, J.

  Deer, G.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Balfour A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hale, Leslie

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hall, W. G.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Diamond, J.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

  Barton, C.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Beswjck, F.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Haworth, J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

  Binns, J.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Holman, P.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p, Exch'ge)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  House, G.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Ewart, R.

  Hubbard, T.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Bruce, Maj O. W. T.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Buchanan, G.

  Foot, M. M.

  Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

  Burke, W. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Irving, W. J.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Janner, B

  Carmichael, James

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Champion, A. J.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Chater, D.

  Gallacher, W.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Ganley, Mrs C. S.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Gibbins, J.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Coldrick, W.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Keenan, W.

  Collins, V. J.

  Gilzean, A.

  Kenyon, C.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  King, E. M.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr G.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

  Corbet, Mrs F. K. (Carnowell, N.W.)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Kinley, J.

  Bench that they care not two hoots for the agricultural industry. He not only does not care two hoots for the agricultural industry, but he does not care even one hoot so far as the health of the children in the towns is concerned. Not one hon. Member behind him has defended the Amendment. This is a vital matter so far as food is concerned. If we have an organisation such as the Milk Marketing Board, it is quite feeble to try to break it down just when it is really successful, and to have some new plan, when the Government have not the faintest idea who is going to work it or how. I am absolutely amazed that not one hon. Gentleman from among those opposite, who so often profess to know about milk and farming, has shown that there is even one Socialist in the House who has the slightest interest in the effect of this Bill upon agriculture.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 106.

  Lang, G.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Layers, S.

  Parker, J.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Peart, T. F.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Leonard, W.

  Piratin, P.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Levy, B. W.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Lewis, J. (Balton)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Popplewell, E.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Porter E. (Warrington)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Logan, D. G.

  Price, M. Philips

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Longden, F.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Tiffany, S.

  McAdam, W.

  Randall, H. E.

  Timmons, J.

  McAllister, G.

  Ranger, J.

  Titterington, M. F.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Tolley, L.

  Mack, J. D.

  Richards, R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Usborne, Henry

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Robens, A.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Walker, G. H.

  MeLeavy, F.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Royle, C.

  Watson, W. M.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Sargood, R.

  Weitzman, D.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Scollan, T.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  West, D. G.

  Mathers, G.

  Sharp, Granville

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Shurmer, P.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Medland, H. M.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt C.A.B.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Wilkes, L.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Moody, A. S.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Williams, W. R.(Heston)

  Moyle, A.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Willis, E.

  Murray, J. D.

  Solley, L. J.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Nally, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Woodburn, A.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Woods, G. S.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Stamford, W.

  Wyatt, W.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Steele, T.

  Yates, V. F.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Stephen, C.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Orbach, M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Paget, R. T.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Swingler, S.

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Pearson.

  NOES.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Osborne, C.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Peto, Brig C. H. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Birch, Nigel

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Hurd, A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Bossom, A. G.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Bower, N.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Byers, Frank

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Ropner, Col L.

  Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Spence, H. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Crowder, Capt, John E.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  De la Bère, R.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Teeling, William

  Digby, S. W.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Touche, G. C.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Turton, R. H.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

  Marshall S. H. (Sutton)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  York, C.

  Gage, C.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Nicholson, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Commander Agnew and

  Grant, Lady

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

  Further Lords Amendment disagreed to: In page 48, line 36, leave out "forty" and insert "eighty."

  CLAUSE 40.—(Notices of acquisition.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 27, at end, insert:
  "(6) In any proceedings under this Section before the Arbitration Tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act the burden of proof that an undertaking is such an undertaking as is specified in the last preceding Section shall be upon the person contending that the undertaking is such an undertaking."
  2.15 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment deals with what is to happen when the matter comes before the Arbitration Tribunal, and it is to be decided whether a particular undertaking is a long-distance haulage undertaking within the meaning of Clause 39 of the Bill. What the Amendment seeks to do is place the whole onus of proof on the Commission that the undertaking is such an undertaking. We seek to leave out that Amendment and to restore the Clause to what it was before it went to another place, because we feel that the Amendment is based on a misconception of what has been done by this Clause.
  The Amendment is based upon the view that when the matter comes before the Arbitration Tribunal, it is a law suit between rival claimants, and that the Commission is perfectly free to make a claim for certain relief against the owners of the undertaking or not to make that claim before the Arbitration Tribunal, and that it is perfectly free to establish that claim or not. That is a complete misunderstanding as to the system upon which this Clause is drafted. After all, it is the policy of the Bill that when undertakings which comply with the description under Clause 39 are to be taken over, the Commission is not in any sense in the position of a free litigant voluntarily going before a court seeking relief, for which it is free to ask or not. The Commission is charged with a certain duty, and it is the duty of the Commission to form a certain opinion. If that opinion is that the activities of an undertaking come within Clause 39, the notice of acquisition has to be served. It is quite wrong, in my submission to the House, to place
  1422
  the Commission in the same position as a free litigant when it has, perforce, a duty placed upon it, which it has no option to, refuse. It is not right in those circumstances to try to assimilate the position of such a body to the position of a perfectly free litigant.
  It is not perhaps unreasonable to say that a private litigant, when he is seeking relief, must frame a case that he is entitled to that relief. The position vie are considering here is entirely different, and if hon. Members will look at the Clause, they will see that it is founded on a different assumption. What happens when a matter comes before the Tribunal? The Tribunal is charged with the duty of making inquiries to order to ascertain whether the requirements of Clause 39 are fulfilled or not. The key to the thing is in Clause 41. If hon. Members will look at Clause 41, they will see how the plan is to be worked out. Clause 41 (1, a and b) sets out two alternative tests which are to be applied. If they are applied and the tribunal is satisfied, then the undertaking is deemed to carry on a long-distance haulage business.
  This Clause then deals with the case in which it is not possible for the Commission to arrive at a complete and absolute certainty as a result of the application of those tests and other factors. If hon. Members will look at the concluding words of Subsection (1), they will see that the Tribunal is charged with the duty of doing what it thinks right in all the circumstances which obtain, after an inquiry into all the circumstances. That is how it is meant to work. The position, in other words, is that the Bill sets up a Tribunal, and if a certain eventuality arises, the Tribunal is charged with the duty of making inquiries. Therefore, the Tribunal is really the sponsor of the investigation. The two parties, the Commission and the undertaking, are represented, and it is for the Tribunal to inquire into the circumstances. There is no reason in these circumstances why the onus should be placed on the Commission to do what a private litigant might well be expected to do. It is for the Tribunal to apply these tests, and if it cannot arrive at some decision by these two tests, then it has to do what is reasonable and fair in the circumstances.
  It may often be extremely difficult to ascertain from records that do exist pre-

  1423
  cisely what the application of alternative tests may be. There may not be adequate records. Some records are not kept for a long period of time. It may be extremely difficult, as a matter of fact, to obtain the necessary information. The Tribunal will be in a much better position than the Commission to do that, because the Arbitration Act will be applied to the appreciation of the circumstances. Under the 1889 Act, the Tribunal have powers to require both sides to submit to investigation and power to require the production of documents, and it is perfectly competent for the Tribunal to do what it may be extremely difficult for the Commission to do.
  It may be extremely difficult for the Commission, in the position of a plaintiff claiming relief, to produce evidence very often entirely in the possession of the undertaking. If the Commission is charged with the duty of discharging beyond any reasonable doubt, the onus of showing that the undertaking has carried on long-distance haulage, it will over and over again fail to discharge that duty. In point of fact, the evidence is there, and if it can be produced by the Tribunal, then it can be shown perfectly clearly to be an undertaking as contemplated under the 1939 Bill.
  I hope I have satisfied hon. Gentlemen opposite. I believe they feel most strongly on this point. I believe our side is in agreement with the view I am advancing. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite also share the same view, but if they do not, I urge on them that if we want the object of the Bill to be carried out, if we want to make it possible for long-distance haulage undertakings to be taken over without obstruction, without delay and without difficulties being placed in the way owing to defective records, and if we want the purpose of the Bill not to be hindered, it is obviously reasonable to say that it shall be the Tribunal that will be charged with the duty of conducting the investigation. If hon. Members do not share that view, they will put the Commission in the position of a petitioning plaintiff and will bring about the result, over and over again, through a deficiency of proof when there is available evidence if it could be produced, that the Commission will fail in making out its claim, so that one after
  1424
  another haulage undertaking which should be brought under public ownership will be left out for that reason.
  I strongly urge the House that the correct view of what is happening in this case is not that it is a suit as between two contending private parties. It is not. It is a Commission charged with exercising a duty under the Measure, and it is a Tribunal which is charged with certain duties, including the duty of making an inquiry into a doubtful issue. It is for that reason that Clause 41 (1) is framed as it is, to put the whole matter in the discretion of the Tribunal—as it does in its concluding sentence—where the result of the two tests in Subsection 1, a and b does not lead to certainty in the matter. I hope the House will think that is right.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In some ways, in view of the wealth of legal talent on the Bench below me, it may appear a little inappropriate that I should reply to the Solicitor-General. I am not put up as an insult to the Solicitor-General, but because the point of law involved is of such an elementary character that my right hon. Friends think that even I can deal with it. Perhaps it would be most convenient if I first dealt with the principle that we are seeking to establish, and then went on to deal with the reasons that the Solicitor-General advanced why the principle should not apply in this case.
  The principle is a simple one. It is that the onus or burden of proving any particular fact should normally rest with the person who asserts the fact. That is the principle we are trying to establish. I think it will commend itself to all sides of the House. It certainly did so a few hours ago. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) was alleging that Lord Latham had been offered a post. Immediately hon. Members opposite challenged him on the evidence on which he put that forward. One could take that example or many others. If a man does murder, it is the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute him, but the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case. It is the duty of the Minister of Pensions to provide those pensions which are laid down by Parliament, but if I claim a pension from him, I have to establish that I am a widow, or whatever

  1425
  it may be. I cannot understand what the Solicitor-General's point was about the onus being somehow different if there was a duty on some body. There is a duty on the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute in a case of murder, but that does not shift the onus of proof. There is a a duty on the Minister of Pensions to provide pensions, but that does not shift the onus of proof. The argument is wholly irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.
  2.30 a.m.
  What we say here is simply that the principle shall apply in this case—that where the Commission is of the opinion that a firm is a long-distance firm and claims that it should be taken over, then the Commission should be in the same position as an individual, and the onus or burden of proving that fact should be placed upon it. Why should the State be put in a different or more advantageous position than the individual? This is a matter of common justice. If you try a man for his life, or if his liberty is involved, the onus is upon the prosecution. The same rule should apply where his livelihood is to be taken away. It is not only a matter of common justice, but of common convenience and common sense.
  As to the task which is going to confront the Tribunal, we have already discussed some of the considerations which will come before it—whether over a particular period a certain number of lorries travel a certain distance, whether they will travel outside a certain radius, and the rather complex provisions, to which the Solicitor-General referred, in Clause 41. All these complex facts come out at some stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is inevitable that there will be cases in which it will not be easy to say on which side the balance of advantage will lie, and when it will not be easy to say on which side the Tribunal should come down. It is just to provide for cases of that kind that the doctrine of the onus of proof has been introduced. When any tribunal or court finds itself in the position in which the arguments on both sides are nicely balanced, it says: "Whose job is it to prove this?" Failing such a course, some instructions have to be given to the Tribunal; even the Solicitor-General admits you cannot leave that matter in the air. What he has done—or what the draftsmen have done in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown
  1426
  —has been to introduce something really novel and really remarkable in substitution of the Common Law rule for the onus of proof. This substitute for 100 years of Common Law is worth reading:
  "Provided that if the information available in any such proceedings is insufficient to enable the tribunal to conclude either that one or other of the said conditions was satisfied as aforesaid or that neither of the conditions was so satisfied, the tribunal shall determine that the activities of the undertaking in the said year, so far as they consisted of the carriage of goods in goods vehicles in respect of which licences were in force, consisted to a predominant extent of ordinary long distance carriage for hire and reward, if it appears to the tribunal, from the information available in those proceedings, that those activities ought, in all the circumstances, properly to be regarded as having consisted to a predominant extent of such carriage."
  May I translate it? What it means is that if that Tribunal has not the faintest idea whether the undertaking is long-distance or short-distance, it will have a case. It will take into account information and circumstances which, ex hypothesi, are not that information and circumstances which Parliament has laid down for the proceedings, but other information and circumstances the nature of which we are not informed. I think that is a terribly poor substitute for the ordinary rules laid down in the courts and arbitration tribunals of this country, the straightforward principle of onus of proof. I think the Solicitor-General will bear me out when I say that they have never been introduced into any code before. They are wholly novel. I do not think the Solicitor-General understands them, and I am quite certain that I do not understand them, and I do not think that anyone in the House understands them. In the circumstances we are placing a wholly unwarranted burden on the Tribunal.
  I pass now to the arguments which were advanced by the Solicitor-General as to why this onus of proof could not apply in this case. The same arguments were advanced by the highest legal authority in this country in another place. He said that this is quite different from any ordinary case where you have two contending parties before an arbitration tribunal. He said—and I have his exact words here—that there is no choice in the matter, there is no option. Well, that is not quite true. I was under the same delusion as the Solicitor-General. As a matter of fact, there is an option. It escaped my attention that an Amendment

  1427
  had been introduced in another place which, in fact, gives the Commission an option as to whether they take over or not, and the introduction of that Amendment knocks the bottom completely out of the case of the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General. There is nothing left of that case. The whole basis of that argument now disappears.
  I think that the final point the Solicitor-General made was that in some cases it is difficult for the claimant to make out his case as he has not access to all the evidence. I know that there are cases in law where Parliament in its wisdom has deliberately shifted the onus. One case occurs to me. When a man is found in possession of goods proved to be recently stolen, the onus is upon him in such circumstances. But these road transport hauliers are not men in possession of goods recently stolen. These are road hauliers carrying on a perfectly respectable business. Why should they be put into the narrow class of criminals who, for one reason or another, have been put into a particular position under criminal law?
  Briefly, I would say that we want the ordinary common principles of the Common Law introduced into this matter. We say that if a man's livelihood is to be taken away, it is up to those who want to take it away to see that the case against him is established. The substitute phrases introduced by the Parliamentary draftsmen and the Law Officers are misplaced and we reject the excuses put forward by the Law Officers who have sought to distinguish this case from an ordinary case. If there was any substance in the Law Officers' case at all, it has been wholly swept away by the Amendment that the Government themselves have accepted and introduced into this Bill, which gives the Commission an option in this matter; so that the whole of the argument of the Solicitor-General is defeated. I doubt whether any hon. Member who has consulted his intellect and conscience in this matter can doubt that the Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As he so often does, the Solicitor-General put in a most reasonable manner a wholly unreasonable case. After all, the attitude which the Government are taking has this significance, that the un-
  1428
  fortunate Tribunal is not going to know one way or the other how it is to decide if the evidence, either one way or the other, is insufficient. I think the House is entitled to be told what the Tribunal is to do in these circumstances. The Solicitor-General knows perfectly well, and so do most hon. Members, that if there are cases in which, for one reason or another, there is insufficient evidence for a decision to be given one way or the other, to lay down this onus of proof would permit the Tribunal to come to a reasonable decision. By throwing out the Lords' Amendment, the Government would throw the Tribunal into great difficulty. When the evidence either one way or the other is insufficient, what is the Tribunal to do? Is it to find that the concern involved is a long-distance enterprise or not?
  The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) riddled the Solicitor-General's argument that because a duty is laid on the Commission, therefore the Commission should not have to establish its case. The Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that throughout this country there are officials and institutions on which duties are laid. My hon. Friend referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Duties are laid upon him, and the Solicitor-General knows quite well that duties are laid on the Treasury Solicitor; but the Solicitor-General surely does not suggest that the Treasury Solicitor is completely free from the onus of making out his case in all cases.
  There is another aspect of the matter. We have here a conflict with regard to the point of view of an undertaking which is being taken over and the Commission. It is possible that it is a small undertaking. The Solicitor-General knows that in the courts, other things being equal, it is a good thing to have money and legal resources behind one, and that they are helpful. In a dispute it is sometimes an advantage to be represented by the Law Officers of the Crown. We have heard of the possibility of a dispute between the Commission, with all the resources of the Government behind it, and a concern fighting for its life. If there is one case more than another where the onus should be on the Government, or the Government's representative or monopoly, to prove its case, surely this is it. Whatever else is not clear, it, surely must be apparent to the House that the

  1429
  matters to be decided by the tribunal may be matters of the greatest difficulty. Let me give an example. If an undertaking is engaged in the removal of furniture, it is apparently exempted from the risk of being taken over, but it may be a matter of considerable difficulty to ascertain one way or the other whether the particular undertaking is to be classed as a furniture-moving undertaking.
  It is no argument for the Solicitor-General to say, as he did, that it may become more and more difficult for the Commission to prove its case, and therefore it must be freed from the duty of proving its case. Surely, that is not the way to legislate. We are providing in this Clause a means of settling disputes, and it is right that we should so provide, but surely it is absolutely wrong to take away most of the value of that provision by taking away the ordinary common law principle of onus of proof. It is really making a fool of the people concerned to say that they shall have the right to go before the Tribunal, but if the Transport Commission's case against them is not particularly strong, or if, as the Solicitor-General said, there is insufficient evidence, instead of giving them the chance of getting away with it, the common law principle of the onus of proof is to be removed. That is not good legislation, and it is not playing fair either with the transport concerns or with the country. I hope that the Solicitor-General will, even at this late stage, reconsider the attitude which the Government are taking, and will abandon this attempt to allow something which is very unfair in this Clause.
  2.45 a.m.
  Mr. Butcher: As this is so much a lawyer's matter, I almost apologise for intruding into the Debate, but unless we can agree with the other place in this matter, we shall perpetrate a great injustice on the many people to be called before the Tribunal. Common justice and commonsense work hand in hand here, and wisdom should be shown in this House. The Lords have had much wisdom on their side in this matter. The Solicitor-General said that the Commission are not a free litigant in these matters. The Commission, however, are very much more free than the road transport undertaking, because the Commission have to be of the opinion,
  1430
  in respect of an undertaking, that that undertaking should be taken over but if they decide that it is inexpedient, they need not serve their notice. If the Commission are an unwilling litigant, how much more unwilling is the poor transport undertaking which is to be taken over? It is compelled to go into court. Hon. Members opposite think that this Commission will be the most magnificient thing, but it has been attacked continually, and not one of them has risen to defend it.
  What is the position? The learned Solicitor-General says this is not a case in which two parties are compelled to make a case against a defendant, but the moment the undertaking comes before the Tribunal, entirely different results are sought. The Commission will appeal for a decision that the undertaking is long-distance and, on the other hand, it will be endeavoured to show that it is short-distance. In every other similar case which I can discover where property of this character is to be taken, somebody has to assume the burden of proving certain matters to the satisfaction of a tribunal. We have many members of the learned profession here, and they would, I believe, rapidly rise if they could find an instance where no onus a proof was put on one party or the other.
  The alternative is in those terrible words read out by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). I do not know how anybody preparing a case for a road haulage undertaking could say, "Come before this body because we cal succeed." Surely, it is wrong that an undertaking should be left in the position where the Commission makes a vague guess and makes a decision on the passing impulse of the moment. This is one of the worst cases which the learned Solicitor-General has ever had the task of putting from the Front Bench, and I say that with the knowledge of all the bad cases which he has had to put on behalf of this Government. Perhaps, he will ransack his mind and let us know of similar cases where a tribunal is required to determine facts in such a strange and arbitrary way.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to add only a few words to those of my hon. Friends. I think that all the lawyers present, at any rate, wilt have considerable sympathy with the

  1431
  hon. and learned Solicitor-General in having to argue an extremely difficult proposition. I do not think that the test can conceivably be whether there is a duty on the Commission to put their case forward. Surely, the test must be this. The Bill makes it clear that there is an issue of fact to be determined by the Tribunal. Some guidance, surely, should be given as to where the onus of proof is to lie.
  If the hon. and learned Solicitor-General would refer to the opening words of Clause 39, which were quoted in another place by the only Government supporter who spoke in that place on this issue, he would find that it is obligatory on the Commission to put forward a claim where they are of opinion that certain facts apply. But it is made absolutely clear in that and the following Clause that their opinion, though amply justifying them in putting forward a claim, is an opinion which the Bill well recognises may be wrong. The Bill makes it quite clear that in forming that opinion they may be wrong, and the issue whether or not they are wrong is precisely that which has to be tried. If the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will look at the grounds of objection in the next Clause, in Clause 40, the Clause in which this Amendment is sought to be made, he will find in Subsection (3) what the Tribunal are to do if satisfied that the contention of the person carrying on the undertaking is correct. It is quite clear, in other words, in these two Clauses, that there is an issue of fact to be determined, and according to the way in which it is to be determined the man's undertaking will or will not be compulsorily acquired. Why should not the onus lie where on ordinary principles it ought to lie?
  The only point where I differ trom my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) is that I think he was wrong in law in suggesting that the provisions of Clause 41 are an alternative. No Amendment is, in fact, being put forward to Clause 41, and the provisions in Clause 41, quoted by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, will apply even if the Lords Amendment to Clause 40 is adopted. It was never suggested by any of the learned Lords in another place, and I am sure it will not be suggested by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General here, that it is impossible to adopt the
  1432
  Lords' Amendment on the ground that it is inconsistent with Clause 41. The words quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth are most remarkable and they go a very long way in cone ding to the Government something very much in favour of the Commission in presenting their case before the Tribunal. But, nevertheless, in this Amendment they are not being questioned. What is being said is that, while they will enjoy the benefit of Clause 41, it shall, nevertheless, be necessary for the Commission to prove their case, to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, before a man's property is compulsorily taken from him.
  The Solicitor-General would not argue for a moment that what is being done in the action of which we complain is not novel. In this Clause—he will not dispute it—power is taken to do something quite novel in our law. The principle of the onus of proving an essential fact resting on the person asserting that fact is so deeply embedded in our proceedings, civil and criminal, that I am sure the Solicitor-General will say that it should not be lightly discarded.
  What are the reasons why he says it should be discarded in the present case? The fact that the Commission is under a duty cannot possibly be a good reason. He put forward another possible reason, which was that the Commission might be under great difficulties in obtaining the necessary evidence, though that evidence were available, whereas the 'Tribunal would be under no such difficulty. In other words, the Tribunal could obtain discovery which the Commission could not. I have not examined that matter as closely as the Solicitor-General, and therefore I am prepared to accept from him, for the purpose of my argument, that what he says is quite correct—that there would be such difficulty. But what is the remedy if such a difficulty exists. It is surely to give the Commission better powers of discovery and not to shift the onus; to give them the necessary powers in order to prepare their case—which he says the Tribunal have under the Arbitration Act.
  I am assuming that the Solicitor-General's contention which I have quoted is sound in fact. But, if it is, the shifting of the onus or leaving it vague where the onus lies, cannot be the right remedy. I wonder whether the Government proposal in this Clause is even convenient.

  1433
  I should have thought very great difficulties would arise on procedure in deciding the order of speeches and other questions of that kind. Everyone knows that it is possible for other systems of law to have quite different views about presumptions of innocence, guilt, the burden of proof, and so on. But I do not think the hon. and learned Solicitor-General would dispute for one moment that a country whose legal system is so deeply wedded to the system of the onus of proof being on the claimant, applicant, plaintiff, or prosecution—that such a country with such a legal system should reverse it, as it is reversed under the Bill, would be to take a most serious step.
  For these reasons, I hope the Government will think again about this matter, and I hope that, in any event, if they do not, hon. Members of this House, whether they are lawyers or laymen, will consider this matter carefully from the point of view of the interests of justice. If they do I am certain they will come to the conclusion that, if this Amendment is resisted, the interest of justice will not be served.
  3.0 a.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I hesitate to detain the House, but demonstrably there was one further particular fallacy in the Solicitor-General's arguments. He started his argument, if I understood him aright, by saying there was nothing here in the nature of a lawsuit, there was nothing to dispute or contend. Obviously, that was not the view of the draftsman of this Clause. If he will look at Subsection (2), he will see:
  "If a person on whom notice is served by the Commission with respect to an undertaking desires to contend that the undertaking is not such an undertaking.…"
  It is a very odd thing if you have one side contending but the other side not contending, and quite frankly the draftsmen thought that both the undertaking and the Commission were going to contend before the Tribunal. There is no possible dispute about it. The Solicitor-General, in his argument, has thrown over the draftsmen, and in so doing has forgotten to amend his Bill in order to bring it into line with his argument. Frankly, I prefer the Bill to his arguments.
  What does the Solicitor-General really seek to argue? I cannot help feeling that
  1434
  he expects the Tribunal to take the view that if the matter is not crystal clear, it is for the undertaking to get out of the clutches of the Commission if it can. That is the only interpretation I was able to put on the Solicitor-General's statement, and I put that interpretation forward for this reason. It is true, he said—at least, I think he said—that the Tribunal had discretion when there was difficulty, but he went on to say that, as a leading example, he thought it would he possible to prove the case one way or the other unless there was obstruction. If it is merely a question of a refusal to produce records, then the remedy is perfectly simple—the Commission appeals to the Tribunal in order that an order may be made upon the undertaking ordering them to produce all their books and records. I do not know whether there is in the Bill provision for this. If there is not, it is a lamentable oversight, but I took it from his remarks that it was so.
  If the fear is that undertakings will destroy records, all I can say is that there are black sheep in every country and in every section of the community, and there may be one or two here. Personally, I should not object to a proviso that if the Tribunal is satisfied that evidence has been destroyed, then it shall presume all things against the wrongdoer. That is an ordinary and proper principle of law, and therefore it would perfectly simple if the Tribunal and the Commission were armed with these simple powers, first, to call for the production of all records, and secondly, to presume everything against a person who could not produce records and not give a satisfactory reason for not producing them. If there were provisions of that sort, stringent and drastic, I would not say that they were contrary to the genius of our law or our justice.
  But here one has something very different. If it is not possible to come to a conclusion one way or another, then it is apparently left to the Commission to do exactly as they choose. There will be the necessity for the Commission to create their own onus of proof and their own rules, because Parliament has given them no rules. The result is that Parliament is asked to delegate to the Tribunal the decision on this vital and important point as to what are the relevant circumstances when it cannot reach a conclusion on the evidence and where the onus then lies. The Tribunal must establish for.

  1435
  itself the onus of proof in dealing with those borderline cases. Therefore, the Bill is deficit in two details, first, how to deal with any proof which ought to be taken into account; and secondly, how it is to deal with the final number of cases still left in the balance. I think the circumstances that ought to be taken into account in those cases are lack of records. That is an important question. Records will be called for before a case is dealt with, and if, having got the records, it is found they are defective, it is natural to ask, why are they defective? No doubt it will be agreed that

  Division No. 327.[

  AYES.

  [3.5 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

  Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  Kinley, J.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Ewart, R.

  Lang, G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Lvers, S.

  Attewell, H C.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Awbery, S. S

  Field Capt. W. J

  Leonard, W.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

  Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)

  Levy, B. W.

  Baird, J,

  Foo, M. M.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Balfour, A.

  Ferman, J. C

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Fraser, T. (Hamilion)

  Lindgren, G S.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Barton, C.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Logan, D. G.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Gaitskell, H T N

  Longden, F.

  Beswick, F.

  Gallacher, W

  Lyne, A W.

  Bing, G. H. C

  Ganley, Mrs C S

  McAdam, W.

  Binns, J.

  Gibbins, J

  McAllister, G.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Gibson, C. W.

  McGhee, H. G

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gilzean, A.

  Mack, J. D.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. . W.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)

  McKinlay, A. S

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Grey, C. F

  McLeavy, F.

  Bramall, E A.

  Grierson, E.

  MacMillan, M. K (Western Islet)

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Guest, Dr. L. Hade

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Bruce, Major D W T

  Gunter, R. J

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Buchanan, G

  Guy, W. H.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Burke, W. A

  Hale, Leslie

  Mathers, G.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Medland, H. M

  Carmichael, James

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Hardy, E. A.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Champion, A. J.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mikardo, Ian

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Haworth, J

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R

  Cocks, F S.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Coldrick, W.

  Herbison, Miss M

  Moody, A. S

  Collins, V. J

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Co man, Miss G. M

  Hobson, C. R.

  Moyle, A.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Holman, P.

  Murray, J. D

  Corbet, Mrs F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

  House, G.

  Nally, W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hubbard,

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Crawley, A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Daggar, G.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Noel-Buxton, Lad

  Daines, P.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  O'Brien, T.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Orbach, M.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Paget, R. T.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Irving, W. J

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Deer, G.

  Janner, B,

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jay, D. P. T

  Pargiter, G. A

  Diamond, J.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Parkin, B. T

  Dobbie, W

  Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S E.)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Pearson, A.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Piratin, P.

  Durbin, E. F M

  Keenan, W.

  Platts-Mills, J F. F.

  Ede, Rt Hon J. C

  Kenyon, C.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  King, E. M

  Porter, E (Warrington)

  the number of cases will not be a large proportion, but it is a significant proportion. The ordinary rule which every decent Englishman and Scotsman has regarded as such from time immemorial, that there must be proof against a man before his property is taken away from him, should apply, for it was a universal rule until this Government came into office.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 96.

  Price, M. Philips

  Sorensen, R. W

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamtow, E.)

  Proctor, W T

  Sparks, J. A

  Watkins, T. E.

  Pryde, D J.

  Stamford, W

  Watson, W M

  Randall, H. E

  Steele, T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Ranger, J.

  Stephen, C.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Richards, R

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  West, D. G.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Stubbs, A. E.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Robens, A.

  Swingler, S.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Wilkes, L

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Royle, C.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Sargood, R.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Scollan, T.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Williams, W. R (Heston)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Willis, E.

  Sharp, Granville

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Shurmer, P.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Wise, Major F. J

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Tiffany, S.

  Woodburn, A.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Timmons, J.

  Woods, G. S.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Titterington, M. F

  Wyatt, W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Tolley, L.

  Yates, V. F.

  Skinnard, F W

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Usborne, Henry

  Zilliacus, K.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Sclley, L. J.

  Walker, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Osborne, C.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Pickthorn, K

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Pitman, I. J

  Beamish, Maj. T V. H

  Hurd, A.

  Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)

  Birch, Nigel

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Bower, N.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Byers, Frank

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Spence, H. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Cthbert, W. N

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Teeling, William

  Davidson, Viscountes

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  De la Bère, R.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Digby, S W

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Touche, G. C.

  Dower, Lt.-Col A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Turton, R. H.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  warn, Hon. G. R

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Mclson, A. H. E.

  Williams, G. (Torquay)

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

  York, C.

  Gage, C.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Nicholson, G.

  Commander Agnew and

  Grant, Lady

  Noble, Comdr. A H. P.

  Major Ramsay.

  Mr. Chater: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On arriving at the Division Lobby door I found that it was locked, before you gave the order to lock the doors. May I ask if that is in order?
  Mr. Speaker: I am not quite sure of the hon. Member's point. Was the door locked when he went to vote?
  Mr. Chater: Yes.
  Hon. Members: We saw it.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member had raised the matter before the numbers were counted I could have said that his vote could be counted with the "Ayes" or "Noes," whichever way he had desired to vote. I did not know that the doors were locked, but I do not think that we need have another Division.
  Mr. Chater: Several hon. Members here can corroborate the fact that the door was locked before you gave the order, Sir. I only inquire whether that is the usual course, or whether the door should not be locked until you gave the order.
  Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I hesitated a good deal before I gave the order to lock the doors, because I saw the hon. Member going round the corner, but I did not gather that the door was locked then. In any event, I hope it will not happen again.

  CLAUSE 52.—(Additional restrictions on carriage of goods for hire and reward.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 8, leave out "twenty-five" and insert fifty."
  3.15 a.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This matter is one that has been carefully discussed both in the House and in Committee and in our view it would wholly frustrate the work of the Commission in running an efficient long-distance road haulage service if this Amendment were accepted. What it seeks to do is to permit a road haulier left outside the Commission's operations to run to a distance of 50 miles from his base without any permit from the Commission, whereas we have said in the Bill that the correct distance should be 25 miles. Twenty-five miles from a base represents a very generous view of the work of a local road haulier.
  It is our object in the Bill to leave the small haulier outside the scope of the Commission's activities, and that he is able to go up to 25 miles from his base is, in my view, a reasonable and generous provision. Moreover, the House earlier this evening accepted the view that the Commisson should be entitled to purchase all firms whose operations were predominantly over 25 miles from their base. It would, therefore, I suggest, be illogical that, having accepted that view, the House should accept the Lords Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper—that a firm should be able to operate up to 50 miles from its base without a special permit. There would be an immense area of overlapping between the Commission's services and the road hauliers' services, and that overlapping would in our view be bad
  1440
  because it would prevent the integration which we believe nececssary. Proper integration means economic working which will enable the Commission to run unremunerative services and to do all sorts of things which it could not do if there were such competition, and the chaos and anarchy which would result from a large number of firms trying to do the same job. For that reason primarily, we ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  One other argument is that the road hauliers themselves—or anyhow, a large number of responsible leaders—when they put forward a policy for the proper integration of the road haulage industry and its better conduct in the future, suggested that the local haulier—the small man with one vehicle—should be confined to an area not of 25 miles, but 20 miles from his base. That was their proposal. We say that distance is too short, and make 25 miles the limit. Over 25 miles, any haulier can take work provided he gets a permit, and that permit will always be given where the Commission cannot do the work itself.
  We therefore think the provisions of the Bill are reasonable, that the Lords Amendment would make the work of the road haulage organisation of the Commission impossible, or at any rate impossible of successful performance. For these reasons, we ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the House has seized the difference between this Amendment and that which we were discussing some two or three hours ago. Then we were discussing the test under which an undertaking would be nationalised. Now we are discussing what limitation will be placed on those road haulage undertakings which are left outside the attack of nationalisation. Every argument which I adduced on the last Amendment, as to the unfairness and undesirability of the test which it is sought to apply, that is, the complete failure of such a distance as 25 miles to apply either to the Metropolitan area, the industrial areas, central Scotland, or the rural areas, applies to this condition also, and to the position in which the road hauliers left outside nationalisation are placed. I want without enlarging on the same points, to take up the hon. Gentleman where he says

  1441
  it would only frustrate the work of the Commission. That is a large claim which is even more unfounded than most of the claims put forward by the Government tonight.
  In the first place, the Commission are to have the somewhat unusual and certainly unfair and unfortunate right of being judge in their own cause. A person who wants to go over the 25 miles distance does not have to apply to the licensing authority to settle matters. He has to get the permission of his trade rivals. That puts him in a remarkable and unfair position, but it does not stop there. The Commission are to have the right to compete with those road hauliers who are left outside nationalisation with at least two further advantages. They will have the right to provide long-distance services, but in acquiring long-distance services they will be bound to have acquired a number of short-distance vehicles at the same time because of the composite nature of the undertakings. Therefore, they will be competing with those who are left and with the right to carry not only over short, but over long-distances and the inestimable advantage that this will create.
  In addition to that, in taking over the railway vehicles and those owned by the firms and companies which are subsidiary to the railways, they are again taking over vehicles whose work is largely short-distance and special traffic work. I speak from memory and if I am wrong in a slight percentage, and it will be only a slight percentage, I hope that the House will excuse me. Pickford's work is, I think, 95 per cent. special traffic and short-distance work, and that shows again how the Commission are to get an enormous number of vehicles by which they will be able to compete on the most advantageous and unfair basis. To say that the Commission in that position are going to be frustrated—for that is the claim of the hon. Gentleman—because those road haulage undertakings that are left are to have their distance extended from 25 to 50 miles is simply not playing with, but abusing words. Twenty-five miles is a ridiculous distance to limit a road haulier over any aspect of our national carriage by road that one cares to take into account. Especially when he has not, at the moment, merely to compete with
  1442
  others in the same line of business, but to compete with the octopus of the Con-mission, with its special advantages and with the tyrannical dice loaded in its favour.
  The hon. Gentleman has tried to put forward another argument. He has tried to say, "Well, we have beaten you on the question of the test, and, therefore, you ought to give in to us on the rights of those who are left." We entirely fail to be convinced by the logic of that argument, or to be over-awed by it. We say that, whatever it is they take. If we want in this country a proper and flourishing road transport industry we have not only to do justice to those who have built up that industry with such courage in the past, but we have to provide a system which will give reasonable service to the people who need it. For that we must have a road haulage service which will be of proper local application and carry out decentralised work for the people who need it. There is only one thing which will give us a good road transport service in this country, or in any country; and that is, to have the right vehicle, with the right driver, at the right place, at the right time. Once again—and I put it to the House with every confidence and with all the vigour that I possess—we can only get that from a decentralised service with true local application. We shall only get it if we have a small unit service; and we shall only get a good working small unit service if we give our local hauliers a chance. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to rally to the aid of small road hauliers.
  3.30 a.m.
  Mr. Di£by: To limit the remaining hauliers to a radius of 25 miles is extremely unfair. It does not require much imagination or knowledge of this country for one to realise the tremendous difference between a distance of 25 miles in the country districts, such, for instance, as those which I represent, and 25 miles in the towns. In my part of the world the roads twist about here and there, so that there are few occasions when I visit my constituency when I am riot more than 25 miles from my operating centre. although I have not left the Division Nearly all the major towns are separated by a distance of more than 25 miles If this Amendment is not accepted it will mean

  1443
  that hauliers will have to make sure that their drivers do not, in fact, go more than 25 miles from their operating centre. It will be extremely difficult for those drivers to know when they are just inside, or outside, that distance, unless every driver goes round with a pair of compasses and a map measuring the distance. Very often, to get from one point to another, it is necessary to make a long detour.
  Very early in these discussions the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement which I thought was extremely misleading, and, although we interrupted him, he made no attempt to correct it. He said that under the new system road hauliers would have an area of 2,000 square miles in which to operate. But he forgot to Say that there are a large number of road hauliers around the coast who will have nothing approaching that area; who, if they are lucky, will have something like half of it. There has been no previous occasion to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. It was raised upstairs and we met with curious arguments from the Minister. What he told us was:
  "If we went round the coast and extended the radius, we would not get equity in any way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th March, 1947, col. 969.]
  Then he went on to suggest that if one had incomplete equity, it did not matter how unfair the position. Apparently, because one cannot have fairness, it does not matter if one haulier has only half of what the other has. In these coastal areas not only is the distance about half of what it is elsewhere, but the population is more sparse than in the inland districts. This is a most unfair provision. It simply does not work out in these coastal districts and the Amendment ought to be accepted.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Before I launch upon any questions to the Front Bench, might I ask if somebody is going to answer what has been said previously, because we have spent a considerable time asking for information and there has been no answer at all. Shall we have some reply to the important points put forward? Let me take the case which the Parliamentary Secretary had in mind. He said that if anybody operated more than 25 miles there would be damage to the Commission. What does he mean? I think I know what he means. I think he means
  1444
  that the Commission—this great new commission—will be open to the competition of one of the free road hauliers. Well, we are not so much concerned with damage to the Commission as with damage to the public. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary how this thing is going to work out?
  A haulier has decided under these complex provisions to be a short-distance haulier and he is left in. But he can only operate 25 miles from his centre and a large number of his customers, for that reason, cannot be served. He may have to sell his lorries. In the course of time—and this is what the Parliamentary Secretary wants to happen—the Commission will expand, subject as it is to no competition, and it will take over these customers. But in the meantime there will be a period of considerable dislocation. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any plan for dealing with those customers who are cut off? I hope somebody will answer these points, also, about the coast towns, raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Di£by). It is time some answer was forthcoming. There is a strong and substantial point in this matter, for there are hundreds of thousands of these operators around the sea coast of Britain. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members opposite would not make such curious noises in their sleep. If only they would get up and contribute to our discussion!
  I was saying there are large numbers of these operators round the coasts of Britain. Their case ought to be put in the House of Commons and, above all, it ought to be answered in the House of Commons. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say on what basis of justice or logic he should give the sea-coast operators only half the area he gives to anybody else?
  Mr. Gallacher: The Amendment will not make any difference to them.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: It would make a very considerable difference to them. If the area were extended by 25 miles, at least the sea-coast operator would have some sizeable area in which to operate. If the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) wishes to address the House upon this matter there is really no earthly reason why he should not do so: I am tired of standing on my feet. We were discussing some little time ago the definition of long-distance and

  1445
  short-distance hauliers, and the factors which should be taken into account in determining whether a man should be deemed to be a short-distance man.
  The Parliamentary Secretary addressed to the House a long argument, saying he had gone into the matter most fairly, and had come to the conclusion that a fair definition of short-distance haulage was, "Not more than 40 miles altogether, but as far as one liked inside the 25 mile limit." Can he tell me why more onerous conditions than that are imposed on the haulier once it is decided he can operate within such short distance haulage? He—or it may have been the Minister —argued at some length what he thought was a fair definition of haulage, which was something more than the 25 mile limit. He did not contend on that occasion at all that everybody who operated outside the 25-mile limit should be treated as a long-distance operator. Within that short distance he was more generous than that. He said the operator could travel, not only 25 miles, but as far as he liked in it. He could go outside it, provided that at no time did he travel more than 40 miles. That having been decided, on those terms, for the man as a short distance, why does he not allow him to travel 40 miles? Why does the Parliamentary Secretary make the conditions even harder for the man who is left to operate?
  There is no possible justification for that. The conditions should be at least as generous on the operating side as in determining whether the distance be long or short. I think some explanation is clearly indicated upon that matter. I am going to sit down [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I shall not if hon. Members would rather I did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I do hope I am going to get an answer. Unless somebody does rise to give an answer on this occasion I hope some of my hon. Friends will continue the Debate.
  Mr. Maclay: It is impossible to let this Amendment go past without pointing out how extremely important it is to Scotland. It applies to Cornwall and other lonely regions; but it is immensely important to parts of Scotland, and, above all, I say frankly, to my own constituency, where we have Forfar, the richest agricultural area in Scotland, with a fine firm operating transport there. The
  1446
  produce of the Orkneys, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire, Forfar, has to be transported into the cities for distances exceeding 25 miles, and transport operators on short distances will be obliged under the Bill to get permits. The reason why one speaks on this particular Amendment is that even though 50 miles might not be a big figure, it is better than 25. Twenty-five miles seems to me, as far as Scotland is concerned, a hopeless figure; 50 would be a great deal better. I would emphasise that very strongly.
  3.45 a.m.
  Brigadier Mackeson: I must ask now for an answer to the two questions I put to the Government in the recent discussion. The first relates to coastal areas. Feeling is very strong in the coastal areas and if the Minister would come down to the coastal areas in my constituency I shall be pleased to show them to him. But just deliberately not to answer my question is an insult to them. The other question is this: How are these regulations going to be implemented? Have the Government thought them out or not? What is going to be the effect on the police? An enormous burden is going to be placed on the police force. It is going to lead without doubt, to a considerable waste of manpower. I want an explanation of how these regulations are to be enforced? Is the Minister going to have cards, checks and work tickets? If he is to use work tickets, I can assure him he will find it will entail a colossal amount of work.
  Mr. Marlowe: There used to be a time when this was a Debating Chamber. It appears that now it has turn ed into something quite different. When constructive suggestions are made from this side of the House they are merely greeted with cheers and cynical laughter from opposite side of the House. It is a travesty of Parliament, which is intended to legislate, to try to produce a well-shaped Bill, to have that sort of conduct from the other side of the House. The hon. Gentleman's argument resolved itself into one point—"We cannot give way, because if we do we shall be unable to stand up to competition." That was the sole basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He dared not give way because we should be faced with competition which we would not be strong enough lo stand up to."

  1447
  I want to deal with the question of the coastal areas. It is a very simple problem which does not seem to have impressed itself on the hon. Gentleman opposite. It is a mathmatical problem: a semicircle is half the size of a circle. I wish I could make the Gentleman opposite understand the position where you have a coast line area of 25 miles. It would appear to be a most unfortunate thing that in my Division of Brighton the people who are drivers of lorries are not able to drive them into the sea. The coast means that their area is precisely half that of a person 25 miles inland who is able to drive in all directions. The hon. Gentleman did not at any time attempt to deal with that situation. It is one of enormous importance, certainly to thousands of transport owners around the whole of the coastal areas. The hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deal with it because he has got no answer to it. It is time he gave in. No arguments have been put forward by anyone supporting him. One realises that they do not know what the Debate is about. At least the hon. Gentleman knows what this Bill and Debate are about, and if no one behind him puts up any arguments the onus is on him and I hope he will answer.
  Mr. C. Williams: I have very considerable sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary. Every time I have listened to him he gets more and more frightened of his own scheme. Every time he opens his mouth he tells us of fears of competition and overlapping. He knows that the machine they are setting up cannot compete with anything on the road at the present time. He has now learned that, and yet he insists, with the colossal majority behind him, on this point, which is almost imbecile in regard to location and distance. Just now he told us that the 25-mile limit was a wonderful thing and that whoever had it could go north, south, east, and west. There is a town of considerable importance as a port in Cornwall called Falmouth, where it is not a matter of going one way or another. It is cut off by two rivers, on the South and West and the South-East. Before one can get coal to the populous area in the centre of the county one has to go 20 or 30 and only by one practical route to the north; in other words, the area of delivery is far less than one half and not much more than one quarter.
  1448
  Take the case of Plymouth. There is no one here to speak for it tonight but I must point out the unfortunate position of this town because it is completely cut off by the sea, They cannot go south. I suppose the sympathetic Parliamentary Secretary would then say, "You can have a duck ' and take it out to the Eddystone Lighthouse," or some such nonsense of that sort. That is the sort of thing he is offering, and that sort of thing is the ministerial idea of transport. I believe there is not a single individual on the benches opposite who would not rather employ his next-door neighbour than a Government Department if he had a free choice.
  I am sorry I cannot say a great deal to please Members opposite. I do not think the Minister is as frightened as his Parliamentary Secretary because he does not realise how bad the Bill is. The real grievance which many of us feel in regard to this Amendment is that it leaves a gap between the time when the new Ministry is set up—which may take years and it may well be a long time before it is working properly —and the time when the efficient private enterprise industry which we know today is abolished. I appeal once more to the Minister to give us some concession. He has not really given us very much.
  I have, so far, been dealing with neighbouring constituencies because the Members representing them are not here to deal with their problems. Now I want for a moment to turn to my own constituency. Large numbers of hon. Members opposite have visited it and have benefited from being there. Our difficulty, too, is that we are completely cut off. Before we can get our goods right into the centre of Devon or to Brixham we have to hire a lorry from some mysterious body which is going to be placed somewhere—though no one knows where—but by the time we get that lorry the stuff will have been sent back, which will be absolutely in keeping with the Government at the present time. My hon. Friend said that he hoped we would divide on this subject. I hope we shall, and I hope that in this really desperate situation which threatens us that we shall hear something from some of the Scottish Members. How in the world am I to get help if my lorry breaks down 40 miles from a station? It might well take the Govern-

  1449
  ment weeks or months to get help there. That is a simple illustration of what will happen under this system. It is too much to expect that we shall hear anything from any English Socialist Members, who, apparently, are not allowed to speak, but perhaps some of the Scottish Socialists will have the courage to state their views on this matter. We might even hear from a Welsh Socialist.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to give the Minister another opportunity to give some reply to the reasoned arguments which have been put before the Government in favour of this Amendment. It is surely scant courtesy to the House and to the very large number of independent, hard-working people who have put their life savings into their business to give them no sort of a reply, whatever. Why should they not be entitled to carry on their business as they could within the 50 miles' limit, because they will find great difficulty in carrying it on within the 23 miles' limit? Why was the figure of 25 selected? What is the virtue of 25 which has been retained in the Bill?
  Mr. Piratin: It is the Minister's lucky number.
  4.0 a.m.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It is likely that the Communist Party is quite right when they say that it is the Minister's lucky number. Recently when we were discussing another figure, namely, making it 80 instead of 40, the Minister said that the only reason why that figure of 80 had been chosen was because it was double the figure 40. He argued that, therefore, it should be rejected. The only argument advanced in favour of 25 is that it is a quarter more than the figure of 20, which is the only other figure he had in mind. Now that is no better answer than the answer he rejected in his own argument. What is the virtue of this figure of 25? I do ask the Minister to give some reply to this point. I also think the Parliamentary Secretary should be afforded an opportunity of clearing up the misunderstanding his previous remark must have created. In reply to the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), he made it quite clear that a haulier would be able to go 25 miles north, south, east and west from the operating centre. If the hauliers in my cons-
  1450
  stituency have an operating centre at Bognor Regis they cannot go 25 miles south. They would end up halt way to France, and what is the good of that? I think the right hon. Gentleman is unnecessarily misleading all these seaside hauliers. He said quite deliberately they would have 2,000 square miles in which to operate. Obviously, that is intended to mean on land. It is perfectly clear that seaside operators under this Clause cannot have the area which he said they were to have.
  May I put one further argument before the right hon. Gentleman? I venture to differ from some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House in believing that the British haulier who has built up his business and put his livelihood and savings into that business is going to allow himself to be put out of business by the Minister, the Transport Commission or any Government Department. He is going to find a way round the position. He is going to make a living not within the law, but by evasion of the law. I am prepared to have a small bet with the Minister that he will succeed. It will make it much easier for the efficient administration of the road haulage system if he is limited to 50 miles and not 25. What will happen will be the setting up between the normal centres of transport, such as, London and Brighton, London and Wales, London and Bognor Regis, of intermediate transmission stations where independent hauliers coming to the end of their operating distances, will meet independent hauliers centred in another operating sphere at the end of their radius, and transfer their loads from one lorry to another. Within the provisions of the Bill they could continue their service and continue it more economically and more efficiently than any service set up by the Commission, but it would be more economical and more efficient if that transmission could take place at the end of 50 miles instead of at the end of 25. In the interests of efficiency, I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do think we should have some answer— [Interruption.]
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not know w hat the cheers are for. I was only waiting for hon. Members to finish putting their

  1451
  points before I rose to answer this Debate. It seems to me that we can confine ourselves to only one of the arguments. But I must ask leave of the House before I can speak again. The points which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite have not really been relevant to the issue we are debating. One Member after another argued that it was grossly unfair to hauliers in seaside towns, that they should be confined to the limit of 25 miles provided in the Bill. But if the Lords Amendment were accepted and the 25 miles became 50 miles, then, obviously, there would be exactly the same disparity between seaside towns and inland towns as there is now. Therefore, the arguments which have been put forward with such vigour—and they are interesting and important arguments—are quite irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.
  Mr. C. Williams: There is no reason why, if we halve an area because the sea takes half of it, we should not allow a seaside town to have 100 against the 50 of the inland town.
  Mr. Strauss: That may be so, but it is not the Amendment we are discussing. It may have been discussed on Report or in Committee, but it is not before us now.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: You guillotined it.
  Mr. Strauss: As the matter has been raised I would like to make two brief points. It would be quite impossible to make provision just for seaside towns, because so many of our major towns, including London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff, and many others, are seaside towns, and a very large proportion of the hauliers are naturally in those centres. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have made special provision for areas where there is some peculiar difficulty, or some local reason why the Commissioners should grant permits more easily. In an Amendment moved in another place by the Government the House will see that we have met that point as far as it is possible to do so. It is quoted on page 13 of the Amendments, and is as follows:
  "Provided that the Commission shall, in exercising their discretion, take into consideration the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting, the locality in which is
  1452
  situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which the permit would relate."
  Mr. Turton: When that Amendment comes before us, will the hon. Member explain it fully to the House, so that we can have a fairly wide discussion on it? It is very important, and some of us think that it does not go quite far enough.
  Mr. Strauss: I am explaining it to the House at the moment.
  Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to discuss now a later Amendment?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Yes, if it has some association with the matter under discussion, which I gather it has.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I was pointing out that the -Bill specially gives discretion to the Commission, and suggests that they should exercise this discretion. Otherwise most of the arguments seem irrelevant to the issue before us. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) says that we are not being so generous to the road haulier in this provision, in which we give him 25 miles to operate without a permit, as we were in a previous Clause which defines the long-distance and the short-distance road hauliers for the purpose of acquisition. We say in Clause 39 that we consider a man a short-distance road haulier if he operates less than 40 miles in an area 25 miles from his base. In this Clause we are saying that he can go anywhere he likes within 25 miles from his base, up to 50 miles in fact from the centre. We are, therefore, being more generous here, if that is the way to put it, than we were in the earlier Clause. I say again, that 25 miles distance from the base is a generous estimate for the work which the normal local road haulier would want to do; that the Commission has the power—which I am certain they would exercise on a substantial scale, wherever it was appropriate—to give hauliers permission to go beyond that distance; and we draw attention to the desirability of giving permission to extend that distance where local hauliers need it.
  But if the local haulier were allowed to go up to 50 miles from his base without any permit he would be creaming off much of the essential work which the Commission is ordered by Parliament to do to carry out a proper long-distance

  1453
  road haulage service for the community and for the industry of this country. That responsibility is being placed fairly and squarely on the Commission. Having given the local haulier the duty and monopoly of work in his own area, it would be quite grotesque to say that any road haulier could undertake long-distance work, creaming off what traffic he wants and leaving the Commission the job of providing the most unremunerative services. A proper job cannot be done that way.
  Hon. Members opposite say—and I can quite understand their view—that one can only get a proper road haulage service if one leaves it to small units. They said, further, that they were not concerned with any damage to the Commission, but only with the damage to the public. We say the welfare and interests of the Commission, charged with this duty of carrying on long-distance road service work, is identical with the welfare of industry, and that any damage done to the Commission by unfair competition or by outsiders creaming off work will be damage not only to the Commission, but to the industries of this country. We say this work can effectively be done only with the fusion and integration which every person and section in the transport industry knows is necessary and has been demanding for years. That can only be effected if the long-distance road services become integrated through the work of the Commission with rail operations, when the Commission becomes responsible. Taking that view, we disagree with the arguments of hon. Members opposite, who want to limit—and damage as much as they can—the work of the Commission in its road transport operations. They want to leave the work in the hands of the existing road hauliers. They can do that, but they will not get integration and fusion. They will get the same anarchy and chaos as has existed in the industry in the past. The purpose of the Bill is to get order in the transport industry, and that can only be obtained with a monopoly of road transport services and integration. The local haulier must be confined to a proper and reasonable distance, which is 25 miles.
  4.15 a.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: the hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak, except with leave.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I trust that I have the leave of the House.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Really, Sir—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly correct. If the House gives him leave I have, of course, no objection.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I hope and I trust that that leave will be granted.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—It was extended to the Minister and—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that. leave having been withheld, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot speak again.
  Mr. Turton: The Parliamentary Secretary has chosen to reply to this Debate—if the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has anything to say to the House will he say it a little louder?
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I was under tie impression that the hon. Gentleman had already spoken.
  Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman's linpressions are incorrect. It would help if the Minister were to explain exactly hew these permissions in Subsection (2) are to operate. We must get the picture clear. so that—
  Mr. MeKinlay: On a point of Order. It is within the recollection of hon. Members that the hon. Member For Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has already spoken on this Amendment.
  The Deputy-Speaker: the hon. Member is in error. I have a complete none of hon. Members who have spoken, and the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is not among them.
  Mr. Turton: Hon. Members opposite ale sometimes asleep and sometimes they wake up. This is really a serious matter, specially for the remote areas and the coastal towns. Are we to understand, first of all, that there is to be general permission for a particular haulier over the distance of 25 miles, or will it be directed to a particular load? I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate that it is to be a general permission, in view of

  1455
  the fact that the operation is over rather wild country, in Yorkshire, or Torquay, or where the periphery or semi-circle influences the scope of the haulier's operation. Unfortunately, we find that the Commission has power at any time to vary or withdraw permission, and it makes the validity of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument very much less. The next point that arises is in relation to the particular load, as to whether the haulier will have to apply to the Commission for permission. The delay will mean that consumers will get worse service. The position is not clear, and we have not yet had an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. I gathered from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that it was on this Clause that they would make some concession about particular traffics; but in that Amendment they merely deal with certain localities. I would like to get a ruling from the learned Solicitor-General on the question whether, having drafted that Amendment to refer merely to particular localities, it is not really limiting this question so that the Commission cannot take into consideration special loads, such as milk in churns, or eggs—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about bacon?"]—I hope that some light will be thrown on this rather obscure situation. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has not thought enough about the public. That, I think, is the real difference between the two sides of the House—which is to come first? Which is the more important, the needs of the consuming public, or the convenience of the Transport Commission, which we hear is not to be presided over by Lord Latham?
  Mr. John Foster: I think the Parliamentary Secretary missed the point. His argument was, if I understood it—
  Mr. Haworth: On a point of Order. I suggest, Sir, that the question of the traffic from the coast towns cannot possibly have any bearing on this Amendment, and the Parliamentary Secretary found difficulty in giving a reply to this, because he had to refer to a subsequent Amendment. The Opposition raised an objection to that on a point of Order and if it was not in Order for the reply then to be given, is it in Order for the matter to be dealt with now?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot agree with the hon. Member.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Member noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary was irrelevant and out of Order, but that does not prevent my putting my point to him. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument was that 25 miles to a coast town might be unjust, but 50 miles would also be unjust, and that the argument was, therefore, irrelevant. That is, roughly, what he said, but he does not apparently appreciate that 50 miles would be less unjust—
  Mr. Gallacher: Tell us how it is unjust.
  Mr. Foster: Perhaps the hon. Member, who is speaking while seated, will allow me to develop my argument. It would be less injustice because the operator in the coast town would have further to go, and would not be limited to 25 miles. He would have further to go, and his ordinary activities would be less restricted. The coast town operator whose livelihood is taken away would be better off on a radius of 50 miles, although that would be unjust compared with other operators if they go on a diameter of 50 miles. The advantage of this Amendment would be a lessening of the injustice. The Parliamentary Secretary rejected the whole thing by a piece of dialectic, and saying it did not apply at all.
  Mr. Scollan: Does the hon. Member not realise that the half of a radius, be it 25 miles or 50 miles, is still only half the radius, and that is the point which the Minister made?
  Mr. C. Williams: Does my hon. Friend similarly realise that a quarter of half of the radius is equal to one-eighth of the whole?
  Mr. Foster: This is very true, but there is, I think, no difference between us about that. The Parliamentary Secretary said the argument was irrelevant. If one said to any coast town operator, "Do you think the injustice caused by having a fixed radius would be ameliorated if you were allowed to go twice as far?" he would say he would have this Amendment. If it is acceptable to the coast town operator, that is an argument in favour of it. We cannot discuss whether it would be better for different radii to be given to different parts of the country; that would not be in Order. But

  1457
  it is in Order, I think, to say that this Amendment would be of immense benefit to the coast town operator, and that is why we are' supporting it on this side of the House. With respect, I would say that the Parliamentary Secretary did not treat the House with respect with his false dialectics. He should address himself, at this hour of the night, to serious argument. An hon. Member for one of the Scottish constituencies pointed out that a 25 mile radius in many parts of the country has no meaning—
  Mr. Gallacher: That is what is wrong with the hon. Member.
  Mr. Foster: It has no meaning because the operators are short haulage operators in areas where centres of consumption and production are more than 25 miles apart, and it must be remembered that no road operator can operate in a vacuum. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say, "Well, I agree that 25 miles, where the towns are 30 or 40 miles apart, is not of much use." If the trader places his van between towns he may go 25 miles to towns 50 miles apart. These are quite obvious points which have been made by people in the trade and industry, but which have not been made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He never alluded to that argument. All he did was to repeat that the 25 miles was a fair and reasonable distance, and that if the 50 mile radius were allowed it would mean creaming off the profitable part of the road transport industry. He treated the Amendment which was passed in another place as a wrecking Amendment, instead of one which was made for the benefit of the industry as a whole within the limits of nationalisation. To benefit the industry as much as we can within those limits is all we can do now.
  4.30 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary adopted the attitude that the object on this side of the House was to wreck the Commission, and take the cream off road haulage operations, so that nationalisation would not work. I should have thought it would work very much better were the 50 mile radius adopted. It would work better if the majority—or, at least, a great proportion—of the road haulage undertakings which are short road haulage undertaking were working within a framework of about 50 miles. In sea coast areas, and areas in which the big centres are more than 50
  1458
  miles apart, the road haulage undertakings will have to change their character, in order to operate within these restrictive limits. That will make nationalisation work much the worse. The Parliamentary Secretary did not meet that point. He spoke as though those in another place were not responsible, and had acted to wreck the Bill; and he seemed to allege that the Amendment was designed to enable us on this side of this House to wreck the Bill. Does he realise what he is doing? He is saying that this nationalisation scheme is so fragile that the introduction of a 50 miles limit, instead of the 25 mile limit, would bring the whole thing down like a pack of cards. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that a larger limit than 25 miles would make the Commission unprofitable, then he does not know how the industry is conducted. I do not believe he has ever seen applications made for "A" and "B" licences; or, if he has, he has not understood them. The industry is not based on tiny routes of 25 miles, except, perhaps, in centres like Manchester or London. When applications are made for licences, and evidence of need is given, the basis is something like 35 to 50 miles. None of these technical matters was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  I should like to complain about the fact that not enough speeches are made from the other side. It is a serious complaint, because the whole basis of English Parliamentary life is that the Government and Opposition play a part in team work. It is one of the remarkable things about English Parliamentary life. If serious arguments on this side are met only by one person who is rather apt to repeat himself, and who does not address himself to the arguments—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That proposition has nothing to do with the Amendment.
  Commander Galbraith: I did not intend to intrude in this Debate.
  Mr. Gallacher: Why do it?
  Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear the reason. I had asked my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) to put one or two points to the Minister on which I desired some explanation. Unfortunately, the House has refused him permission to speak, though he very

  1459
  courteously gave way to the Minister. Therefore, I have to put these questions to the hon. Gentleman myself. I wish to develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who referred to the difficulties that exist in Scotland. I am very sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is not in his place, but I am glad the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has just come into the Chamber, because he might be able to answer my questions.
  I want to allude to a very peculiar situation which exists in many parts of Scotland, where there are long and narrow peninsulas. There is Black Isle which lies by Cromarty, and is one of the richest agricultural areas in Scotland. Operators working in Rosemarkie would only be able to go to the end of the peninsula, and that is the only business they could do. That is the point on which I would like some assistance. The question I would like him to consider next is the case of Campbelltown, near the Mull of Kintyre, a promontory which runs north and south, and is very narrow. What happens to the livelihood of the people there?
  Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to correct him? The Mull of Kintyre is not a promontory, and it does not run.
  Commander Galbraith: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has some knowledge of that part of the world. He is perfectly correct. I should have spoken of the peninsula. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his local knowledge, will assist the Government to reply to the very important point I am making.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not realise is that if the Amendment he is supporting is carried, and the 50 mile limit is imposed, his lorry will rush into the Irish Sea.
  Commander Galbraith: The hon. Lady is quite mistaken. My lorry would run further north than it is permitted to go now. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has a very difficult constituency, and in the Isle of Whithorn a similar difficulty arises. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has in his constituency quite a
  1460
  large town which goes by the name of Helensburgh which has on one side the Gairloch and on the other side Loch Lomond. What is going to happen there? I hope I may have a reply to this problem which faces Scotland.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we should come to a decision now.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Sir I. Fraser: I ask the Minister to come, in his imagination, with me into my constituency, the greater part of which is in the Lake District, a sparsely populated area. The coast-line there is indented with many bays, notably one called the Sands, across which the coaches used to go when taking people to be married at Gretna Green. This is the question which exercises the minds of my constituents: how this special licence, which can be granted in special cases, would apply? If this Amendment were carried, and 50 miles were substituted for 25 miles, the journey round this bay, or the Sands, would be taken care of, but if 25 miles is the limit, then no haulier can do any business on one side of the Sands or the other. If it is said that he can get a special licence, does he apply for it in relation to the journey, or each period of time, or each traffic, or whether he gets a licence over an extended period for the whole of his business? This is a vital matter, and I hope an answer will be given.
  One solution would be to give a licence with a permanent period attached to it. No businessman can work from week to week if he does not know whether a licence is to be cancelled or withdrawn. The solution is to give a long-term licence because of the geographical situation of the haulier, or, alternatively, pass an Amendment so that a licence cannot be taken away. I prefer the Amendment, and I hope we shall continue to press the Government and even persuade them to agree to it.
  Mr. I. J. Pitman: I have not previously spoken on this subject, and I want hon. Members to realise that we are debating a very human question. The small lorry drivers we are talking about are human beings, some of whom no doubt voted for some of us on both sides of this House. I want hon. Members to think in terms of human beings. I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary

  1461
  tell us how the test of definition of what is a small short-distance haulage is to be applied. The test—he will correct me if I am wrong—is one in which his officials will look at the records of the journeys of a haulier over a long period—I think he said a year—and that test will be what is statistically called the mode. One or more journeys may easily be less than 25 miles and one even over 50 miles, and the officer of the Commission will say, "What about this one of 50 miles?" The haulier may well reply "My mother-in-law is living in my house, and I could get her out of my house into a new one if I moved her and made that journey. That is why I went more than 50 miles in that particular case." The Commission would say, as I understand it, "That is right. You are a short distance haulier. Your journeys are round the statistical mode of 25 miles." The test for definition on the statistical mode is a different thing from what we are talking about in this case, because, here, we are talking about the limit on the longest journey that is about the peak, which is something entirely different statistically.
  4.45 a.m.
  In another place they have made a very good point on this Amendment, because a peak of 50 miles is probably the fair equivalent of a 25-mile mode. I hope hon. Members on the other side of the House do not think that if this Amendment goes through 50 miles will be obtained by the haulier for every journey. His mode could continue to be 25 miles, notwithstanding a peak journey of 50 miles. The Parliamentary Secretary. has asked what other system could he have. He has this Amendment of 50 miles, which, I submit, is thoroughly satisfactory to take for a mode of 25 miles. If he really wants to cover both mode and peak he can do it in the same way as he proposes for covering the test for definition. He could dearly have the situation reviewed from time to time to see that practice continued in line with the original test for definition. It is ludicrous to impose on somebody whose mode is 25 miles a peak of 25 miles. Statistically it is absolute nonsense, and it is for that reason I commend to the House this Amendment which has come from another place.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to refer to the speech which the Parliament-
  1462
  ary Secretary made, because rarely has the House been given a better example of what Socialism will lead this country into than in those remarks. There is a poem which read something like this:
  "Before the Romans came to Rye, of to the Severn strode,
  The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road."
  Today there are right hon. Gentlemen sitting on that Front Bench drunk—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must withdraw that remark at once.
  Major Legge-Bourke: If right hon. arid hon. Gentlemen opposite had only given me time to finish my sentence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I would have said that I understood that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side were drunk with power. Why do I say that?
  Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Spark-brook): Because the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot say anything else.
  Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having heard the remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is going to withdraw, as you told him to? Is it not about time twat he did so?
  Mr. McAllister: And decently.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member's remarks when concluded had rather a different meaning from what they appeared to have originally.
  Mr. Logan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should sit down. I am not drunk; I am sober. Sit down!
  Major Legge-Bourke: A good many of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are intoxicated by power today.
  Mr. Logan: The time is almost five o'clock in the morning and we have just heard an hon. Member opposite talking about taking his mother-in-law 50 miles!
  Major Legge-Bourke: I really cannot be responsible for the hon. Gentleman seeing double and mistaking who I am—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. McAllister: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be allowed, first, to make a remark that Members on the Front Bench were drunk and correct it facetiously, when he said the word "drunk," full stop? And then is he to be allowed to continue with drunken allusions by saying that my hon. Friend was seeing double?
  Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham): On a point of Order. Would it be in order to reply in a manner which contains no sense and then, if I am rebuked. to give—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really cannot have these personal animadversions. Hon. Members must preserve some order and dignity in our proceedings. I ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides to do so and to confine themselves strictly to the Amendments before us. The hon. and gallant Member will continue his speech and not repeat what he has already said
  Major Legge-Bourke: I propose to explain why I made the remarks I did.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would he tar better for the hon. and gallant Member not to explain, but to proceed with his speech, making it relevant to the Amendment before us.
  Major Legge-Bourke: That is my point. It arises out of what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I made that remark with reference particularly to what he said about the monopoly we are setting up in this Bill in the Commission. It has always interested me what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would do with monopoly in view of what they have said so often in the past about it, and in particular their remarks about Tory misrule and other such phrases as that. The hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, came down and openly boasted that the Commission set up under this Bill is to have a monopoly and, what is more, that it is to have a monopoly which is deliberately to be shielded from any form of competition whatsoever. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has failed to distinguish between a monopoly run by the State and a monopoly under private enterprise. [Laughter.] I see that my opening remarks are being endorsed every moment I go on.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I shall have to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to
  1464
  resume his seat if he makes further reference to his original remarks.
  5.0 a.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I would most respectfully point out that at that moment I was made virtually inaudible to hon. Members on this side, let alone on the other, by the—as I think—frivolous laughter as a result of my having said that hon. Members opposite apparently did not appreciate the difference between a monoply run by the State and a monopoly run by private enterprise. That apparently was the cause of wild hilarity. I say that if it is the intention under this Bill to set up a Commission which is to be a monopoly protected by the State from any form of competition whatever, then any charges that hon. Members have ever levied against monopolies under private enterprise are far outstripped by the charges that will be brought upon the State management of this industry. I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this.
  Do they really consider that this overlapping of which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke is all the danger that they make it out to be? Do they really consider that any road haulier is going to stay in business if he is having to compete with a really efficient State system which can undercut him at every corner? Is he going to struggle on limited by the terms of this Bill as it will be if the Amendment is not accepted? Do they conceive that any road haulier is going to carry on very long under those conditions? He may make a gallant attempt at the beginning, but I do not think he will carry on for very long. I believe that by this Amendment we can ensure that there is fair competition with the State monopoly, fair competition as judged by the only people who are entitled to judge these matters—the people who want to use the transport. I believe that to turn down this Amendment will be most injurious to the Bill. I believe that the Amendment, when it was passed by another place, greatly improved the Bill.
  I would also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he meant when he said that under Clause 39 the Government were being less generous than they were under this Clause. Under Clause 39, as I understand it, a vehicle can go within a 25 miles radius up to 40 miles, whereas under the Clause we

  1465
  are discussing it seems to me that a vehicle can only go 25 miles from its base. I cannot see how that can be considered to be more generous than the provision of Clause 39. It is precisely the other way round. I still maintain that if the Government are to make this nationalised transport a success they would do well to encourage all the competition to it they can. There is no better way of ensuring efficiency. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite so often flaunt efficiency in the face of the House as being the end of these nationalisation Bills, but there is no surer way of undermining any efficiency likely to come out of this Bill than deliberately eliminating all forms of competition and creating and directing a State monopoly.
  Mr. McKie: I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench will respond to the invitation which has been extended, and say something on the points raised regarding Scotland [Interruption]. if only the Parliamentary Secretary had not risen just before my hon. Friend spoke, a further intervention in this Debate, which has gone on for a long time, might have been avoided. My hon. Friend alluded to certain places in Cornwall and Scotland in which, because of their configuration, road hauliers will be seriously jeopardised if this quite modest Amendment of the Lords is denied.
  My constituency has a very long coastline. I will not attempt to estimate its length: I hate inaccuracies; there I differ from my hon. Friends on the other side. There are many arms and legs in my constituency, and one may say that it has two exposures, south and west. I will give an instance of how road hauliers on the sea-board facing west will suffer, and will take the ancient burgh of Stranraer. Members will readily recall that great prominence attained by Stranraer during the war, and the great part it played in bringing the war effort to a successful conclusion. [Interruption.] Six million members of the Armed Forces passed through Stranraer during the war years. Road hauliers there will be seriously affected, because there are two promontories to north and south. The road hauliers will be completely bottled—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—My remarks would not be received with such hilarity on both sides of the House if it were not for previous effusions.
  Sir I. Fraser: Was it my road hauliers to whom my hon. Friend referred as being "bottled?" If so, I do hope he will withdraw that.
  Mr. McKie: I was not alluding to my hon. Friend's road hauliers. I was explaining the very great difficulties which road hauliers will experience because of promontories to the north and south.
  It is not only the hauliers in the coastal part of my constituency that I am concerned about, though I am, of course, very concerned about them. A good Member of Parliament is concerned with the welfare of all his constituents, with all people, big or small, whoever they may be, whatever party they may belong to. Perhaps we shall have a reply from the Front Bench in relation to hauliers in the coastal parts of my constituency, and in other constituencies. It may be that the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) will say a few words about the coastal towns of Scotland, which he so well knows. This is a very serious mater affecting the lives of many people who will suffer by the obstinacy and obduracy of the Minister in his refusal to accept the Amendment. By acceptance he could save the whole situation with regard to the distribution of milk from my constituency. He has turned down the Amendment so I must tell him again that milk distribution will be seriously affected there. Let the Minister make a deathbed repentance for it is quite manifest that even if we were to substitute 50 miles or 25 miles in a constituency such as mine the hauliers would be in a very serious plight indeed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) knows a good deal about these matters. He has instanoN1 the extreme difficulty that he will have,.to miles from a station, in bringing his wool to market When we go to the Division Lobby I hope that we shall have a sufficiently large number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who support the Government voting with us to ensure that the Amendment is inserted in the Bill Especially do I hope that even the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who was good enough to include a sneer in his remarks, as he often does, will be in the Lobby with us. Certainly we would he failing in our duty -o our constituents if we were to allow the Motion of the Minister to disagree with the Lords Amendment to go unchallenged.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

  Division No. 328.]

  AYES

  [5.10 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)

  Orbach, M.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Grey, C. F.

  Paget, R. T.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Grierson, E.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Rother Valley)

  Palmer, A M. F.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Gunter, R. J.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Guy, W. H.

  Paton, J. (Norwi h)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Hale, Leslie

  Pearson, A.

  Baird, J.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Peart, T. F.

  Balfour, A.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Piratin, P.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J

  Hardy, E A.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Barton, C.

  Haworth, J.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Price, M. Philips

  Beswick, F.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Binns, J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Holman, P.

  Randall, H. E.

  Blyton, W. R.

  House, G.

  Ranger, J.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Hubbard, T.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Richards, R.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p, Exch'ge)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton. W.)

  Robens, A.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Irving, W. J.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Brown, T. J. Ince)

  Janner, B.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Royle, C.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Sargood, R.

  Burke, W, A.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Scollan, T.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Carmichael, James

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Sharp, Granville

  Chater, D.

  Keenan, W.

  Shurmer, P.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Kenyon, C.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Cocks, F. S.

  King, E. M.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr, E.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Collins, V. J.

  Kinley, J.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Lang, G.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Lavers, S.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Crawley, A.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Solley, L. J.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Leonard, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Levy, B. W.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Daines, P.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Logan, D. G.

  Stamford, W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Longden, F.

  Steel, T.

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Stephen, C.

  Deer, G.

  McAdam, W.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  McAlister, G.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Diamond, J.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Swingler, S.

  Dobbie, W.

  Mack, J. D.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McKay, J. (Wailsend)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Dumpteton, C. W.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  McLeavy, F.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  MacMlllan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Maepherson, T. (Romford)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Ewart, R.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Mathers, G.

  Tiffany, S.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Timmons, J.

  Foot, M. M.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tolley, L.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Usborne, Henry

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Moody, A. S.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Gallacher, W.

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Murray, J. D.

  Gibbins, J.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Watson, W. M.

  Gitzean, A.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Weitzman, D.

  GlanviUe, J. E. (Consett)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  O'Brien, T.

  Walker, G. H

  Question put. "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 87.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Yates, V, F.

  Wed, D. G.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Willis, E.

  Wilkes, L.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Mr. Michael Stewart and

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Woods, G. S.

  Mr. Popplewell.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Wyatt, W.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr P. G.

  Hare, Hon. d. H. (Woodbridge)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Beamish, Maj T. V. H.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Birch, Nigel

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bossom, A C.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Bower, N.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Spence, H. R.

  Byers, Frank

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Clarke, Col R. S.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Teeling, William

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Touche, G. C.

  De la Bere, R.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Turton, R. H.

  Digby, S. W.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Marshall S. H. (Sutton)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  York, C.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.

  Nicholson, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gage, C.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Major Conant and

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.

  Osborne, C.

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

  Grant, Lady

  Pickthorn, K.

  Grimston, R V.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Question put accordingly, "That this the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

  Division No. 329.]

  AYES.

  [5.20 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Chater, D.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Adams, W T (Hammersmith, South)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Allen, A C (Bosworth)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Coldrick, W.

  Gallacher, W.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Gibbins, J.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Ayrton Gould. Mrs. B.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Gilzean, A.

  Baird, J.

  Crawley, A.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Balfour, A.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Daggar, G.

  Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)

  Barstow, P. Q.

  Daines, P.

  Grey, C. F

  Barton, C.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Grierson, E.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Beswick, F.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Deer, G.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Binns, J.

  Detargy, H. J.

  Guy, W. H.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Diamond, J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Blyton, W. R.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Bowden. Flg.-Offr H. W.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt. Exch'ge)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Haworth, J.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  Harbison, Miss M.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Ewart, R.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Bruce, Major D W T.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Holman, P.

  Buchanan, G

  Fernyhough, E.

  House, G.

  Burke, W. A.

  Field, Captain W. J.

  Hubbard, T.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Carmichael, James

  Foot, M. M.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Champion, A. J.

  Forman, J. C.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.

  The House divided: Ayes. 247; Noes, 87.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Irving, W. J.

  O'Brien, T.

  Swingler, S.

  Janner, B.

  Orbach, M.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Paget, R. T.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras S.E.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Thomas Ivor (Keighley)

  Keenan, W.

  Pearson, A.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Kenyon, C.

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  King, E. M.

  Piratin, P.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Kinghorn. Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Kinley, J.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Tiffany, S.

  Lang, G.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Timmons, J.

  Lavers, S.

  Price, M. Philips

  Titterington, M. F.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Tolley, L.

  Lee, Mist J. (Cannock)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Leonard, W.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Usborne, Henry

  Levy, B. W.

  Randall, H. E.

  Vernon, Maj W. F.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Ranger, J.

  Walker, G. H.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Logan, D. G.

  Richards, R.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Longden, F.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Watson, W. M.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Robens, A

  Weitzman, D.

  McAdam, W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Wells, P L. (Faversham)

  McAllister, G.

  Robertson, G. J. (Berwick)

  Wells, W T (Walsall)

  McGhee, H. G

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  West, D G.

  Mack, J. D.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Royle, C

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Mackay, R W. G (Hull, N W.)

  Sargoed, R.

  Wilkes, L.

  MeKinlay, A. S

  Scollan, T

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McLeavy, F.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Shackleton, E A. A.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Sharp, Granville

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Shurmer, P.

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  Williams, W. R (Heston)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Willis, E.

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Skeffington. A. M

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Mathers, G.

  Skinnard, F. W

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Smith, C (Colchester)

  Woods, G. S

  Middlelon, Mrs. L

  Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)

  Wyatt, W

  Mikardo, Ian

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Yates, V. F.

  Mitchison, G. H.

  Solley, L.

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  Moody, A. S.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Murray, J. D.

  Sparks, J. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Nally, W.

  Stamford, W.

  Mr. Michael Stuart and

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Steele, T.

  Mr. Popplewell.

  Nicholls, H R (Stratford)

  Stephen C.

  NOES

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbrige>

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Pools, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O

  Birch, Nigel

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Bower, N.

  Lambert, Hon G.

  Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Law, Rt. Hon R. K.

  Ropner Col. L.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Byers, Frank

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Spence, H. R.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Corbelt, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Sludholme, H. G.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Teeling, William

  Crowder, Capt John E.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  De la Bère, R.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Digby, S. W.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Touche, G. C.

  Dodds-parker. A. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Turton, R. H.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ward, Hon. G. H.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Morrison, Maj. J. S. (Salisbury)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  York, C.

  Gage, C.

  Nicholson, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D

  Noble, Comdr. A H P

  Commander Agnew and

  Grant, Lady

  Osborne, C

  Major Ramsay.

  CLAUSE 52.—(Additional restrictions on the carriage of goods for hire or reward.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 19, after "livestock" insert "or milk."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  5.30 a.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: After a long period in which it was, by the rules of Order—of which I do not complain— necessary for me to refrain from addressing the House, that unnatural barrier has been lifted and I am now in a position of having my ordinary Parliamentary privileges once more. The Minister has moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment, greatly to our sorrow, because we had hoped that he might be more willing to look on this one with more favour than the previous Amendment. It is true, as the Minister said, that it is related, but only distantly so, to the previous discussion on this subject. This, as he will agree, refers to the long-distance hauliers, and whether they should or should not be allowed to carry milk for these longer distances. I did not intervene on the previous discussion, because I was anxious to facilitate progress, but I listened with very great interest to the discussion on milk, and, more particularly, the Milk Marketing Board, which I myself had a great deal to do with setting up. I was very glad to listen to the tributes paid to it. The difficulty in which it will be placed if this Amendment is not accepted is well known to the House, and I should like the Minister to consider whether he is not introducing an unnecessary rigidity in the arrangements he is setting up under the Bill.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that many of the points we have raised will be more fittingly discussed on an Amendment which the Minister will move later, dealing with special localities and conditions, and we shall postpone many of our remarks until that occasion when we can have a discussion at greater

  Division No. 330.]

  AYES

  [5.40 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Barton, C.

  Adams, W T (Hammersmith, South)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Allen, A C (Bosworth)

  Baird, J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Balfour, A

  Binns, J.

  Attewell, H C.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Barstow, P. G.

  Blyton, W. R.

  length. This point as to not having what we might call niggling limitations on the carriage of milk is one on which the Minister might meet us. I do not consider that the Minister wishes to limit or hamper the adequate distribution of milk, or that he thinks that it would be in the best interests of public health or agriculture that the distribution of milk, either by public or private enterprise, should in any way be hampered. Nor can I see that the Parliamentary Secretary's powerful arguments on the need for every possible protection of the nationalised industry has the slightest impact, or that private enterprise, to use a lactic phrase, would cream the traffic and bring his enterprise crashing to the ground. I am sure that would not apply in the case of milk.
  This cannot, in the nature of things, be an important province or field of this Commission's enterprises. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give some consideration to this matter if suppose this Amendment to be rejected, an alternative Amendment were suggested in another place? If it were possible for him to meet us it might well facilitate our discussion tonight.—[Interruption.] I am using "night" in the Parliamentary sense, although it is astronomically wrong. I am not at all anxious to take up time. Some hours ago, had I been allowed to speak a great deal of compression would undoubtedly have taken place, but the Government must learn that it is not possible for them to ride roughshod over the Opposition and that if they attempt to do it they will be punished as they have been punished. We are not desirous of delaying consideration, but we find ourselves in hearty agreement with the other place in this Amendment. We think the Minister is taking an unwise view in asking the House to disagree with this Amendment, and if he carries the matter to a Division we shall certainly divide against him.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 2338; Noes, 80.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Richards, N.

  Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Robens, A.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Brown, George (Belpar)

  Irving, W. J.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Janner, B.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Bruce, Major D. W. R.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Royle, C.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Sargood, R.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Scollan, T.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Carmichael, James

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Sharp, Granville

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Keenan, W.

  Shurmer, R.

  Champion, A. J.

  Kenyon, C.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Chater, D.

  King, E. M.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Kinghorn, Son -Ldr E.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kinley, J.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Coldrick, W.

  Lang, G.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Collins, V. J.

  Lavers, S.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Cooper, Wing-Cormar G.

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Solley, L. J.

  Corbet, Mrs F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Leonard, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Crawley, A.

  Levy, B. W.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Daggar, G.

  Lipton, Lt -Col M.

  Stamford, W.

  Daines, P.

  Logan, D. G.

  Steele, T.

  Davies, Edward (Burstem)

  Longden, F.

  Stephen, C.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  McAdam, W.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Deer, G.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Swingler, S.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Mack, J. D.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Diamond, J.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Dobbie, W.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Taylor, Dr. S (Barnet)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, D.E. (Aberdare)

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

  Macpherson, T (Romford)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Ewart, R.

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Mathers, G.

  Tiffany, S.

  Field, Captain W J.

  Mellish, R.

  Timmons, J.

  Foot, M. M.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tolley, L.

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Freeman, Maj J. (Watford)

  Moody, A. S.

  Usborne, Henry

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Vernon, Maj W. F.

  Gallacher, W.

  Murray, J. D.

  Walker, G. H.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Nally, W.

  Wallace, G. D.(Chislehurst)

  Gibbins, J.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Watson, W. M.

  Gilzean, A

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Weitzman, D.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  O'Brien, T.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Orbach, M.

  West, D. G.

  Grey, C. F.

  Paget, R. T.

  White, H. (Derbyshire,)

  Grierson, E.

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

  Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wilkes, L.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Guy, W. H.

  Paton, J (Norwich)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Hale, Leslie

  Pearson, A.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Piratin, P.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Willis, E.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Haworth, J.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Price, M Philips

  Woods, G. S.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Wyatt, W.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Yates, V. F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  Holman, P.

  Randall, H. E.

  Zilliacus, K.

  House, G.

  Ranger, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hubbard, T.

  Rees-Williams. D. R.

  Mr. Michael Stuart and

  Mr. Popplewell.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  De la Bgre, R.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Digby, S. W.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Byers, Frank

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Clarke, Col, R. S.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Birch, Nigel

  Clifton Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte

  Bossom, A. C.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. O. E.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Bower, N.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.

  1476

  1477

  Gage, C.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Grant, Lady

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Spence, H. R.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Nicholson, G.

  Teeling, William

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Lambert, Hon G.

  Osborne, C.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Touche, G. C.

  Law, Rt. Hon R. K.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Turton, R. H.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Rayner, Brig R.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Mackeson, Brig H. R

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  York, C.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Major Ramsay and Major Conant.

  Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 19, it end, insert:
  "(b) the goods carried consist of felled timber which is being carried in a vehicle specially constructed for the purpose of such carriage."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr.Barnes.]
  Mr. C. Williams: I cannot possibly say that I am yet persuaded on this point, after all the time and effort that the Government have spent in trying to persuade us on the previous Amendment. I think I ought to be more fully persuaded. The Amendment deals with goods consisting of felled timber carried in a vehicle specially constructed for the purpose. I would like to contrast the favoured position of timber, which is to be given the most valuable advantage of being carried to a much greater extent by private enterprise, with that of milk, for you are depriving the Milk Board and the people who want milk of that opportunity. I can only assume that the Forestry Commission has some pull over the Milk Board. Are we to understand that the Minister of Health, who wants this timber for housing, and, therefore, knows that he must have it carried by private enterprise, has not the same pull in connection with milk for the children?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must realise that in this Amendment we are discussing timber, and not milk.
  Mr. Williams: Yes, I was just contrasting the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves, and saying that as far as timber is concerned I would be only too willing to give the concession that timber should be carried by good and
  1478
  efficient transport rather than by Government and inefficient transport. But I think I should be told why timber should be given this advantage. The Government are right in what they are doing, but I cannot explain to my constituents why timber should have this concession and other things not. There seems to be some unfairness about it. Someone ought to try and tell us why there should be this concession. I do not want to hurt the timber industry in any way, but must be persuaded why we are granting this concession in the case of timber
  Mr. McKie: I share to the full the desire that we should be fully informed as to the reason why the Government have decided to agree with the Lords in this Amendment, but I have more alacrity in agreeing to agree with the Government that we should agree. Timber is grown much more generally in my constituency than in that of my hon. Friend, though I am sure he would not wish to deprive me of any direct benefit in which he would only share indirectly. What has actuated the Government in asking us to agree with the Lords Amendment is that they realise the difficult position in which we are because of the shortage of timber. The whole housing programme is held up through lack of timber. The Lords Amendment will help only in a small way along the road, but it does afford some help. The right hon. Gentleman realises that here is some little thing which may prove to be for the public welfare of the country and the better housing of the people, and so there is to be this exemption. I am concerned with the timber industry of this country, and will not raise a dissentient voice against the suggestion that we should agree with this proposal.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is certain that when timber is conveyed by a specially-constructed vehicle it is conveyed "in" such a vehicle, and not "on" such a vehicle? The point although small, is one of some substance. If the explanation is not a technical one, it means that this special right is only granted for vehicles specially-constructed to carry timber in them—and these will have to be very specially constructed vehicles indeed. If I am right, the privilege is completely valueless. Is not the intention that the privilege shall be granted to vehicles specially-constructed for carrying timber on them, and not in them?
  Mr. Barnes: By leave of the House, I should say the Parliamentary draftsmen who drafted these words have assumed that they have covered the point. If there is a weakness, it will be properly examined in negotiations with another place. If the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) speaks for his hon. Friends opposite, and they disagree with my proposal in this case, I want to make it plain I shall not resist them in their desire to cut this out. I did hear representations made to me from the other place, which appeared to be founded on substance— that the felling of trees and the carting of them to sawmills represented just a part of the process of saw-milling. That seemed sensible to me.
  Mr. C. Williams: I do not represent anyone but myself. I am perfectly prepared to vote for this after the Government have explained the position to me. But I am not prepared to vote blind on an Amendment unless the Government tells me something about it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 19, after the Amendment last inserted, insert:
  "or
  (c) the vehicle is a vehicle authorised for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should point out that that at the end of the last line in this Amendment, after the figures, "1933," the word "or," should be added.
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. Maclay: I must make some remarks on this Amendment though the Minister probably did not notice that I deliberately abstained from voting when this matter was previously discussed. I will not abstain this time if there is a vote on it. It seems to me that when you come to the question of licensing there is a really foolproof case for putting the "A" contract vehicle on the same footing as the "C" licence. I simply cannot see that there is any conceivable reason for not granting exactly the same facility as for the "C" licence holder. There was some discussion before on this point, but I do not think that it covered the specific point, for it is not a question of abolishing the "A" licensee. He is allowed a certificate, and being allowed a certificate, why should there be discrimination against him?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has said about the "A" contract licence. This has never been discussed before, either here or upstairs. On what ground does the Minister regard these "A" contract licences as not analogous to the "C" licences? People have contracted to employ these vehicles on exactly the same conditions as the "C" licences. I would put to the Minister the effect that will result if he does not accept this Amendment. The individual will be driven to apply for a "C" licence—and many would agree that we do not want an undue number of "C" licences to be increased—and if he does take out a "C" licence he will be running the vehicle in the least economic and efficient way. The alternative is that he will restrict distribution; that is, say, the distribution of someone who has a laundry, about which we have heard a certain amount today, particularly those who have laundries in the north of Scotland. He will be restricted from going outside the 25 miles limit. I do suggest most strongly to the Minister that he should not throw this Amendment out. It is an Amendment which is entirely distinct from the one which was discussed six or seven hours ago, because no case has been made out here, or in another place, that these contract "A"

  1481
  vehicles are not exactly analogous with the "C" licence vehicles.
  6.0 a.m.
  Mr. Poole: When the right hon. Gentleman replied to the discussion, some hours ago, he made, I think, two main points that there was almost nothing in the case, and that these were ordinary lorries fulfilling ordinary requirements. I cannot accept that argument. It is obvious that it is convenient for the trader to have in "A" licence vehicle, or he would not have one at all. It is obvious that he is getting some service and facilities by having that "A" licence vehicle, rather than going to a road haulier or to a "C" licence holder. The Minister said that it would be unfair if the vehicles of a man holding "A" contract licences were excluded from the provisions of the Bill, and the vehicles of the holder of another licence were taken over. There is some force in that argument. But when we come to this Amendment, which deals purely with operation, I suggest that the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not apply. It would not create any great anomaly—once the Commission had decided which vehicles they were going to take over and which vehicles were to be left in the hands of the road hauliers—for "A" licences to be put on the same basis as "C" licences. I am concerned at the idea of having "A" licence holders who are already in existence on a different basis from the "C" licence holders. In this case, I think there is a big difference from the case which the Minister put forward on the previous Amendment. I hope that he will give further consideration to this point.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would like to emphasise the points which my hon. Friends have made with regard to these figures. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), that there might have been some difficulty as to how these vehicles would count when one was applying the test for long distance haulage. After the test has been applied, and when considering the limitation which is put on the road vehicles which are not nationalised, it seems to me that the difficulty disappears and we are faced once again with the position that obtained before this Bill. Under the Road and Rail Act, the contract "A"
  1482
  vehicle was given a licence without any power of objection by the Commissioners. Having been given that licence, the vehicle could be driven over any distance which was necessary, in the same way as a "C" licence vehicle. The "C" licence holder has still got that right, and a limitation—a very severe one—of 25 miles has been put on the contract "A" licence holder. I have tried to follow the arguments on this point, but when a person hires a vehicle with his own name on it, and uses it for the carriage of his own goods, and pays a rent for the vehicle, instead of a purchase price, and leaves it for servicing to an expert, he is not in a different position. He is appropriating that vehicle to carrying his own goods, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has gained his point on the long-distance road haulage, seriously to reconsider th-s Amendment.
  Mr. Barnes: I should like, with the permission of the House, to respond to the requests to deal with the question as to whether the contract "A" vehicle is an equivalent vehicle to the "C" licence vehicle. I am in difficulty in following the arguments of Members opposite just as they have claimed they were unable to follow my argument. A person who has goods to carry has three choices He can use his own vehicle, if that suits his purpose, and get a "C" licence. He can go into the open market and hire a vehicle from any road haulier, and use that for carrying his goods, or, he can go to a haulier and get the vehicle at an agreed price. It is a contract between two persons, and the vehicle is acquired for a certain period. If the trader decides that he would prefer to hire an "A" contract vehicle, I cannot see how he can claim that the licence should be on the "C" licence basis. Everybody is quite clear as to the different factors which vary according to the type of licence taken out, and in this case, the remedy is in the hands of the trader. If the trader takes out his own vehicles, that represents the type of evasion to which I have referred on the question of the "C" licences. Members ought to bear this in mind. If I take the extraordinary step of putting contract "A" licences on the same basis as the "C" licences, it would be an open invitation to all kinds of organisations to adopt this practice and evade the intentions of the Bill. On both counts,

  1483
  I cannot differentiate on this occasion any more than I could when it was a question for the computation of the mileage figure, and I cannot respond to the invitation.

  Division No. 331.]

  AYES

  [6.7 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Guy, W. H.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Hale, Leslie

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hamilton, Lieut-Col R.

  Popplewell, E.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Porter E. (Warrington)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Price, M. Philips

  Awbery, S. S.

  Haworth, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Ayrton Gould Mrs. B.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Baird, J.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Balfour, A.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Randall, H. E.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A J.

  Holman, P.

  Ranger, J.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Hubbard, T.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Barton, C.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Richards, R.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Beswick, F.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton. W.)

  Roberts, A.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Binns, J.

  Hynd, J. B. (Atlercliffe)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Irving, W. J.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Janner, B.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Royle, C.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Sargood, R.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt Exch'ge)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Scollan, T.

  Braddook, T (Mitcham)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Sharp, Granville

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Keenan, W.

  Shurmer, P.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Kenyon, C.

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  Bruce, Major D. W. T.

  King, E. M.

  Simmons C. J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Kinley, J.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Lang, G.

  Smith, C (Cotchester)

  Carmichael, James

  Lavers, S.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Solley, L.

  Champion, A. J.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Chater, D.

  Leonard, W.

  Soskice, Maj Sir

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Levy, B. W.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Stamford, W.

  Coldrick, W.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M.

  Steele, T.

  Collins, V. J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Stephen, C.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Longden, F.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Cambwell N. W.)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Crawley, A.

  McAdam, W.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  McAllister, G.

  Swingler, S.

  Daggar, G.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Daines, P.

  Mack, J. D.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Deer, G.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

  Dobbie, W

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Tiffany, S.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Timmons, J.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Titterington, M. F.

  Ewart, R.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.

  Tolley, L.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Field, Capt W. J.

  Morris, P (Swansea, W)

  Usborne, Henry

  Forman, J. C.

  Murray, J. D.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Nally, W.

  Walker, G. H.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Gallacher, W.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Watson, W. M.

  Gibbins, J.

  O'Brien, T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Orbach, M.

  Wells, P. L (Faversham)

  Gilzean, A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  West, D. G.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

  Grey, C. F.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wilkes, L.

  Grierson, E.

  Paton, J (Norwich)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Pearson, A.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Willey, O. G (Cleveland)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Piratin, P.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 74.

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

  Woods, G. S.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Wyatt, W.

  Willis, E.

  Yates, V. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Mr. Hannan.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bower, N.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Byers, Frank

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Spence, H. R.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  De la Bère, R.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Touche, G. C.

  Digby, S. W.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Turton, R. H.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Neven-Spencs, Sir B.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Nicholson, G.

  York, C.

  Gage, C.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Grant, Lady

  Osborne, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Crimston, R. V.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 21, after "loads" insert:
  "or the goods carried are apparatus or equipment ancillary to the operation, for the purposes of the carriage of such loads, of such a vehicle."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  6.15 a m.
  Mr. C. Williams: I have one question to put, and I am sure the Government will be able to answer it. It is this: I have been worried to know precisely where cranes come in, and I should be obliged if anyone would tell me. The Amendment reads
  "or the goods carried are apparatus or equipment ancillary to the operation, for the purposes of the carriage of such loads."
  The crane on a harbour would be helpful to the carriage of goods from the ships on to a truck, and that truck might belong to the Minister of Transport.
  Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member put wheels on the cranes he is referring to, and attached them to the vehicles then they would come within the provisions of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 33, at end insert:
  "Provided that the Commission shall, in exercising their discretion, take into considera-
  1486
  tion the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting, the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle which the permit would relate."
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I rise only because in our previous Debates great interest was displayed in this matter, and a good deal of confusion arose as to the place in the Bill at which this point should be discussed. If Members will turn to Clause 52, Subsection (2), they will see the words:
  "The Commission shall have full power in their discretion either to grant or to refuse any such permit as aforesaid, and any such permit may be granted by them for such period…
  That makes it clear that it is not limited to the journey.
  "… and subject to such conditions as they think fit …"
  This is not contrary to present day practice. Licensing authorities do attach conditions, particularly to "B" licences, and for the purposes of meeting the anxiety of Members in both Houses, in regard to crofter counties, coastal towns, or sparsely populated areas, this proviso is being inserted, and provides:
  "… the Commission shall, in exercising their discretion, take into consideration the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting, the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which the permit would relate."

  1487
  I claim that the addition of these words—
  Mr. C. Williams: Will devastated areas like Plymouth receive special consideration?
  Mr. Barnes: The explanation that I have given is general and applies to all areas throughout the country. With this proviso there is all the flexibility to meet practical considerations and exceptional circumstances.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As the Minister has said this is a very important Amendment, and I think it is a great pity that owing to the operation of the Guillotine it was not possible to discuss this matter on the normal stage—the Report stage—and that it should have to be taken at this most unseasonable hour of the morning. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary referred to this Amendment as meeting many of the points which hon. Members of this House were raising. It is true that this Amendment does go some distance towards meeting them, but it meets them in a way which is all too frequent nowadays, by administrative discretion instead of by statutory provision—instead of doing what we wish to do, to insert in the Bill conditions which the hauliers can look to when exercising their calling. It will be left now to the discretion of the Commission and from the explanation of the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary it would seem that they could nearly re-write the Bill as far as the road hauliers are concerned.
  We are not told any of the conditions under which these permits are to be issued. It simply says that they shall
  "take into consideration the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting the locality in which is situated the operating centre."
  The Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), said, for instance, that a town in a devastated area might be held as being special circumstances. That certainly goes very wide indeed. Does it mean that these permits are to be granted for a period, and what is the length of the period which is left within the discretion of the Commissioner. It might well be possible for the Commission to extend the 25-mile limit to the 50-mile limit. The House will see the vast im-
  1488
  portance of this Amendment, which has come before the House at twenty-five past six in the morning. I suggest it is a great pity indeed that some fuller explanation could not have been given, and that more time was not available to consider an Amendment of this importance.
  Would the Minister undertake to issue some sort of advice as soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book about the conditions in which the hauliers might apply the proposals which can only be in draft before the Commission begin to issue these things. I take it that as soon as possible he will enjoin on the Commissioners the desirability of putting out some skeleton forms, in which the people may see first of all how to apply for such permits; and, secondly, some of the general principles which guided the Commissioners in issuing such permits. The extension of the rules dealing with special areas such as the coastal towns, a point which has been raised by several hon. Members here, and the far wider points such as the emergency handling of perishable cargoes like fish, mentioned in an earlier stage of the Debate, are all matters on which we should have some explanation.
  As I understand it, it would be quite possible for the Commissioners to issue permits for, say, heavier landings of fish at some port, and thereupon to issue permits for longer hauls to go beyond the 25 mile limit even to 50 to 80 miles. I think the House will see that the arguments which we pressed on the Minister from this side of the House have impressed the Government to a considerable extent. They have brought forward these wide, dispensing powers, and while we are grateful for them, we consider it important to remember that they are such as will provide conditions in which private enterprise may continue to compete with this great monopoly which is being set up under the Bill, and which monopoly by that method can be broken down.
  While we are grateful that the Bill should be improved in this way, we do feel it is being left entirely to the discretion of the Minister. That which has been created by the Minister, may be revoked by the Minister, and it will be a very good thing for those carrying on their trade to know exactly where they stand I consider this is perhaps the most

  1489
  important Amendment that has been inserted in the Bill. I think it will lead to very great confusion and it would be very much better if the Government could have seen fit to accept some of our earlier proposals. While we are creating a new crime, that of being found 25 miles away from home with a lorry trying to carry goods, this new crime can be modified by a number of regulations, about which the House of Commons are not being told, because of any special circumstances or any geographical considerations which may seem good to the Commissioners.
  6.30 a.m.
  To create a crime first and then modify it by a series of unspecified regulations is not a businesslike way of going about the administration of this country. I feel that even yet the Minister will find it better to limit this area of vagueness by allowing the insertion in the Bill of more statutory provisions and not leaving the Bill as it is, a perfectly fixed and rigid thing, and then putting in unspecified modifications under which apparently almost anything can be done according to any decision of the Commissioners of the time. This Bill stands for a long time. Other Government may well come in and other Commissioners may well be appointed and so far as I can see by the mere ipse dixit of the Minister the whole Bill can be turned inside out and the work the House has been doing over so many hours can be totally nullified. I do hope the Government will take an early step to define on the whole what they are doing. Frankly, if the Bill is left as it is now, it will be so vague that any road haulier reading the Bill will be completely unable to see if he shall or shall not be put out of business by the provisions which Parliament has now put through.
  Mrs. Middleton: A few moments ago the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) stated categorically that neither of the Members for Plymouth was here. As one of the Members for Plymouth, I would like to state that the Members for Plymouth have been here all night and I would like that to be recorded in the official records.
  Mr. Turton: I think this Amendment looks very attractive at first sight, but I am not very happy about it. I hope the Government, after what I have said, will
  1490
  consider some Amendment to this Amendment and that the Solicitor-General, who has been very arduous in his attendance, will assist us on this matter. It appears to me that here one is really limiting the discretion of the Commission to these cases that we may call remote or coastal areas. My right hon. Friend mentioned perishable goods and the transport of fish and, earlier this morning we discussed the problem of emergency, switching of milk to hospitals and schools—
  Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Spark-brook): It will get sour in a minute.
  Mr. Turton: —in the event of a strike or dislocation or a serious shortage or any contingency that well may happen in the administration of a Socialist Government. They are matters which we must try and cover by this Amendment if possible. The House will see from Clause 52 (2) that:
  "The Commission shall have full power in their discretion."
  That is how the Bill originally was. Now we are going to say:
  "Provided that the Commission shall, in exercising their discretion, take into consideration the needs of, and special circumstances affecting, the locality."
  Not the type of goods carried, not the emergency you are trying to cover, but merely the locality. It would be easy, I suggest, to get over the difficulty by merely putting the words "inter alia" before the words "the needs of." Earlier the Minister said that he was expecting under Clause 52 to cover the position of emergency shortages of milk. I am sorry if I am misquoting him, and I hope that he will correct me if that is so, but I heard him say this was the place where he would deal with the case, and that the Commission would have no hesitation in granting a permit for milk to be carried more than 25 miles by a small trader to deal with a temporary shortage, or the case of hospitals and schools. That was the way he managed to persuade most of his followers to go into the Lobby with him. Now I believe that by this Amendment he is preventing the Commission dealing with a case of the emergency character by these means.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I share with the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut. - Colonel Elliot) anxiety as to the interpretation and effect of this Amendment. It certainly is not clear to me, and I think it would be

  1491
  tar from clear in its effect to any road haulier who would be affected by the Clause. So far as the point I was reasing earlier is concerned, which we hoped was to be met by this Amendment, I shall be grateful if the Minister can give me some further guidance, and, if possible, an assurance. The point was the one about the sea coast areas. I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary who said, in effect, that it would be possible in such a case, where the haulier was unable to have the 2,000 square miles because he only had a radius as opposed to a diameter of 25 miles, to apply for this permit, under which he could be granted additional facilities. What I want to know is whether it will be open to the Commission on this Amendment to grant a general open permit, to say a road haulier in Bognor Regis—"Notwithstanding that the Bill says 25 miles is the limit, you may for next year extend your limit to a radius of 50 miles." Can we have a categorical answer to that? If the answer is "yes," may we take advantage of the presence of the Solicitor-General to get an assurance that there will not be any legal difficulty under Clause 52 (1) and the provision that goods shall not be carried more than 25 miles except in accordance with a permit granted by the Commission. Can he assure us that that interpretation of the proviso we are now discussing is—as we hope it is, and as we understand the Parliamentary Secretary intended it to be—for the benefit of persons in the position I have described that the widespread effect of the proviso will not nullify the general intention of Subsection r of the same Clause?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We have been told remarkably little about the intentions of the Government in the use of the very wide powers which this Amendment will give them. The only hint we have had came a good many hours ago when the Parliamentary Secretary indicated to some extent how the special needs of the coastal areas could be met. If I recollect rightly, the Parliamentary Secretary drew the attention of the House in this connection to this particular provision. May I put to him the difficulty which occurs to me in this particular matter? The Parliamentary Secretary in resisting the argument that the Bill itself should contain statutory
  1492
  provision for the coastal areas put forward the argument that to do so would wreck the Bill because so many of the large centres of population—I think he mentioned London, Liverpool and Cardiff—were coastal areas. If this is a valid objection to statutory provision in the Bill, surely it is an equally valid or invalid objection to this provision, which does it by administrative means. Is it the intention of the Government that the Transport Commission can use these powers under this Amendment in order to deal specifically with the problem of the coastal areas?
  The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister are perfectly well aware that the difficult problems of London and Greater London are unique. Is this provision designed to deal with that and to deal, in particular, with the difficulties which arise under the Bill as it now stands—that is, that an operator in one part of Greater London cannot without a licence reach certain other parts of the Greater London area? Is it the intention of the Government and the Commission to deal with that anomaly so as to secure that a traffic operator located, say, at Kingston shall be entitled to operate his vehicle to any part of the Greater London area without a licence, whether the distance is 25 miles or more?
  Mr. Pitman: I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has raised an important point in saying that this Clause is not wide enough, and probably the words, inter alia, would considerably strengthen the hands of the Minister. The word "locality," so far as I know, is a geographical term and would cover the case of Plymouth and any seaside place which constituted only a segment of a circle. I am not sure it would cover the instance of perishable fish, which was raised by my hon. and right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). "Locality" is a very special word, and has a geographical meaning, and whereas I admit that a fishing "area" is likely to produce fish, I am not quite sure that "locality" quite covers the point. I have in my own constituency, for example, a famous firm which manufactures sausages and meat pies, which are also perishable, and it is a question as to whether they—quite a small portion of the city of Bath—are really a "locality" within the meaning of this provision.

  1493
  6.45 a.m.
  I would like to go back to the important hypothetical case of moving a friend or a mother-in-law. This is what the Minister calls the machinery for the tests for the purposes of definition and there will be literally hundreds of hauliers who are genuinely short-distance hauliers who will, in exceptional circumstances, have exceeded the 25 miles and may even have gone over a long-distance to move a friend who has a house and it is very important that he should be moved. The Commission would need to have the power to call that small haulier a short-distance haulier notwithstanding that he had once or twice gone a very long distance. If the Minister is relying upon this particular Clause, then I am afraid that it is not wide enough, and that the word "locality," being a geographical term, is restrictive. I think that my hon. Friend has raised a matter of importance.
  Mr. McKie: I am more attracted by the words "affecting the locality," at all events so far as my own constituency is concerned, than is the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), whose apprehensions I share as regards the lack of specification. I was very surprised with the hilarity when my hon. Friend was speaking, exhibited by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer). I should have thought that in this matter affecting the livelihood of so many, anything that makes for better distribution would have a more ready and better hearing from the hon. Member for Spark-brook. I see from his assent that he thinks better of it and will no doubt give a better hearing again. I represent a rural district in Scotland, where conditions are very different from those obtaining south of the Border. Over wide sparsely populated areas road transport plays an important part indeed. In Scotland there will be no executive body. In England and Wales there will be something like five or six executive bodies to assist the Commission—
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going back to what we have already discussed.
  Mr. McKie: I apologise, Sir. I would merely say that in Scotland there will be no body such as in England and
  1494
  Wales. The Commission will have a much more difficult task there in taking into consideration the special conditions which would obtain within a locality than it would in England and Wales. That is why I join with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lt.-Colonel Elliot). If this Measure reaches the Statute Book—[HON. MEMBERS "It will."] It might not, but when that fatal day almost inevitably arrives, a direction may be given to the Commissioners at all events as to how they should receive special conditions obtaining in any locality which this Amendment, perhaps not too precisely worded, aids.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: From this short discussion it is obvious that these words are extremely difficult to interpret. I find it difficult to interpret them, and I venture to put before the House what seem to me to be the difficulties. Then perhaps the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will favour us with his interpretation, because it really it not fair to expect the House to accept the Amendment when it is quite clear that nobody really knows what it means. The word which bothers me is "locality." I will leave aside for the moment the other points which I think are of some importance. The Commission is required to take into consideration the needs of the locality in which is situated the operating centre I should have thought that they would take into account the needs of the people just outside the fringe of the radius in which the operator would be allowed to operate if he did not have a permit. If one takes the word "locality" in its ordinary meaning, surely it means either a town or village, or a town with its suburbs if the suburbs are outside the municipal boundary. It means a comparatively small district.
  I should have thought that, generally speaking, it would be difficult to apply the word "locality" to anything more than five or ten miles across That is my understanding of the meaning of the word "locality." "Local" means any local place. Strictly speaking, it means quite a small area. Taking a broader view of its meaning, I would say that it might be an area five or ten miles across But surely, what ought to be considered is whether the people outside the radius of 25 miles are going to get a proper service

  1495
  if a permit is not given. I do not repeat the other point about the needs of the operators; I am thinking now of the needs of the public which will not be served if a permit is refused. These people to my mind, cannot possibly be understood to be in the locality in which the head office is situated.
  There may be an easy explanation of this. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has his mind directed in the first place to the public reed, and in the second place to the needs of the operators themselves, and that those are the two main considerations. I say nothing about the second one. On the first point, with regard to the public, I would like to be assured that in this phraseology the needs of the people outside the permitted area who could benefit from the permit are taken into account. I do not see that they are. It is true that they may be directed to take into consideration the needs. They may be directed to consider some other ground altogether if they want to. But after all, a direction of this sort is very limiting; such directions are generally taken in a limiting sense by those who are to carry them out, because they say that Parliament has directed specifically their attention to certain points and they ought not to go beyond those points, apart from exceptional cases. It is the point which tends generally to be the only one which receives consideration at all. In that case, half the object of this definition will fail altogether, while the other half will be left in a very sketchy position. For myself, I think I would almost prefer the Clause as it stood. But perhaps we can discover what the Government intends this to mean.
  Mr. Barnes: If I may have the permission of the House, I would like to say that, after having listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am wondering if I am doing the right thing in moving to agree with this Amendment. Throughout all the stages of this Bill I have had emphasised to me the need for at least an indication to the Commission that, in granting permits, which, in a general way, will be given on a practical basis, it is necessary to remember that there are coastal towns. Furthermore, hon. Members from Scottish constituencies will recall the way in
  1496
  which the "town across the boundary" was spoken of some hours ago. There should be provision for special needs, and it is in the desire to meet that that the Government has put in this Amendment; but if it is not appreciated I am satisfied with the original wording, and I will withdraw it. After full consultation with another place, I felt that this was the best position which could be devised. I think it ought to go in, but I am not pressing it.
  Mr. Assheton: I should be obliged for the advice of the learned Solicitor-General on one point. What troubles me is whether the words proposed to be put in, do not limit rather than enlarge the powers of the Commission.
  Mr. H. Strauss: May I put one point? If the wording is to be reconsidered, the point I should like the hon. and learned Solicitor-General to consider is this: whether the difficulties felt in all quarters are not caused by the words, "provided that." It is customary, surely, in drafting for these words to give some limitation on what has gone before. What goes before here is that the Commission shall have full power in their discretion to grant or refuse. What should be made clear is that, in exercising their discretion, they shall take certain things into consideration, but it is not intended to be a proviso at all. The improvement which the Government seek to secure is really vitiated by the faulty opening words.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not feel that the Amendment limits the discretion. A full discretion is given by Subsection (2) of Clause 52. That gives the Commission power to consider everything—the needs of what have been termed as the "immediate localities," and the areas outside those localities, and other needs. A completely unfettered discretion is given, and without the proviso, one would not have had to consider these things. But we now say that one will exercise one's discretion and at least consider those things in the proviso, together with anything in one's discretion.
  7.0 a.m.
  Mr. H. Strauss: Would it not mean exactly the same thing if the words "provided that" were left out?
  The Solicitor-General: I do not think so, because the words "provided that" are necessary, otherwise there is an apparent

  1497
  contradiction. There would be discretion which would enable the Commission to make an order on the matters specified in the proviso, and go on to say, provided that in exercising their discretion they shall be obliged to do things specified in the proviso. It leaves the Commission tree to take everything else into account besides those things specified in the proviso.
  Mr. Pitman: Would the word "community" instead of the word "locality" not meet the case?
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 58.—(Application of Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to Commission.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 74, line 4, at end insert:
  "(c) This Section shall not apply to any vehicle used for the carriage of any goods for distances not exceeding eighty miles or for the carriage for any distance of any of the goods specified in provisos (a) and (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 52 "
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The effect of this Amendment is to require the Commission to obtain a carrier's licence from the area licensing authority for all their—
  Brigadier Mackeson: Is the hon. Gentleman going to deal with next three Lords' Amendments together? May I ask your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker? I think these Amendments should be discussed together, if you approve.
  Mr. Speaker: I gather that the Amendments in page 78, line 41, and line 45, and page 93, line 27, new Clause B, go together.
  Mr. Strauss: I understand it would suit the Opposition if I dealt with all these Amendments together. The first, in page 74, line 4, requires the Commission to obtain a carrier's licence in respect of all the short distance work and some of the excluded traffics mentioned in Clause 52 in respect of short and long distance work. It appears to us to be wholly inappropriate that the Commission should have to obtain a carrier's licence from the licensing authority. In order to do that they have to apply like ordinary applicants to the licensing authority set up under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and prove that there is need for
  1498
  the proposed haulage work; and they have to prove that that work cannot be done by other existing organisations. In view of the fact that this Bill imposes a duty on the Commission to carry out all long distance road haulage work, and to see that there are provided transport services, short distance and long distance, I suggest it would be wholly inappropriate if the Commission, whenever they considered a service was necessary, had to apply to the area licensing authority for permission to carry goods. For that reason I suggest that we disagree with this Lords Amendment.
  Brigadier Mackeson: I think the case requires a great deal more elaboration than the Parliamentary Secretary has given it. As I see the question, the case is far from being as simple as he made out. The Bill left this House with the Commission and the agents exempt by the provisions of Sections 72 to 76 of the Traffic Act of 1930. In other words, the Commission was not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioners. Now not only is the Commission to be exempt but also the agents of the Commission or anyone appointed to operate road services within the area of the scheme. As the Bill came back from another place, all operators both passenger road transport services and ordinary road transport, whether the Transport Commission, Executive or agents or workmen under contract, have to apply to the Traffic Commission for a licence, with the very important exception that the Traffic Commissioners are bound to give effect to any scheme made under Part IV of this Bill.
  It does seem to me that this is in no way a wrecking Amendment. The situation is not half as simple, nor will it be during the next four or five years or even 10 years, as hon. Members may think. We must remember that quite apart from the services run by a body under the Part 4 scheme, the Commission is entitled under Clause 2 (1, a) to have a general power to carry passengers by road to places in Great Britain. Then further on, in Clause 2 (2, e) it has power to acquire by agreement any passenger road transport undertaking. In addition, by reason of the acquiring of such a combined road haulage undertaking consisting of lorries for the carriage of goods and buses for the carriage of its passengers the Commis-

  1499
  sion and the Executive may find themselves at a very early date—this is an important point for the immediate future—running buses in various localities.
  Under Clauses 2 (1, a) and 2 (3) the Commission is entitled to carry on the running of these buses. Under Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930 an operator before he can run road services must apply for a road service licence to the Commission. This is an important point. The Commission must hear applications at public sittings at which the public and the Press attend. Local and other operators have the right to get up and say what they think. Licences have to be renewed every one, two, or three years. Every member of the public has the right to get up at the public inquiry and object to the continuation of the services or fares—and that does occur.
  The Traffic Commissioners have to approve the fares charged and prevent excessive fares or uneconomic fares being charged. I believe there is a strong case for the Traffic Commission during the interregnum period being charged with the control over omnibus services. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that he said on 29th April—I have not a copy of HANSARD with me, so I cannot quote the exact words—that it might be five years or more before company buses were taken over. During that time in the country we are going to have concerns some of which will be run by Road Executives and some by private bus companies and some possibly by individual owners. It seems to me that there will be a great injustice done if this Measure which has come down from another place is negatived because any operator of road services will have the right to representation in respect of any of the services of the Commission.
  But the Commission, on the other hand, can contact the Traffic Commissioners, and make representations or objections to other operator services. I do not think that is fair to the operators. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to create that situation, although from a long-range point of view he may have an argument for not subjecting this great almighty Commission to any authority at all. The licensing authorities are responsible for the co-ordination of road services in the localities where they are
  1500
  appointed, and I believe by and large most hon. Members will think that they have, and are doing a very good job. But the strength of the case in favour of the Amendment is not based in my opinion on the rights of the individual operator; but far more on the rights of the travelling public.
  The travelling public are going to be deprived of their right of appeal to the Traffic Commissioners if this Amendment is removed. So, members of the public and the Press will lose all their right under Section 72 of the 1930 Act of appearing at the public inquiries and stating their views. There is no right of renewing in all these licences. If unsatisfactory services are being run, the public have the right to try to stop the licence being renewed. They are going to lose that right and I think it is unfortunate in view of the very difficult situation which is going to exist in the next five years or possibly more when the switch from the privately owned to buses owned by the Road Executive is taking place. This is not only a question of objecting generally regarding the operation of transport because the Traffic Commissioners are obliged to sanction the types of vehicles to be used and the views of the public have an important effect on the types being produced in this country and thus on those made available for export abroad. It opens up a vast field. The Traffic Commissioners have to sanction routes and the times the buses run, and this causes the greatest controversy. In my own constituency between Folkestone and Hythe people in the middle are never satisfied. This happens almost anywhere. There is also the vexed question of stopping places, and I know people appreciate and the House itself appreciates the right of appeal.
  Apart from that I believe that a really vital issue is raised in this Amendment because not only is the right of appeal being removed but—
  Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is speaking on page 77, line 24, the second Amendment.
  Brigadier Mackeson: Yes.
  Mr. Speaker: That, of course, has not been objected to. The House is being asked to disagree to the first Amendment, page 74, line 4. That is being objected to.
  Brigadier Mackeson: I was referring to page 78, line 45, which I thought was under discussion.
  Mr. Speaker: That comes with page 74, line 4.
  7.15 a.m.
  Brigadier Mackeson: This is not at all a simple case. It raises a matter of vital policy because a situation is going to arise eventually when the Commission will be able to appeal to nobody, but the individual will have to. If nationalised concerns are going to be treated differently from private concerns or corporate concerns owned by local authorities, it is going to produce an extraordinary situation in this country. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he should advise his right hon. Friend to "tip off" the co-operative societies because their interests will be vitally affected if this matter of principle goes through this morning without full discussion. I hope that the Amendment will prevail.
  We must remember that in the eyes of the law all men in this country are equal. If we are going to change that view and if we are going to change the whole approach to the British legal system whereby there will be one law for the nationalised industries and another for anybody who is not nationalised, we are raising a peculiar principle in this country. I believe that the Amendment was reasonable and that it would have worked, particularly in view of the fact that no scheme under Part IV could be sabotaged by the Traffic Commissioners. Very wisely another place inserted this Amendment, and I do not think that it could be called a wrecking Amendment. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like briefly to support the thesis which has been so ably propounded by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson). It is really a very short point which is before us, and it relates to the case where a nationalised undertaking has to come before the Traffic Commissioners or similar body. Even the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary said at one stage that this had a prima facie attraction, and it is to that prima facie attraction that I wish to first direct attention. The cause of that attraction is that there should not
  1502
  be any difference as far as any legal obligations are concerned between the private operator and the nationalised industry. The hon. Gentleman's answer to that is, "But the nationalised induKry has a duty to provide services and certain other matters that are laid down in the Act." There are two answers to that. The first is that if a nationalised industry is doing its job and providing services according to the obligations laid down in the Bill, then it will have nothing to fear from coming before a tribunal of this kind. There is the second point, and this directly touches what the hon. Gentleman has said, that since the Act of 1930, the Traffic Commissioners in the case of passenger services had expressly to direct their attention to the question of the provision of uneconomic services as being one of the matter which they have to take into account in performing their licencing duties.
  My hon. and gallant Friend has stressed that there is no question here of doing anything which will take from the power or effectiveness of any schemes that are made with regard to passenger vehicles, and, as far as that is concerned, no difficulty will take place. I stress, as he has done, the great effect it would have on the confidence with which the public will greet this innovation if the new bodies are prepared to put forward their proposals before an unbiased and impartial tribunal. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that point. It is not enough that he should support, as I know he does with the highest intentions, the bodies he is helping to create. It is riot even enough that those running these bodies should themselves have these high intentions. It is essential that the public should be convinced that these high intentions are not merely initial feelings, but are continued in the day by day working. He will convince the public of that point only if the body is prepared to take the obligations and responsibilities which others were taking for the provision of a proper service of road transport. For that reason, I do not want to resist in any way the determination so clearly stated, but I implore the right hon. Gentleman from the point of view of the success of his own scheme, not to claim a preference for his new body but let that body demonstrate its excellence by its own work.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would add some comments on the first Amendment. Most of what has been said applies in the main to the passenger side, but of course the goods traffic is equally affected. The point is quite simple. Nobody asked the Commission to go in front of the Commissioners and apply for a permit in that area of the Commission's work where they have a monopoly. That is common ground. They are doing their own co-ordination and nobody else need be consulted about it. We are concerned only with that area in which both the Commission and the private hauliers are operating in competition. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am explaining it, but I think it is perfectly plain in the Amendment. As the Parliamentary Secretary does not follow this point I shall have to explain it. Clause 58 says that the Road and Rail Traffic Act shall not apply to the Commission except in certain circumstances. The Amendment says Clause 58 shall not apply in the case of short distance vehicles. That is putting the thing shortly—I will not go into details about the 80 miles and so forth.
  The point I would commend to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. Somebody has to do something about co-ordinating—the word the Government like so much and I am glad to use it from this side, although I do not like it very much—the work of short distance haulage runs by the Commission and runs by the individual hauliers. Just contemplate for one moment the kind of position in which the individual private hauliers are going to find themselves. They are already confined within the 25 miles limit. They have already lost many of their customers, and are subject to the competition of their fellows and the competition of the short hauliers owned by the Transport Commission. They can be undercut by the Commission because the Commission can subsidise its lorries out of railway, hotels or docks, or anything else. The Commission can even buy their garages. The Commission can flood the area with as many vehicles as they like without the permission of the Commissioners. If a private haulier says to the Commissioners he wants to extend his business or add a few lorries to it, he has to apply to the Commissioners, and so far as I can understand—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—the Commission
  1504
  can actually appear at the hearing and object to it.
  Moreover, whatever the Traffic Commissioners say, the Commission can increase the number of its vehicles in that area to any extent it wants to do. The Traffic Commissioners may have to turn to a haulier and say, "I know the traffic in this area has increased, I know you are a good haulier and can put up a good case, but these fellows have put on 10 more lorries." Surely that is grossly unfair. Is it not also silly? The Parliamentary Secretary told us they wanted to get some sort of co-ordination in this business. Is this the way to do it? It is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to come to the House and say that this provision is wholly inappropriate to the Commission. Why? Why should they not apply like any ordinary applicant? Why should they be treated wholly differently? He said they would have to prove there was need for their vehicles. The small hauliers have had to do that for years now. Is there any reason why the Commission should not have to do so? The Government have not made a case for rejecting this Amendment. It seems to me a sensible and also a necessary Amendment.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think the hon. Member is wrong in his interpretation of the Amendment. I am informed that it would require the Commission to obtain a carrier's licence for all its short-distance work and some of the excluded traffic over short distance and long distance.
  Mr. Thoneycroft: That is pretty well what I said.
  Mr. Strauss: Then we agree on that point. I maintain, and my right hon. Friend maintains, that it is wholly inappropriate for the Commission, which is charged to produce effective services throughout the country, to have to go on each occasion it wants to develop a service to an outside body which may say "You can do this service, or the other service, on certain conditions, or you may not run here at all." It cannot possibly discharge the obligations put upon it by Parliament if a third party is in a position to interfere, and to stop the Commission doing what Parliament has charged it to do. The same applies to the suggestion that the Commission should

  1505
  have to obtain road service licences in respect of all its passenger transport services. A private enterprise concern has to go to the licensing authority to ask for licences, and may be granted them on certain conditions. The idea has been to bring a certain amount of order into the chaos of existing conditions. The licensing authority will say what the fares should be, the times of operation, and the number of vehicles and journeys, and all that sort of thing. Where Parliament charges a body such as the Commission with providing an effective passenger transport service, it is wrong that the scheme of operation which the Commission proposes to put into effect should be subject to the veto of an outside body.
  7.30 a.m.
  When Parliament set up the London Passenger Transport Board, it was realised that competition would entirely disappear in that area, and that as the Government were charging a public body with the duty of providing a public service, it was wrong that this public body should subject itself to the local licensing authority. The L.P.T.B. does not do so. The Commission will be in exactly the same position both in regard to road and passenger work. If it was logical to exclude the L.P.T.B., when it was set up, from the authority of the licensing authority, I suggest that the same logic applies to the Commission.
  Mr. Assheton: I was horrified to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary said. He suggested that it is inappropriate for this Commission to obey the law, and is taking steps to see that it does not have to. He has told us that in the case of the L.P.T.B. special arrangements were made. What was the position of the L.P.T.B.? A great monopoly was set up—and I am not supporting a monopoly. There was no competition any more within its area. Here the case is absolutely different. Here the small haulier is still allowed to exist with this National Transport Board coming along to compete with him—not on equal but unequal terms. They do not have to go to the licensing authorities, they can put as many vehicles on the road as they like and can drive the small man out of business. It is a proposition that is entirely intolerable. I hope that the House will
  1506
  not do anything but agree with the Lords Amendment.
  Mr. C. Williams: I have seldom been I astonished by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am certainly not astonished now. This gross unfairness has been typical of everything contained in all of his speeches I have had the honour to hear. He is proposing that vast powers should be given, which do not meet any of the usual licensing laws. On the other side is the ordinary citizen. Really and honestly there should be some licensing authority, but he refuses. He has laid it down that Parliament has given the Commission a duty to do. Equally, he says, Parliament has given the licensing authority a duty to issue licences. It is perfect humbug to say that Parliament has given this duty: it has not done so yet. I was frankly hoping that in a case of this sort we should have a free vote. The country should know that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to arm this Commission with such power that it absolutely does not fit in with the transport licensing laws—that it operates with gross unfairness in the way of competition with the private citizen right through the Bill from beginning to end.
  Here is the worst example. It is the deliberate wish of the whole of the Front Bench opposite to apply the law in such a way that they harass the small man as much as they possibly can. The whole object of the Bill is to try to kill the ordinary, decent little man. They have a free licence to do what they like. It is a completely monstrous position which the Government have laid down here, and I do hope that we shall have a chance to vote against it, and that the Press of the country will show the way in which the ordinary citizens of this country are being treated by the Government. We dislike monopolies and Government monopolies. We have heard a lot about monopolies from hon. Gentlemen opposite for a long time and the first thing that they do when they get into power is to set up monopolies.
  Brigadier Rayner: We on this side of the House have always regarded public monopolies as far more vicious than private monopolies. Now we have a case in point which illustrates our argument better than anything that has happened for a long time.
  Question put, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

  Division No. 332]

  AYES.

  [7.36 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Price, M. Philips

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Guy, W. H.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hale, Leslie

  Pryde, D J

  Attewell, H. C.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Randall, H. E

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Ranger, J

  Awbery, S. S

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Rees-Williams, D R

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Haworth, J.

  Richards, R.

  Baird, J.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Balfour A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Robens, A.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A J

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Barstow, P. G

  Hobson, C. R.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Barton, C.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Beohervaise, A. E

  Hubbard, T

  Sargood, R.

  Beswick, F.

  Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W)

  Scollan, T

  Bing, G. H. C

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Binns, J.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton. W.)

  Sharp, Granville

  Blenkinsop, A

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Shurmer, P

  Blyton, W. R

  Irving, W. J

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

  Janner, B.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch')

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Skeffington, A. M

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Skinnard, F W

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Sorensen, R W.

  Bruce, Major D W T

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir P

  Buchanan, G.

  Keenan, W.

  Sparks, J. A

  Burke, W. A.

  Kenyon, C.

  Stamford, W

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  King, E. M

  Steele, T.

  Carmichael, James

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Stephen, C.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Lang, G.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

  Champion, A. J

  Lavers, S.

  Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)

  Chater, D.

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Swingler, S.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Leonard, W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Celdrick, W.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

  Collins, V J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Logan, D. G

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr G

  Longden, F.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)

  Lyne, A W

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Crawley, A

  McAdam, W

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Crossman, R H S

  McAllister, G

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Daggar, G

  McGhee, H. G

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Daines, P.

  Mack, J. D.

  Tiffany, S.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Mackay, R. W G (Hull, N.W)

  Timmons, J.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  McKinlay, A S

  Titterington, M F

  Davies, Hadyn (St Pancras, S W)

  McLeavy, F

  Tolley, L.

  Deer, G.

  MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Delargy, H J

  Macpherson, T (Romford)

  Usborne, Henry

  Dobbie, W

  Mallalieu, J P W

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Walker, G. H

  Driberg, T. E. N

  Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Dumpleton, C W

  Mathers, G

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Dye, S.

  Mellish, R. J

  Watkins, T E

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Watson, W. M

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Weitzman, D.

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  Millington. Wing-Comdr E. R

  Wells, P L (Faversham)

  Ewart, R.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Wells, W T (Walsall)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Moyle, A.

  West, D. G.

  Field, Capt W J

  Murray, J. D

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Foot, M. M

  Nally, W

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Forman, J. D.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Fraser, T. (Hamil)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Gallacher, W.

  O'Brien, T.

  Williams, W R (Heston)

  Ganley, Mrs. C S

  Orbach, M.

  Willis, E.

  Gibson, C W

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Gilzean, A.

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Wise, Major F. J

  Glanville, J E (Consett)

  Pargiter, G. A

  Woods, G. S.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Wyatt, W.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Pearson, A.

  Yates, V. F.

  Grey, C. F.

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  Grierson, E.

  Piratin, P

  Zilliacus, K

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F

  Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 66.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Haughton. S. G

  Preston, Stanley

  Assheten, Rt. Hon R

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Ramsay, Maj S

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C (Hillhead)

  Bossom, A C.

  Law, RI. Hon. R. K.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Bower, N

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A H

  Ropner, Col. L

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spearman, A. C M

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Butcher, H. W.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Clarke, Col R S.

  McKis, J. H (Galloway)

  Studholme, H. G

  Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G

  Maclay, Hon. J S

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Touche, G C.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Turton, R. H.

  De la Bère, R.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Digby, S. W.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ward, Hon. G R.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M S

  Drayson, G B

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

  Nicholson, G

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  Foster, J. G (Northwich)

  Noble, Comdr. A H P.

  York, C.

  Gage, C.

  Osborne, C.

  Grant, Lady

  Pitman, I J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hare, Hon J. H (Woodbridge)

  Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)

  Major Conant and

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

  CLAUE 64.—(Passenger road transport services of the Commission.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 78, line 41, leave out "not."

  Division No. 333.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Deer, G.

  Jones, D T. (Hartlepools)

  Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

  Dolargy, H J.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dobbie, W.

  Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Keenan, W

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Driberg, T. E, N.

  Kenyon, C.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Dumpleton, C. W

  King, E. M.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Dye, S.

  Kinghorn, Son.-Ld E

  Baird, J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C

  Kinley, J

  Balfour, A.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Lang, G

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J.

  Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

  Lavers, S

  Barstow, P. G.

  Ewart, R

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Barton, C.

  Field Capt W P

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Foot, M. M

  Lewis, A W J (Upton)

  Beswick, F.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Bing, G. H C

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Logan, D. G

  Binns, J.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Longden, F.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Gallacher, W.

  Lyne, A W

  Blyton, W. R

  Ganley, Mrs C S

  McAdam, W

  Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

  Gibson, C. W.

  McAllister, G

  Braddock, Mrs E. M (L'pl, Exch

  Glanville, J E (Consett)

  McGhee, H G

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Mack, J D.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Greenwood, A W J (Hey wood)

  McKinlay, A. S

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Grierson, E

  McLeavy, F.

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Griffiths. D. (Rother Valley)

  MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)

  Bruce, Major D. W T

  Griffiths, W. O (Moss Side)

  Macpherson, T (Romford)

  Buchanan, G.

  Gunter, R. J

  Mallalieu, J P W

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Guy, W. H.

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Carmichael, James

  Hale, Leslie

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

  Mathers, G.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Mellish, R J

  Chater, D

  Hardy, E. A.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cocks, F. S.

  Haworth, J.

  Millington, Win. Comdr E R

  Coldrick, W.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Collins, V. J.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Moyle, A.

  Colman, Miss G M.

  Holman, P.

  Murray, J O

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G.

  Hubbard, T

  Nally, W.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well. N.W.)

  Hudson, J. h (Ealing, W)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E (Bradford, N.>

  Crawley, A.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Crossman, R. H S.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Daggar, G.

  Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Daines, P.

  Irving, W. J

  O'Brien, T.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Janner, B.

  Orbach, M

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Davies, Haydn (St. Paneras, S.W)

  Jeger, Dr S W (St Paneras, S.E)

  Palmer, A M F

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 63.

  Pargiter, G A

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Sorensen, R. W

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Pearson, A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Peart, Thomas F

  Stamford, W

  Watson, W. M.

  Piratin, P.

  Steele, T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Platls-Mills, J. F. F.

  Stephen, C

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Price, M. Philips

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  West, D. G.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Stubbs, A E.

  While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Proctor, W. T

  Swingler, S.

  Whiletey, Rt. Hon W

  Rees-Williams, D R

  Symonds, A. L.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Richards, R

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Robens, A

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Willis, E.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Royle, C.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Wise, Major F. J

  Sargood, R.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Woods G S

  Scollan, T

  Tiffany, S.

  Wyatt, W.

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Timmons, J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Sharp, Granville

  Titterington, M. P.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Shurmer, P.

  Tolley, L

  Zilliacus, K

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Simmons, C. J.

  Usborne, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Skeffington, A. M

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  Skinnard, F. W

  Walker, G. H

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr P G

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Assheton, Rt. Hon R

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Baldwin, A E

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Beamish, Maj. T. V H

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ropner Col. L.

  Bossom, A C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H

  Spearman, A. C M

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Mackeson, Brig. H R

  Studholme, H. G.

  Clarke, Col. R. S

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Maclay, Hon. J. S

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Touche, G. C

  Cuthbert, W N.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Turton, R. H

  Digby, S. W

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Drayson, G B

  Molson, A. H. E

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Elliot, Rt. Hon Walte.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  White, J. B (Canterbury)

  Foster, J G (Northwich)

  Nicholson, G.

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  Gage, C.

  Noble, Comdr. A H P

  York. C.

  Grant, Lady

  Osborne, C.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Pitman, I J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Haughton, S. G.

  Poole, O B S (Oswestry)

  Major Conant and Major Ramsay.

  Lords Amendment: In page 78, line 45, leave out from "Commission" to end of line 15 on page 79 and insert:
  "otherwise than under Part II of the Act provided that the licensing authority shall give effect to the relevant provision of any scheme made under Sections 63 and 64 of this Act."

  Division No. 334]

  AYES.

  [7.55 a.m.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Crossman, R H S

  Attewell, H C.

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Daggar, G.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Dairies, P.

  Awbery, S. S

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

  Bruce, Major D. W. T

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Baird, J.

  Buchanan, G

  Deer, G.

  Balfour, A.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Carmichael, James

  Dobble, W.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Dodds, N N

  Barton, C.

  Champion, A. J.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Chater, D

  Dumpleton, C W

  Beswick, F

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Dye, S.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Ede, Rt. Hon J C.

  Binns, J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Blenkinsop, A

  Collins, V. J.

  Evans, S N (Wodnesbury)

  Blyton, W. R

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Ewart, R

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

  Field, Captain W J

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  The House divided: Ayes. 210; Noes, 63.

  Fool, M. M.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  McLeavy, F.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Gallacher, W

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Ganley, Mrs. C S

  Mallalieu, J. P W.

  Stamford, W.

  Gilzean, A.

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Steele, T.

  Glanville, J. E (Consett)

  Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)

  Stephen, C.

  Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)

  Mathers, G

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Grierson, E.

  Mellish, R. J

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Swingler, S.

  Gunter, R J.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

  Symonds, A. L.

  Guy, W. H.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hale, Leslie

  Moyle, A.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Murray, J. D.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Nally, W.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Hardy, E. A

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Nicholls, H R (Stratford)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Haworth, J.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G R (Ed'b'gn E)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  O'Brien, T.

  Tiffany, S.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Orbach, M.

  Timmons, J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Titterington, M. F

  Holman, P.

  Palmer, A M F.

  Tolley, L.

  Hubbard, T

  Pargiter, G A

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Usborne, Henry

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Pearson, A.

  Walker, G. H.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

  Irving, W. J

  Piratin, P.

  Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E)

  Janner, B.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Watkins, T E.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Watson, W. M.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E)

  Price, M. Philips

  Weitzman, D.

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Wells, P L. (Faversham)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Randall, H E

  West, D G.

  Keenan, W.

  Rangar, J

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Kenyon, C

  Rees-Williams, D R

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  King, E. M.

  Richards, R.

  Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ld E.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Willay, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Kinley, J.

  Robens, A

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Lang, G.

  Roberta, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Layers, S.

  Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

  Willis, E.

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Royle, C.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sargood, R.

  Woods, G. S.

  Upton, Lt.-Col M.

  Scollan, T

  Wyatt, W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Shackleton, E A A

  Yates, V. F.

  Longden, F.

  Sharp, Granville

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  MoAdam, W

  Shurmer, P.

  Zilliacus, K.

  McAllister, G

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  McGhee, H G

  Simmons, C. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mack, J D.

  Skeffington, A M

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Haughton S. G.

  Poole, O B S. (Oswestry)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Baldwin, A E.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

  Beamish, Maj. T V. H

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Raid, Rt. Hon J S. C. (Hillhead)

  Bossom, A. C

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Bower, N.

  Law, Rt. Hon R. K.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Spearman A. C. M

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col M.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

  Clarke, Cot R. S

  Mackeson, Brig. H R.

  Studholme, H G.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  McKie, J. H (Galloway)

  Thorneyoroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Maclay, Hon J. S

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A. F

  Cuthbert, W N

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Touche, G. C.

  Digby, S W

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Turton, R. H.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G

  Drayson, G B

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ward, Hon. G. R

  Elliot, Rt Hon. Walter

  Molson, A H. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Foster, J G (Northwich)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Gage, C

  Nicholson, G.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Grant, Lady

  Noble, Comdr. A H P.

  York. C.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Osborne, C.

  Harrison, J

  Pitman, I. J

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Major Conant and Major Ramsay.

  CLAUSE 78.—(Alteration of charges scheme.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 92, line 9, leave out "as is mentioned" and insert "r other person as are specified."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  Mr. C. Williams: I feel that it would help considerably if we could be given some explanation of what precisely are the numbers involved in this. I should like to know the type of persons it is expected will come under this scheme. I have rather a doubt in my own mind on the subject, and that is why I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary will be delighted to give me the reasons for it.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: These Amendments are to enable bodies representing transport users, to appear before the transport tribunals in respect of any charges.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 93, line 27, insert new Clause B.—(Fixing of Fares.)
  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act the fares to be charged by—

  (a) the Commission in respect of passenger road transport services provided by them otherwise than under Part II of this Act. and

  (b) any person other than the Commission in respect of passenger road transport services provided by him under a scheme under Section sixty-two of this Act,

  shall be approved by the appropriate licensing authority for public service vehicles, and Sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall apply accordingly:
  Provided that the licensing authority shall so far as may be give effect to any relevant charges scheme made under Part V of this Act and relating to such fares, and in respect of operators of passenger road transport services other than the Commission or such person as aforesaid shall have regard to such charges scheme in exercising its powers under paragraph (b) of Subsection (4) of Section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930."
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I do not know whether the House would like me briefly to give the reasons for disagreement with this Amendment, or whether they consider that it has all been
  1516
  covered by a discussion which we had previously. Perhaps I ought to put the case briefly. This Amendment makes the road passenger fares of the Board subject to the licensing authorities under the Road Traffic Acts with a proviso that the licensing authorities should, as far as possible, have regard to the charges scheme under Part V of the Bill. We think this Amendment undesirable in that it would lead to inconsistencies in the charges schemes which have been laid down by the tribunal under the elaborate procedure which has to be gone through there, and would place one part of the activities of the Board under the further jurisdiction of an outside body. It would, we feel, introduce an inconsistent element into the whole machinery of charge making under the Bill. The licensing authorities might well place the fares in one area out of accord with the fares charged in another area, and we can see no reason at all why fares should be subject to the licensing authority in view of the machinery which has been laid down for charges schemes, and the public responsibility on the Commission to see that fares are levied according to those schemes, and that the finances of the Commission as a whole are made to pay.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not know that I find the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary altogether satisfactory. It seems to me to be rather the same point as that which we discussed before. This is another matter of principle, because the Commission is to appear in the same field as private enterprise. Any suggestion that the two should be co-ordinated by the bodies set up by Parliament for the purpose has been rejected out of hand by the Parliamentary Secretary. It seems to me a senseless procedure, especially when Socialists talk so much about the importance of co-ordinated planning. We should oppose this proposal.
  Mr. C. Williams: Once again I was hoping I might be able to deal with this Amendment in a fairly quiet way, but the Parliamentary Secretary, who can be very valuable when he wishes, obviously was so because he had so much to hide. We are beginning to understand his technique on these things. It is very simple. In this case, he quite clearly tried to put a fast one over, against the

  1517
  smaller and poorer section of the community. He has tried to work himself into a position to shape affairs for the monstrous, overgrown organisation which i-; being set up by the Bill and which will dominate the lives of all of us. I have no wish to take the matter very far now, because I quite realise it will not be very long before this scheme will be wholly unpopular all through the country, nearly as unpopular as the Ministry of Health is today.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Not as much as that.

  Division No. 335]

  AYES.

  [8.7 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Gilzean, A.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Glanville, J. E (Consett)

  Milchison, G R

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Murray, J. D

  Attewell, H. C.

  Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

  Nally, W

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Grierson, E.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Ayrton Gould. Mrs. B

  Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Balfour, A

  Gunter, R. J

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A J

  Guy, W H.

  O'Brien, T.

  Barstow, P. G

  Hale, Leslie

  Orbach, M.

  Barton, C.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Hannan, W, (Maryhill)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Beswick, F

  Hardy, E. A.

  Pargiter, G A

  Bing, G. H C

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Parkin, B. T.

  Binns, J.

  Haworth, J.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Blenkinsop, A

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Pearson, A.

  Blyton, W. R

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Piratin, P

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Platts-Mills, J. F. P

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Holman, P.

  Price, M. Philips

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Hubbard, T

  Pritt, D. N.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Randall, H. E

  Bruce Major D. W T

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Ranger, J.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney. S.)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Rees-Williams, D R

  Carmichael, James

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Richards, R.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Irving, W. J.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Champion, A. J

  Janner, B.

  Robens, A.

  Chater, D.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Coldrick, W

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Royle, C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Jones, P, Asterley (Hitchin)

  Sargood, R.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Keenan, W.

  Shackleton, E. A A

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Kenyon, C.

  Sharp, Granville

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  King, E. M.

  Shurmer, P

  Crossman, R H S

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Daggar, G.

  Kinley, J.

  Simmons C J.

  Daines, P.

  Lang, G.

  Skeffington, A. M

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Layers, S.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W)

  Davies, Haydn (St Paneras, S.W.)

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Sorensen, R. W

  Deer, G.

  Lewis, A W J. (Upton)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Stamford, W

  Diamond, J.

  Logan, D. G

  Steele, T.

  Dobbie, W.

  Longden, F.

  Stephen, C

  Dodds, N. N

  Lyne, A. W

  Strauss, G R (Lambeth, N)

  Driberg, T. E. N

  McAdam, W.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Dumpleton, C. W

  McGhee, H. G

  Swingler, S.

  Dye S

  Mack, J. D.

  Symonds, A L.

  Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.

  McKinlay, A S

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  McLeavy, F

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Ewart, R

  Maepherson, T. (Romford)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Field, Captain W J

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Foot, M. M.

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mathers, G

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Gallacher, W.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Timmons, J.

  Ganley, Mrs. C S

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Titterington, M. F

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tolley, L

  Mr. Williams: I do no refer to red herrings or any nonsense of that kind. I was trying to make out a case why, if we divide on this Clause, largely owing to the efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary—who has shown a genius for stirring up opposition and trouble during the whole night—I shall be obliged to vote for it.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 209, Noes, 64.

  Usborne, Henry

  West, D. G.

  Wise, Major F. J

  Vernon, Maj W. F.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Woods, G. S

  Walker, G. H.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Wyatt W.

  Wallace, G D (Chislehurst)

  Witkins, W. A.

  Yates, V. F.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  Watkins, T. E.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Watson, W. M

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Weitzman, D.

  Williams, W R. (Heston)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Willis, E

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com Clark (E'b'gh, W)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Baldwin, A E

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Lambert, Hon G.

  Reid, Rt Hon. J S. C. (Hillhead)

  Bossom, A. C

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Bower, N.

  Law, Rt. Hon R. K.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Strauss, H G. (English universities)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt Col. G

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Touche, G. C.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Turton, R. H.

  Digby, S W

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ward, Hon. G R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Ellict, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Nicholson, G.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Gage, C

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  York, C.

  Grant, Lady

  Osborne, C.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Pitman, I. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Haughton, S G.

  Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)

  Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

  CLAUSE 83.—(Transitional provisions as to exceptional rales and fares of the Commission.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 94, line 26, leave out "up to" and insert:
  "is unduly low by reason of the competition of road haulage undertakers, canal carriers or persons engaged in coastal shipping, the Commission may at any time increase that rate up to not more than."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  Mr. C. Williams: I would like to ask for an explanation of this Amendment. There has been a constant lack of knowledge in the speeches emanating from the Government Front Bench, and we ought to give them a chance to show their hands.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: This Amendment limits the additional powers to increase exceptional rates, which are unduly low by reason of canal or coastal shipping or such competition. It also provides that traders may appeal to the Transport Tribunal against the raising of any exceptional rate, and give the Tribunal power to restore the lower rate.
  Question put, and agreed to

  CLAUSE 93.—(Sums which are to be chargeable to revenue.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 101, line 9, leave out from first "for" to second "and" in line 10 and insert
  "depreciation or renewal of assets and proper provision for redemption of capital."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  Sir John Mellor: I should like an explanation of this Amendment. It seems to me that all it does is to substitute the word, "depreciation," for the word, "obsolescence." That may be an important change, but I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could explain whether the position is as I have stated, or whether the matter is more complicated. If I am right, I cannot understand why the Amendment does not merely say, "leave out, 'obsolescence,' and insert, 'depreciation.'" Does the change widen the meaning of that Clause?
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: There was a certain lack of clarity which it was desired to remove by this Amendment, and all this does is to make clear—where there was some doubt before—that it is not intended to make duplicate provision out of

  1521
  revenue for wastage of the Commission's assets.
  Sir J. Mellor: I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the distinction between the use of the words "obsolescence" and "depreciation" in the Clause. Will he explain that distinction?
  Mr. C. Williams: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary will have much to which to reply in regard to my speech. I was a little hard on him just now, and I apologise: I feel that now, at last, he has some little clarification to introduce into the Bill, and it would be ungenerous of me not to congratulate him on his sudden appreciation of clarity.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can go into that. I do not think that any point arises on that matter.
  Mr. C. Williams: With reference to line 27, we have the words "the publication of periodical statistics." How often will these returns be made? Will these be made available to the House? I hope that we shall have constant returns made of this kind. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how often these returns will be made, and whether they will be made available to us, although I do not promise to read them.
  Major Haughton: Can we have an answer? There is a very important point here, because in the Bill as printed the word "obsolescence" occurs, and, in this Amendment the word "depreciation." This context is very important because railway property, owing to intervention, could become obsolete without suffering depreciation in the way of wear and tear. Can we have an explanation?
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: If I may speak again for a moment, I would say that I am afraid I cannot give an explanation. This is a technical drafting matter, and I have not the answer with me at the moment. The Amendment was intended to clear up some doubt. I am assured that it is absolutely clear now. I could not possibly give any more detailed explanation at present. These accounts are, of course, prepared annually.
  Sir J. Mellor: Does the hon. Member suggest that the definition of "obsolescence" and "depreciation"—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have another speech. The Parliamentary Secre-
  1522
  tary has quite frankly said that he is unable to answer that question.
  Mr. York: We cannot have the Government coming to us at this stage of the Bill, and saying that they cannot answer questions. We have a Law Officer on the Front Bench. Cannot we ask him? I think the Parliamentary Secretary has done jolly well. He has been batting all by himself on a very sticky wicker Surely, a Law Officer of the Crown could come to the wicket now? We should ask him to take the Parliamentary Secretary's place, and tell us what the position is. It is a purely legal point I am told. I have not the slightest idea myself. I cannot understand it; nor can any hon. Member on either side of the House.
  8.30 a.m.
  Colonel Ropner: I had hoped that the Debate had continued sufficiently long for the Minister to ascertain the answer to the question he has been asked. It is a point of real substance. There must be a good reason why, at this late stage of our proceedings, the wording has been changed, and there should be a Minister on the Treasury Bench who can answer this question. I do not know whether the Minister is now able to reply, but if no answer can be given, I hope the Adjournment will be moved is order to give the Government time to find out the meaning of their own Bill. After all, this Bill has been before them for a number of months, and it is fantastic that they should not be able to give an interpretation of their own wording. I will give the Minister another chance, but if he cannot get an answer for us, we shall have to divide against this Amendment
  Mr. Butcher: I only rise to give the Government some opportunity of collecting their reinforcements and clarifying this point. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman opposite desires to interrupt, and will rise to his feet, I will give way.
  Mr. McKinlay: You should send your party out to collect reinforcements.
  Mr. C. Williams: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted referred to what he described as "your party." I would like an interpretation as to whether that kind of thing is not a reflection on you in the Chair, and also a sort of back-handed reflection on his own party.
  Colonel Ropner: Further to that point of Order. Will the hon. Member opposite say what he meant by, "your party?"
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Butcher.
  Mr. Butcher: It might be as well if I went back to where I was. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in the absence of the Law Officers and his unwillingness to make any observations on this point, the hon. Gentleman might ask some of the distinguished Members behind him, who have not been unduly energetic during the night, to get together, so that they could give us the benefit of their collective information. From the variety on the benches opposite we might be able to secure some idea of what this alteration means.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) from acting as a kind of honorary Law Officer of the Crown, even in this Government, but I think we are entitled to receive some explanation. It is really not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it is a technical point, that he understands it is all right, and that he asks us to take it on trust. He may be right, he may be wrong, but we are entitled to know the reasons, and if the Government are not prepared to go further with this Bill this morning, they know perfectly well what to do. After all, there is a Law Officer on the Front Bench—a Law Officer who has been, for a Law Officer, extremely silent, and I do not see why he should not give us the benefit of his ripe knowledge of Scottish law, which might even help us to interpret this Bill.
  Mr. Nicholson: I will not offer my own legal knowledge to the House. The difficulties will be appreciated at this hour of the morning, but I am not obsolescent.
  Colonel Ropner: As there is not one hon. Member sitting opposite who knows the position—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot speak again.
  Colonel Ropner: I desire to move the Adjournment of the House.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should not be prepared to accept such a Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 101, line 12, leave out "Expressed" and insert "to be deemed."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  Mr. C. Williams: There are two Amendments involved here on which I should like some information. I want to know why we are leaving out Subsection (1). It is usual when we have Lords Amendments of considerable length to have an explanation and I think when interesting changes are made, we should have a little information.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: This series of Amendments assures that the accounts of the Commission, in conjunction with the periodical return of the statistics they will offer, will give, as far as possible, the full financial operating results of each activity of the Commission.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 98.—(Provisions as to pension rights.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 106, line 8, leave out from "for" to end of line 9, and insert:
  "determination, and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination."
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  May I explain to the House that the issues here are very simple issues. As the Bill originally stood, certain points arising in pension and compensation proceedings were referred to a referee or a board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service. The proposed Amendment is to—
  Mr. Poole: On a point of Order. Would it not be for the convenience of the House if all the Amendments on pages 106, 107 and 109 were taken together? I believe they all refer to the same thing. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no objection, we might deal with eight Amendments together.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not clear whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with the Lords Amendment to line 23, on page 106, with which, I understand, the Minister disagrees, or the Lords Amendment in line 8, on page 106. Does the Minister agree with the Lords in the Amendment to line 8?
  Mr. Barnes: I disagree.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then I gather the Lord Advocate is addressing himself to the Amendment to line 8.
  Mr. Poole: The point I raised was that, while the Lord Advocate was addressing himself to line 8, he might address himself to the other Amendments on the same point if that is convenient to the House.
  The Lord Advocate: If it would be for the convenience of the House I think it would be right to deal with all these Amendments at the same time, and also with the two Amendments which are down in the Minister's name. The first Amendment is in page 106, line 8, after "Service," insert:
  "after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State."
  The issue here is perfectly clear. It was between the finality of referees appointed by the Minister, on the one hand, and arbitration proceedings on the other, and the reason why we prefer the referee procedure is that it is simple, expeditious, and cheap, and by it everybody knows where he is. On the other hand, if this Amendment were allowed, it would involve frequent, expensive, complicated litigation, and there is no prospect how far that litigation would go. The problem which is to be faced here seems to us to be a simple problem, if it is properly met by being dealt with by a referee. When the Amendment was dealt with in another place something was said about endeavouring to meet the point which was put forward by the Opposition. We cannot go the whole way, but we are putting down in lieu of the Lords Amendments two Amendments to clarify the situation.
  The first of our Amendments is an attempt to meet the point that was taken by the Opposition. That Amendment pro-
  1526
  vides that where there is to be a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour there must be consultation in England with the Lord Chancellor and in Scotland with the Secretary of State. That is to ensure that the referees, technical referees particularly, have sufficient knowledge to deal with the matter, which stresses the legal aspect.
  Then there is another new Clause which is to be moved in the Minister's name—(Arbitration Acts not to apply to proceedings before referees or boards of referees). That is to get rid of a technical difficulty which, I understand, exists under English law, and to make it clear beyond any doubt whether or not the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, would apply to a question of this sort.
  8.45 a.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I realise that to save time the Lord Advocate has not fully developed the case here, but I feel it cannot be allowed to rest where he has left it because this is an extremely important matter. It does not amount to a great deal in money so far as the Stale is concerned. But here we are dealing with pensions which affect men for the rest of their lives and it does seem wholly wrong when we are dealing with an important matter of that sort, that a man should not be allowed to be heard before a referee in the first place, and should not have the right to have legal rights determined by a court of law: because they are legal rights. They flow not from any ex gratia concession but from the terms of an Act of Parliament.
  I thoroughly realise that when you got a matter of temporary concern such as unemployment benefit, it may be perfectly right to say there should be no appeal in law and it may be that you would be right to say—here I have more doubt—it should not even be heard. But that is a matter which lasts only six months and if another claim arises, it will arise in different circumstances and the first decision would not be binding. But here is a matter which affects a man for his whole life. I seem to remember that the last time a Government sought to simplify procedure in connection with pensions claims, it worked out so badly, that it was found necessary in a very short time to set up appeals tribunals, and even they have not worked too well

  1527
  because in a number of cases final resort to courts of law has resulted in the overturning of the very basis on which the tribunals were working. Surely, that is an example we all ought to bear in mind? There was a case where the Government from the best motives sought to simplify procedure and exclude reference to a court of law. What happened? The simplified procedure was not capable of dealing properly with all the issues involved. There was a public outcry and the whole thing had to be remodelled. Surely, the Government are not going to say that because only comparatively few people are affected they need not trouble so much to do justice. The fact that there are comparatively few people involved, very much weakens their argument. Where there are hundreds of thousands of people it may be wrong to have a complicated procedure and embarrassing to the administrative machine. But where there are comparatively few people involved there cannot be that embarrassment to administration. Therefore, there can be no practical obstacle to the doing of justice.
  What is the precedent? In 1921, there was the railways amalgamation. This system was not adopted. A proper system was adopted of allowing a man a full opportunity to get his pension settled. Are the Government really going to say that when a subject is dealing with the State he must expect a much lower level of justice than when he is dealing with a railway company? That is what they are saying and I hope they will realise before it is too late that that is what they are doing. There is an interesting background to this and I would like to refer to it for a moment, because in another place the Government spoke with two voices, and the one voice followed the other without any intervening speaker. I know it is not in order to refer to others than those speaking on behalf of the Government in another place, but the case was put forward with great particularity for an Amendment which it is now sought to delete. Then Lord Chorley read out the official brief which was almost exactly the same as that given today. By and large the arrangements in the Bill as it left this House were most satisfactory—and all the phrases that the Lord Advocate has just given. But immediately following on Lord Chorley resuming his seat, Lord
  1528
  Addison got up and said that he had been in conference with someone and he offered this suggestion. He said:
  "We are greatly impressed with the case made out by the noble and learned Viscount (Lord Simon) and if we can agree that the Amendment should be accepted on the understanding that we may in another place, or in some other way, have to suggest perhaps some modification, I would suggest we should accept the Amendment now and cut short the discussion."
  "Perhaps some modification"—what has happened to that? There has been complete reversal, not modification. We have gone back to what we had before with one tiny exception as far as I can see. The main point has been completely reversed, and, therefore, what has happened is that the official brief has prevailed against the Ministerial wish, as it so often does in this Government.
  I am really surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. He has seen what has happened to the official brief in the other House. He saw the Leader of the other House throw over in a most astonishing way what had been said by the other noble Lord, and now the right hon. Gentleman comes back to the House of Commons and says, "I am going back to what Lord Addison threw over." Is that situation right? I do beg the Minister not to play with pensioners' rights in this way. I do not want to say more on this occasion—though I would like to—because perhaps if I did, it would prejudice the chance of the Minister changing his mind. But I do sincerely plead in the interests of those men whose whole future depends on whether or not they get a pension, and how much it is. Can they even appear before the man settling their fate? I think they are allowed to do that but cannot they then be allowed to go on to a court of law?
  I should not think that there would be half a dozen cases—there might be one or two test cases—but even if there were half a dozen is it not worth while, in order that men may feel that they have gone to a court of law for a legal decision, and that, after all, justice has been done by His Majesty's judges, and that they had not been condemned by a lay tribunal who may not be so well fitted to deal with them as a legal tribunal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind on this question.
  Mr. Assheton: I was expecting that we should receive some reply on this matter.
  Mr. Barnes: I quite recognise the point put by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), and I am anxious to reply to it. The question is merely one as to the time at which I should intervene. I had intended to deal with that point, and with the reservation of the noble Lord, when the Government Amendment was dealt with, and when replying also to any other observations which might call for a reply.
  Mr. Assheton: I was afraid that the matter was about to be determined by the vote of the House. I rose to prevent that from happening. I would be obliged if the Minister would now address himself to that point.
  Mr. Barnes: If I may, by leave of the House, I will deal with the point which has been submitted about the difference in the position today from what was deemed to be the position in view of the statement made in another place. I desire to deal with that point because to some extent I was associated with it, and as a difference has occurred, the best way to deal with it is to be perfectly frank, and explain exactly what the position is. The discussion in the other place proceeded primarily on legal lines, and the Government were only too anxious to be satisfied that no injustice to any class of pensioners would be perpetrated within the provisions of the Bill. All through the discussions we have been particularly careful to try to safeguard the pension rights of all classes in the different transport undertakings. This appeared to be primarily a point of law, and during the discussions in another place it appeared to have some substance, to the extent that I considered, with the Leader of the other House, that it ought to receive further examination.
  In the time that has elapsed between the Bill leaving another place and our consideration of the Lords Amendments, the matter has been fully considered by the Government. The machinery, which is now fairly widespread and extensive, the machinery of the Ministry of Labour, has been considered, and the Government's decision is to the effect that we do not consider that that procedure should be substantially modified, or needs modification, to do complete justice in this case. Therefore, in the Amendment
  1530
  which is being submitted, in view of our disagreement with the Lords Amendment, it will be observed that we seek to delete the Lords Amendment which would insert rights under the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and, so that there can be no doubt about the position, we propose, in page III, line 5, after Clause 103, to insert the following new Clause:
  "Nothing in the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, shall be construed as applying to any proceedings before a referee or board of referees appointed tinder this Part of this Act by the Minister of Labour and National Service after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State."
  I quite agree that we do not want any doubt to exist on this matter. The extent to which the Government feel they can go is that the Minister of Labour and National Service, in appointing a referee, should do so after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. We feel that that will ensure that according to the type of case that has to be adjudicated upon, which requires a legal mind, the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor will secure that necessary protection. That being the case, the Government do not consider that the normal procedure which has been built up, and which, in the main, has the confidence of those bodies and organisations which speak for them, should be departed from on this occasion. The Government have given full and serious consideration to the matter, and this is our final conclusion.
  9.0 a.m.
  Mr. Assheton: The Minister will recollect that during the passage of the Bill in Committee—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Assheton: May I, with the leave of the House speak again? I had forgotten, Major Milner, that I had put a question to the Minister. The Minister will recollect that in Committee my hon. Friends and I took very great interest in this question of the pension rights. It is clear from what the Minister has told us that, when this matter was dealt with in another place, the Leader of the House there gave them to understand that a substantial alteration would be made. We have now heard from the Minister a very

  1531
  frank account of what took place, but I am bound to say, speaking for right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, that we are not at all satisfied with the situation as it is left.
  I was very surprised to find the learned Lord Advocate coming down here to make this case for the Minister. Though we are very glad to have with us the Lord Advocate, who has had the advantage of having a good night's rest, as some of us have not—[Interruption.] I apologise I had not noticed him on the Bench opposite in the earlier stages of the Debate. I was a little surprised that he came down

  Division No. 336]

  AYES.

  [9.3 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Ganley, Mrs. C S

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

  Gibson, C W.

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Gilzean, A.

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mathers, G.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mellish, R. J

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Awbery, S. S.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Grierson, E.

  Pilitchison, G p.

  Balfour, A.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Moyle, A

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Murray, J. D

  Barstow, P. G.

  Gunter, R. J

  Nally, W.

  Barton, C.

  Guy, W. H.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Hale, Leslie

  Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

  Beswick, F

  Hamilton, Lieut,-Col. R.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Bing, G. H C.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Binns, J.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  O'Brien, T.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Haworth, J.

  Orbach, M.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pargiter, G A

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Parkin, B. T.

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Bruce Major D W. T

  Holman, P.

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hubbard, T.

  Piratin, P.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Ca michael, James

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Champion, A. J.

  Hughes, H. D (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Chater, D

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Price, M. Philips

  Cocks, F. S.

  Irving, W. J

  Pritt, D. N.

  Coldrick, W

  Janner, B.

  Proctor, W T.

  Collins, V. J.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Randall, H. E

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Ranger, J

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Richards, R.

  Grossman, R. . S

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Daggar, G

  Keenan, W.

  Robens, A.

  Daines, P.

  Kenyon, C.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  King, E M

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.)

  Kinley, J

  Royle, C.

  Deer, G.

  Lang, G.

  Sargood, R

  Delargy, H J

  Lavers, S.

  Shackleton, E. A A.

  Diamond, J.

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Sharp, Granville

  Dobbie, W.

  Leonard, W.

  Shurmer, P.

  Dodds, N. N

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Simmons, C. J

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Logan, D G

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Dye, S.

  Longden, F.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C

  Lyne, A W

  Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  McGhee, H. G

  Snow, Capt J. W

  Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

  Mack, J. D.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Ewart, R

  McKinlay, A S.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Field, Captain W J.

  McLeavy, F

  Stamford, W.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Stephen, C.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Gallacher, W

  Mallalieu, J P W.

  Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)

  to make this case for the Minister. I am surprised that a lawyer of his eminence is prepared to cast aside the advantages of real justice in favour of some inferior machinery. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to a lower level of justice. Well, that is what it is, a lower level of justice, and we on this side of the House demand that in this case these men should have the right to receive the highest possible level of justice in the country.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 60.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Usborne, Henry

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Swingler, S.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Walker, G. H.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Willis, E.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Woods, G. S.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Watson, W. M.

  Wyatt, W.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wells, P. L (Faversham)

  Yates, V. F.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  West, D. G.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Tiffany, S.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Timmons, J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Titterington, M. F

  Wilkins, W. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tolley, L.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan.

  NOES.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Grant, Lady

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Baldwin, A E

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Haughton, S. G.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Bossom, A. C

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Butcher, H. W

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Hurd, A.

  Robinson, Wing-Cmdr. Roland

  Clifton-Brown, Lt-Col. G.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lambe t, Hon. G.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  De la Bère, R.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Vane, W M. F.

  Digby, S. W

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G. (Penrith)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  While, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Drayson, G. B

  Mellor, Sir J.

  White, J. B (Canterbury)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Molson, A. H. E.

  York, C.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr E. L

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Gage, C.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H P

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gammans, L. D

  Osborne, C.

  Commander Agnew and

  Major Ramsay.

  Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to.
  In page 106, line 8, after "Service," insert:
  "after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State."
  In page 111, line 5, after Clause 103, insert the following new Clause:
  (Arbitration Acts not to apply to proceedings before referees or boards of referees.)
  Nothing in the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, shall be construed as applying to any proceedings before a referee or board of referees appointed under this Part of this Act by the Minister of Labour and National Service after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Barnes.]
  Further Lords Amendment disagreed to: In page 106, line 23, leave out "the Minister and."—[Mr. Barnes.]

  CLAUSE 99.—(Special provisions as to railway and canal pension funds, etc.)
  Lords Amendment disagreed to: In page 107, line 12, leave out from "Service" to "and" in line 13, and insert:
  "and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions
  1534
  of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination."—[Mr. Barnes.]
  Amendment made to the Bill in lieu thereof:
  In page 107, line 12, after "Service," insert:
  "after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State."—[Mr. Barnes.]
  Further Lords Amendments disagreed to: In page 107, line 13, leave out "that decision" and insert "such determination."
  In line 37, leave out "the Minister and."—[Mr. Barnes.]

  CLAUSE 101.—(Compensation to officers and servants in connection with transfers.)
  Lords Amendments disagreed to: In page 109, line 21, at end insert:
  "(3) Any dispute between the Commission and an officer or servant as to whether any or what compensation is payable under this Section or any regulation made thereunder shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for determination and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination."
  In line 24, leave out from "compensation" to end of subsection (3).
  Amendment made, in lieu thereof, to the words so restored to the Bill:
  In page 109, line 34, after "Service," insert:
  "after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State."—[Mr. Barnes.]

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Executives.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 129, line 25, leave out from "by" to "the" in line 26.
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I do not know whether I would be in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in stating that that applies to all the Amendments down to line 13. These all refer to the problems of the Executive.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Consequential Lords Amendments disagreed to.

  EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Orders giving effect to schemes.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 142, line 52, leave out from "cause" to end of line 3 on page 143, and insert:
  "in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto by a person who is not a servant or officer of the Minister."
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I do not think that the House will want me to elaborate this Amendment at this stage, but if it is discussed later on, I will make a further reply. The point, simply is this: in any local inquiry which is held under the Bill, the Lords Amendment provides that the person holding that inquiry shall not be a servant or officer of the Minister. The Amendment also provides that the report shall be published and that the Commission and any objector are to appear at the inquiry and be subject to cross-examination. We disagree with the Lords Amendment on what we consider good constitutional grounds. So far as I know every Department of State, when it holds public inquiries into
  1536
  matters of importance, on which the Minister has to adjudicate, and where other parties are concerned, sometimes invites one of its senior officials to hold the inquiry and advise the Minister.
  That is the procedure which Conservative ministers, as well as Labour ministers, have carried out, and it has been found to work exceedingly satisfactorily. These are inquiries into matters in which the Minister is not a party. He has to decide in this case between the Commission and an outside body. It is quite wrong to prevent the Minister choosing a senior servant in his Department to hold an inquiry, if he desires to do so. We also say it is wrong to force the publication of the report of the inquiry. The value of such an inquiry would be much less if it were known that that report was to be published. We also say that it is wrong that the Commission should be forced to give evidence. If it has evidence, and desires to give it, it will do so. But to force it to give evidence when the Commission think that undesirable would be wrong. For these reasons, we disagree with the Amendment, and ask the House to support us in this Motion.
  Mr. Maclay: On a point of Order. Are we discussing not only line 52, but some of the Amendments which follow?
  Mr. Oliver Poole: The Parliamentary Secretary was speaking to the Amendment to page 142, line 52, but I suggest that it is convenient to consider also the following Lords Amendments in line 3, lines 7 to 12, and line 14.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am agreeable, if it is the wish of the House.
  Mr. Poole: The Parliamentary Secretary has made a rather abbreviated statement on these Amendments, to which we attach much importance. There are some rather special features about these Amendments. By no means the least is the fact that they are the last of the major Amendments we are to discuss today. This is the first time that the Eighth Schedule has been discussed by us. Therefore I do not think it unreasonable, at this rather extraordinary hour—I do not know whether it is a late hour or an early hour—that we should give some attention to these

  1537
  matters. They were given careful attention in another place and it should be realised before we part with this stage of the Bill that these inquiries are of very great importance and affect very large numbers of people.
  There are the schemes for passenger road transport. From time to time we have discussed the schemes the Government have in mind for passenger road transport and they have given very vague answers, because they state, quite frankly and fairly, that the schemes are not highly developed. Inquiries into the schemes are of very great importance and will affect every person who uses road transport for business or pleasure. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) will be saying something about docks and harbours. I have nothing to say on that, except that the schemes will affect an enormous number of people, from shipowners to stevedores, every type of person connected with the export trade. If we are to have inquiries of this sort we should be very careful to see how they are set up and conducted.
  9.30 a.m.
  It is not just a small point, but a question of an inquiry over the whole, broad field of these two matters. Though the Minister himself—and this is the important thing—will make the decision as a result of these inquiries, the action that he takes is purely administrative. That, I believe, is the whole argument of the Government. The inquiries are themselves of a quasi-judicial nature, and it is essential, if they are to be conducted properly, that witnesses who appear should be properly examined and, if necessary, cross-examined. Therefore, we take exception to the rather light way in which the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the question of the Commission's giving evidence on these matters. I think I am right in saying that the precedent for this is the formation of the Clyde Port Trust, which is, I believe, conducted by Lord Cooper, and it is on the lines of that inquiry that we want these inquiries to take place. That inquiry was very carefully conducted, and at the end of it agreement was reached, and everybody was satisfied with what took place. I suggest that it is very important that not only should the Minister give a decision that is right, but that the people who
  1538
  have to work with him should feel that they have had their say, and have played their parts in reaching the right decision. I know the right hon. Gentleman has that in mind, just as much as we have on this side; and so there is not a great deal between us on this Amendment. It is not a party matter, but a matter of technical administration
  I should like, briefly, to submit the three points I want to make with regard to this matter. First, we feel that the man who holds the inquiry should be an independent person. I do not think that that can be considered by anybody in any part of the House as unreasonable. What the Parliamentary Secretary says, quite rightly, is that it is possible for the Minister to choose a civil servant, somebody capable of taking this inquiry; although that may be so, I think it would be wrong that somebody in the Minister's employ should be the person to take the inquiry. Fundamentally, it is wrong that the Minister should set up the court, be his own judge, and say what witnesses are to be admitted. Though he may get just as good a chairman from the Civil Service, it would be better for the whole conduct of the inquiry if the person who presides is an independent person.
  Second, the case should be clearly stated. It is most important that the ca se should be put fairly and squarely, that either side should have the chance o cross-examine the other. Third, the report should be published; I cannot quite see why there should not be publication. I understand that the inquiries are to take place more or less in public, that anybody who wants to listen will be allowed to do so, and that the report will be published for the people concerned. I understand that the only objection to publication is that it might force the Minister's servants to render confidential reports to him that would have to be made public. That is not our intention. Our intention is that when the inquiry has taken place, and when the public have been allowed in—and I understand there will be fairly wide circulation of the proceedings—the proceedings should to generally available. If there is nothing to hide, I do not see why the Government should take exception to this Amendment. But if there is anything secrer, and the proceedings are not held in public, then suspicions will arise. These

  1539
  three points are not matters of great and sweeping principle, but we attach great importance to them, and, in view of the somewhat narrow difference between the Government and ourselves, I would urge that they should be reconsidered.
  Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) put with admirable clarity the main points which we would wish to cover in our case. I should like to deal more specifically with the ports and docks' side and the inquiries into the kind of scheme. The Minister, at another stage, produced an Amendment which meant that consultation between the Commission and the interested parties was very complete, and it might be argued that consultation was so good that it took away most of our worries. I do not think that that necessarily follows, because in making a scheme it is laid down that
  "The Commission may, with a view to securing the efficient and economical development, maintenance or management of any trade harbour or group of trade harbours, prepare, in consultation with the persons theretofore carrying on harbour undertakings in or in connection with the harbour or group of harbours and with such bodies or persons as the Commission may consider to be properly representative of shipping and traders actually using, and of workers actually employed in, the harbour or group of harbours, and submit to the Minister a scheme providing for all or any of the following matters…"
  It may be said that that is extremely comprehensive in regard to consultation, and that if agreement is reached between all those parties there is chance of real substantial agreement. But we must remember that there are others who should be consulted, such as local authorities, whose property lies behind a port or harbour. Where there is objection which comes under special Parliamentary procedure, surely it is reasonable to suggest that the public inquiry should be one which would command the complete confidence of everybody who can possibly be concerned. I agree that on this matter there is not much between us and the Government. We are trying to get procedure to work smoothly, as far as possible, because if any ill-feeling is left it will do enormous harm. The Parliamentary Secretary made what seemed to me a very surprising remark when he said it had been common practice in the past for Ministers to appoint their own men to handle these inquiries. I must submit that in this kind of Bill there is a
  1540
  new kind of scheme, and I do not think that before this Government came into power there were any schemes which went into such detail as we are now going into concerning all sorts of industries, ports, and other activities which had previously been handled, not by Governments, but under different circumstances altogether. If there was a case for that kind of inquiry in the past, there is no such case today for its continuance. We have got to satisfy all kinds of people if these schemes are going to work.
  Another difficulty is the proposal to make all inquiries public inquiries. My remarks in this connection are directed not only to the Parliamentary Secretary, but also to the Home Secretary. I would remind him that when we were discussing another Bill of which he was in charge something like the same issue arose in regard to inquiries for which he was responsible. I asked a question as to what was the procedure in these local public inquiries, and I found that there was no set procedure at all, that it varied from place to place. I am not clear now whether the words, "public local inquiry," actually mean a definite procedure which is to be followed in every inquiry, when we use the words, "public local inquiry ' as distinct from an inquiry. It would be extremely valuable if we could be told just what procedure will be followed for a public inquiry, and whether it will follow the pattern which is adopted under other Bills. Only last night I attended an inquiry, which was conducted with admirable fairness. But it was not possible to ascertain, in advance, how it was to be handled, and, indeed, it was clear that there was no set procedure. It is highly desirable that, with all these Bills coming before us, which affect the trade and commerce of the country, and where there is provision for a local inquiry, there should be absolute certainty in regard to that provision. I submit that the suggestions incorporated in these Amendments are the only basic ones which would satisfy the needs of such an inquiry.
  Mr. Digby: An argument advanced from the other side in favour of the nationalisation of road passenger transport has been that the Commission is to be able to provide excellent co-ordinated schemes. There is no doubt that these schemes will affect a very large number of people, because many people in this country use the buses.

  1541
  I cannot understand why the Minister is so frightened about holding a full public inquiry, and having the details published. One of the effects of this Amendment will be to ensure that evidence is taken. Surely, the public have the right to see that such evidence is given, and to have the results of the inquiry published.
  With regard to the question as to who is to conduct the inquiry, I do not think that, in a case like this, the Minister should send down one of his officials to conduct it. He is in a very special position owing to the stranglehold which he insists on keeping on the Commission in regard to the schemes under Part IV of this Bill. The Commission are the promoters of these schemes, and are responsible to the Minister for them. He can, in fact, direct them to prepare a scheme for a specified area, and, having done that, can then send down one of his officials to conduct an inquiry into it, the results of which will never be made known to the public. That is most unfair, and is a further indication of the nervousness of the Minister about the efficacy of his own schemes under this Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: There is only one point I wish to make in connection with what the Parliamentary Secretary said about a Conservative Administration having produced this particular form of appointment. We have objected, time after time, in previous Parliaments, to Ministers appointing their own officers to conduct inquiries. We have also objected, in like manner, to the results of such inquiries not being made public. I would refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that there has not been a Conservative Administration in this country since 1929, and that under the National Government—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether there has been a Conservative Government since 1929. Everyone knows that in a National Government there are 50 per cent. Socialists.
  9.45 a.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I cannot help approaching this question with a recollection of what took place at recent inquiries into town and country planning cases. Nor can I forget the elegant phraseology of one of the ornaments of the Front Bench opposite about "blowing off steam." I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would
  1542
  descend to the levels which were touched in those inquiries, but it is just possible that there might be a changeover of offices. It would be so much more satisfactory if any possibility of that kind of thing were excluded. I am not clear that it is excluded, even by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment which is to be moved in lieu of the Lords Amendment. I hope it is, but I do not think so. I would like an assurance on that point.
  I turn to the three points which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole), which are the essential three points. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that for a long time past the Scottish Office have almost always employed outside people to be chairmen of even somewhat minor inquiries. I cannot remember in the last 15 years a single Scottish inquiry of first-class importance—and I can scarcely remember any of second-class importance—where the commissioner or chairman, or whoever was.1eputed, was not an outsider, generally a member of the Scottish legal profession. I should add that such jobs are not much sought after, because the fees do not much exceed the niggardly Treasury scale, so let it not be thought that I am putting in a plea for the legal profession. These matters are undertaken as public duties, not as lucrative jobs.
  If the right hon. Gentleman were to try to appoint one of his own officials for such.an inquiry in Scotland, he would find it extremely badly received if the inquiry was one of any real moment. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving away very much here. These are inquiries of first-class importance. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman cannot meet us on this point. I cannot imagine him ever really wanting to put one of his own officials, however highly qualified, in charge of one of these inquiries. I do not think he would, but if he did he would be extremely foolish. Even if the official were better at the job than an outsider, I still say that the right hon. Gentleman would be extremely foolish. It is certainly not so much the actual result of the inquiry that counts, as that people should feel that their case has been heard and considered by someone who is quite unprejudiced and who has no connections with the Minister.

  1543
  Second, in the matter of cross-examination, I am sure that the rignt hon. Gentleman will agree, and, if he does not, any lawyer who sits behind him will tell him, that the truth of anything can never really be reached, unless the parties are allowed to cross-examine. I do not say that it is always reached then, that would be too much to hope, but it is the best way of going about the job. There is no excuse for having an inquiry where there is not the fullest right of mutual cross-examination, and cross-examination by those skilled in the law, because to ex-chide a skilled man in those circumstances is not sensible, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would do that.
  I come now to what is perhaps the biggest of these three questions. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman does in theory, he will, in practice, follow our suggestions on the first two points with which I have dealt. On the third, I am old-fashioned enough to refer, when opportunity occurs, to the Donoughmore Report. I know that it has been out of favour for a long time, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him to read the findings in that Report. I do not think they have lost any of their importance. It is a good while since I looked at them, and I regret that I have not the passages here today, but I do not think they have lost any of their importance with the passage of time.
  What is the objection? There is only one possible objection to the publication of a report. Perhaps there are two, but the one reasonable objection is that the report may contain confidential matter about the character or the behaviour of certain individuals which it would be quite improper to publish, and that if it was stated in advance that the report was to be published, that would not, and could not, be put in because the Minister would not get a full view of the situation. I know that applies where one is dealing with personal questions, but here we are dealing with enormous questions which far transcend any personal matter. I cannot conceive what kind of confidential information would be likely to be put in a report about, say, the Clyde Trust and the Clyde Harbour. I cannot imagine that if Lord Cooper's report had been a private report it would have been any more informative to the Minister; certainly
  1544
  it would have lost half its importance, because the general public would not have had an opportunity of seeing and studying it. These reports form public opinion, and surely the Minister wants to nave public opinion on his side.
  These enormous matters, like area road transport and the organisation of a particular group of harbours, have always been the subject of the most careful consideration in public—generally by more than one reporter—then there is a very carefully framed report, and then an interval—sometimes too long an interval—while the whole matter is being considered, and the public mind is being directed to the question in the report. The report will lose nothing, or practically nothing, if it is known from the beginning that it will be published immediately. But it will lose an enormous lot if it is known that it will not be published, because it will then be of no use for moulding public opinion. Surely, the Minister knows that if he tackles one of these big jobs without local public opinion having been adequately prepared there is no more thorny task that he can undertake? I should have thought that for his own protection he would have made a point of seeing that the report was published.
  The only other reason why he would not publish a report would be because he did not agree with it. I have no means of knowing how often in this and past Governments that has been a reason for keeping back a report. It has often been thought to be a reason. A good deal of suspicion has been engendered because it has been thought that a Minister who reached a decision which was not ultimately very popular might suppress the report because it would not fit in with the Government line. I am sure the Minister would not like that sort of suspicion to get about. Whatever might be done in minor cases, I am sure no Minister would ever take the responsibility of suppressing a report of that kind, on a matter of such extreme public importance. If he did, it would be extremely difficult to catch up with misconceptions and rumours that he had suppressed a report, and I beg him, therefore, in order that the scheme may go through smoothly, not to regard these reports as confidential. I do not want to detain the House at this time, but if what I have said does not induce the Minister to alter

  1545
  his mind at this moment, I hope it will keep him on the right path when he first has to do this job in practice.
  Mr. Barnes: I have felt, both in listening to the Debates in another place, and in digesting the views put forward this morning, that this subject is being unduly laboured. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I really think there is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) said, that the difference between those who are advocating different points of view is more apparent than real. On the public inquiry point, I am meeting the Amendment fully. Let me read to the House the Clause as it was, as it would be if the Amendment from another place were accepted, and as it would stand if the Amendment in lieu of the Amendment from another place were embodied in the Clause. In the Clause as it left this House, the Minister was only obliged to cause inquiries to be made. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Members who put various points to me are interested in my reply. I am probably more anxious than anyone to bring an end to these proceedings, but I thought hon. Members attached some importance to this point.
  Mr. Maclay: If I was rude, I am sorry. There was a sudden diversion, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman called my attention back to the proceedings.
  Mr. Barnes: If this House accepted the Amendment from another place the Clause would say that the Minister should cause:
  "… in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto by a person who is not a servant or officer of the Minister."
  I have not stated in any of the provisions of the Bill that the person holding the inquiry will be an officer of the Ministry, and I am not quite sure why that should be imported into the discussion. Of course, if an Amendment of this kind is introduced and it is said that the person to hold the inquiry shall not be an officer of the Ministry, attention is centred on the point and there is controversy about the words; but it is not the intention of the Minister to appoint officers, and so on. Members know that on matters of this kind I have steadfastly refused to be tied down unnecessarily. I do not think there is much sense in trying to provide in the Bill for every contingency of this charac-
  1546
  ter. One must take into consideration the matters covered by the part of the Bill which we are discussing—area schemes to be considered for local passenger services, area schemes to be considered for the grouping of ports, harbours, and the bodies to administer those schemes. Procedure has been laid down in the Bill to ensure that there is the fullest possible examination of the problems locally, a ad the fullest possible consultation with the local opinion.
  The Amendment which I ask the House to accept in lieu of the Lords Amendment, states:
  "Where any such objection is made and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall cause in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto."
  I fully accept there that it will be a public local inquiry.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: There is obviously a distinction here. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where I can find the rules which govern a public local inquiry and those which govern an ordinary inquiry?
  10.0 a.m.
  Mr. Barnes: There is no particular significance in the words. The words are in the Lords Amendment as well, and it is to cover the same contingency. Here, we are dealing primarily with the type of inquiry to determine the area to be covered, and that is to be a public local inquiry. If that is the case, it follows that it will be open to the Press. All interested bodies can submit their case and they will get the fullest possible publicity. I cannot conceive that there would be many cases where the Minister would object to publication.
  When the hon. Member for Oswestry said that the person who holds the inquiry ought to be independent of the Minister, or otherwise the Minister would be a judge in his own cause, that indicated a complete misunderstanding of the functions of the Minister. The Minister will not inaugurate these schemes. It is the Commission which will initiate the proceedings which lead up to the consideration of the schemes. The Minister carries a detached responsibility to see that the schemes go through a certain procedure and are thoroughly examined, and that all local interested opinion has an oppor-

  1547
  tunity of putting its case. The Minister must satisfy himself that that is done, before he is prepared to put it in the form of an Order. Finally, if there is any dissatisfaction it can be raised here because the schemes must pass through special Parliamentary procedure. Therefore, as the whole of the proceedings of these inquiries are held in public, it may not be necessary, in many cases, to publish voluminous reports, but if there is a demand obviously the Minister could do it. I do not really think that there is any conflict between myself and Members opposite. In the vast majority of cases I feel that the concern in their minds will disappear. It is almost inevitable that events will follow the course they, and we, have in mind in the case of an inquiry of this kind. There may be occasions when it may not be desirable, or necessary, to make it compulsory upon the Minister to publish the report. I hope that with this explanation, hon. Members will agree t o the course which I suggest. I feel I have fully safeguarded the re, quirements of a public inquiry, and I think it is wise to discourage attempts to tie the Minister down to something of this nature.
  Mr Assheton: We have been sitting here tor nearly 20 hours, and I certainly do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I should like to take the opportunity, once again, of complaining about the great length of time during which the Government keep us up. Quite clearly, they have not given enough time to the consideration of the Lords Amendments and, as a consequence, we find ourselves, at 10 o'clock in the morning, dealing with an Amendment on a subject which this House has never discussed before on any stage of the Bill. That, in itself, is evidence of the fact that our discussions on this Bill have been grossly curtailed. I make no complaint of the way the Minister has treated the House. He has treated us extremely well. I make great complaint of the way in which the Government have treated the House. The Minister has been obliged to fall in with their decision.
  I appreciate all the Minister has said, and I believe that he intends that these

  Division No. 337.]

  AYES

  [10.8 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Balfour, A.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Barstow, P. G.

  inquiries should be conducted entirely fairly. We had expected that that would happen in the case of inquiries about town and country planning, but it has not worked out in that way. Therefore, we are rather suspicious. In view of the case which we on this side of the House have put forward, we shall have no alternative but to divide the House
  Mr. Baldwin: Recently, several of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been helping to pilot the Agriculture Bill through the House, and we have been faced with the same problem as that with which we are trying to deal here. If there is one thing against which we feel deeply, it is the appointment as an arbitrator, of an officer or servant of the Minister. There should be an independent arbitrator appointed to deal with any questions which have anything to do with the subject concerned, and I wish to add my protest against the tendency for arbitrators to be appointed by the Minister. It is only fair to say that English justice is regarded as the fairest in the world, and I hope that the tendency to which I have referred will not lower the prestige of English justice. I protest against this system by which Ministers of the Crown arbitrate in their own cases.
  Mr. Lambert: I would like to say a few words about local inquiries, because they cause a great deal of upset in the countryside. We have recently had one in Devonshire, in connection with the Town and Country Planning Act, to decide how much land the Army should take. The local inhabitants thought that it would take place locally, but it took place some distance away. At the inquiry, the military were allowed to state their case very fully, whereas the local inhabitants had a very Lard time, and the discontent was so great that one of the hon. Members for Plymouth has been goaded into taking action. We should be very careful about these local inquiries.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 60.

  Barton, C.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Popplewell, E.

  Beswick, F.

  Hewitson, Captain M.

  Porter, E (Warrington)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Price, M. Philips

  Binns, J.

  Holman, P.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Holmes, H. E, (Hemsworth)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Blyton, W. R.

  House, G.

  Randall, H. E.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hubbard, T.

  Ranger, J.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Richards, R.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Robens, A.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Irving, W. J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Janner, B.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Bruce, Major D. W. T.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Royle, C.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Sargood, R.

  Carmichael, James

  Jonas, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Champion, A. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Sharp, Granville

  Chater, D.

  Kenyon, C.

  Shurmer, P.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  King, E. M.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Kinley, J.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Collins, V. J.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. G.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Lang, G.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Lavers, S.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Leonard, W.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Stamford, W.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Stephen, C.

  Deer, G.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Logan, D. G.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Longden, F.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Diamond, J.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Swingler, S.

  Dobbie, W.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mack, J. D.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnel)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Dye, S.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Tiffany, S.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Timmons, J.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Tolley, L.

  Ewart, R.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Usborne, Henry

  Field, Captain W. J.

  Mathers, G.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Walker, G. H.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mikarde, Ian

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Gallacher, W.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Moyle, A.

  Watson, W. M.

  Gibbins, J.

  Murray, J. D.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Nally, W.

  West, D. G.

  Gilzean, A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Grierson, E.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Orbach, M.

  Willis, E.

  Guy, W. H.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Woods, G. S.

  Hall, W. G.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Pearson, A.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Peart, Thomas F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Haworth, J.

  Piratin, P.

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Davies.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Platts-Mills, J. P. F.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Davidson, Viscountes

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Digby, S. W.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Birch, Nigel

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hurd, A.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  1550

  1551

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Robinson, Wing-Cmdr. Roland

  While, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  York, C.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Smithers Sir W.

  Mutting, Anthony

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Osborne, C.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Major Conant and

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

  Amendment made in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to:
  In the words so restored to the Bill, in page 142, line 52, leave out "inquiries to be made," and insert:
  "in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto."
  In page 143, line r, leave out "result of the inquiries," and insert:
  "report of the person by whom the inquiry was held."—[Mr. Barnes.]
  Further Lords Amendments disagreed to: In page 143, line 3, insert:
  "(3) The person appointed to hold the inquiry shall make a report thereon in writing to the Minister, containing—

  (a) his findings and conclusions as well as the reasons therefor, upon all the material issues of fact, liability or discretion involved in the exercise of the functions in respect of which the inquiry has been caused to be held; and

  (b) his recommendations in regard to the exercise of the said functions;

  and copies of such report shall be made available on payment of a reasonable charge therefor, to the persons entitled to attend the inquiry. The Minister may, after considering such report, make the order either in the terms of the draft, or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit."
  In line 3 insert:
  "(3) The Commission shall appear at any such public local inquiry in favour of the scheme and any objector may appear and tender evidence Any person appearing in favour of the scheme or any objector appearing at the inquiry shall be subject to cross examination.
  (4) For the purpose of this Schedule the person appointed to hold such public local inquiry shall have the same powers as are granted to the Minister by Section twenty of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919 "—[Mr. Barnes.]
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].
  Mr. Barnes: I beg to move,
  "That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
  "That Mr. Assheton, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Ernest Davies, Mr. McLeavy, and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe be the Members of the Committee;
  "That three be the quorum."
  I think we can say that the Transport Bill discussion has now drawn peacefully to its close.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee to withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

MID-WEEK DOG RACING
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
10.20 a.m.
Mr. H. Hynd: As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary always conscientiously supports his colleagues on the Front Bench, however late the business lasts, but I feel rather guilty at keeping him away from an important engagement, and I want to express my gratitude to him for his consideration. I would not detain him if there were not widespread public interest in this matter of the ban on mid-week dog racing and a feeling that an injustice has been done. I have sufficient confidence in the Home Secretary to know that he would be the first to agree that it is never too late to remove an injustice. It was he himself who said, on 21st March, that this was not a measure which dealt one way or the other with the problem of betting, and he went on to say:
"I am very anxious that it should not be thought that greyhound racing has been singled out in any particular way because of the feelings which some people may have in regard to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1947; Vol. 435, c 810.]
The basis of the action that was taken against this particular sport or recreation, whatever one calls it, was its alleged effect on production. As regards that we must look at the position of other sports, pastimes and recreations. There is speedway racing, and according to an answer given by the Home Secretary on 3rd July, the total average attendance at five speedway racing meetings in London is 140,000 weekly. At Sheffield the attendance is 17,000 on Thursdays at a speedway racing track where previously, when there was mid-week greyhound racing on Friday, the attendance was 5,300. At Wembley, speedway racing attracts 65,000 against 10,000 who attended greyhound racing on the same evening at that track. At Wombwell, in South Yorkshire, there was the opening of a new speedway track, which was attended by Joe Baksi and others, and attracted 10,000 miners and their friends.
Horse racing goes on during the week and there are proposals that it should be extended We recently read in the Press about a record crowd at Hamilton Park,
1554
Glasgow, for a mid-week meeting. Lord Rosebery, the senior steward of the Jockey Club, suggested at Doncaster that horse race meetings might be considered in midweek if it would assist in encouraging local production. There is proof that that kind of thing would encourage and would not retard local production. We have seen recently in the Press suggestions for midweek football, and in the coming season we are to have mid-week matches for about the first two months of the season and the last two months. In other words, we are to have just as much mid-week football as we ever had. With regard to cricket the Home Secretary said, on 13th March:
"A four days' test match at Trent Bridge would probably concentrate into those four days a bigger attendance than would 10 days' racing at Nottingham."—[OFFICIAL REPOLT, 13th March, 1947; Vol. 434, C. 1499.]
With all these things going on, like ice hockey, boxing, tennis and other sports, I suggest there is no logical reason for discrimination against greyhound racing.
On 21st March the Home Secretary also said:
"If I find that the time has come when we need no longer ask those people who can rearrange their sports voluntarily to bring pressure to bear on their supporters to restrict their sports on Saturdays, then I think it would be incumbent upon me to make an order repealing the further administration of this Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21St March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 810.]
In view of the facts which I have jest stated, and which are within the knowledge of most hon. Members, I suggest that the time has come for a reconsideration, if not for a complete repeal, of this Act. The greyhound racing people did not oppose the introduction of the present Act on the distinct understanding that all other sports promoters were going to be placed on the same footing, and that their sports were to be restricted to Saturdays only. That has not been carried out, and, therefore, I suggest that the only fair thing to do is to put everybody on the same footing. The greyhound racing people acted very fairly and co-operatively in this matter. In fact, the Home Secretary paid a tribute in this House to their helpful attitude.
What is the alleged effect on production? The Home Secretary has indicated that certain regional boards of industry

1555
have reported against an order being made for greyhound racing in their districts. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary how many regional boards have reported in favour of it. I have information, which I think is correct, that at least two have reported in favour of orders being made, and that these orders have not been made for reasons which have been given to hon. Members in correspondence from my right hon. Friend.
To take a practical example, there is mid-week greyhound racing at Southampton, which, I think, can fairly be described as a busy industrial area. Can my right hon. Friend say whether production at Southampton has been retarded in consequence? I can tell him where production has been retarded. At Brighton and Southend he has allowed greyhound racing in mid-week, and my information is that many people travel from London to those places during the week in order to attend greyhound meetings there, and are thus losing far more time than they would do if they attended meetings in London. I could quote recommendations from Chambers of Commerce and others advocating an easement in regard to these orders. The Government's policy is to provide incentives to help production. I suggest that the allowing of mid-week greyhound racing would be such an incentive. I would like to quote what the Lord President of the Council, when Home Secretary, said in answer to a Question in this House during the war. He said:
"In the absence of evidence that afternoon greyhound race meetings have an adverse effect on production, there would appear to be no justification for the imposition of further restrictions on this form of entertainment."
I particularly want the House to note his following words:
"I do not think that hon. Members ought to confuse their objection to a particular form of entertainment with their views on absenteeism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December 1941; Vol. 376, C. 1666–7.]
I think it is clear that there has been discrimination in this matter. Its effect has been very serious for some tracks, particularly that of Halifax, where midweek meetings used to be held on a ground that is required for cricket on Saturdays. It means that they cannot
1556
hold meetings on Saturdays, and, therefore, cannot hold any meetings at all.
Whether hon. Members like it or not, greyhound racing is a widely supported form of entertainment. My case rests on the simple point of why there should be discrimination. In view of what I have said, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is prepared to use the powers which he has under the Act to repeal it entirely, in view of the breakdown of the arrangements for other sports, or, at any rate, to be more generous in issuing orders for special areas.
10.29 a.m.
Mr. Gammans: I would like to support my distinguished constituent, the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) in the plea which he has made. I am afraid that I have never been to a greyhound race meeting in my life, and, in fact, I do not know what they do there, except that gullible dogs chase after prefabricated rabbits. I think that the case made out by the hon. Member is one which the Home Secretary must answer. I base my support of it merely on general principles. What reason is there for differentiation against one sport? It may be that a case can be made out for stopping all sports in mid-week. If that is so, then stop them, but when racing, football, cricket, speedways and all the rest are allowed, the Home Secretary has to make out a much better case than he has made out up to now for this ban on greyhound racing, before he can continue the ban. I hope that he will be able to take off the ban altogether. If not, if he is to say that it is interfering with production, he has to show why this particular sport interferes with production when other sports do not.
10.31 a.m.
Mr. Mikardo: I do not want to pass any comment one way or the other on the case which my hon. Friend has made. I wish to refer to a point fundamental to Parliamentary democracy and the conduct of this House in connection with the method whereby the propaganda campaign in regard to this matter has been pursued. Hon. Members are familiar with the many ways in which constituents and others seek to represent

1557
to them their views on certain issues, and the right of constituents to do this, and their habit of doing so, is a valuable part of our democratic system. I fear that in this matter that valuable part of our democratic system has been subjected to abuse. When one receives letters from constituents who feel so strongly about a point that they sit down of their own volition and dash off a letter to their Member, one must be gratified and impressed by such action.
When one gets handwritten letters which all follow the same form—which has clearly been sent out—one feels that constituents cannot feel quite so strongly when they cannot make up their own letters. But when one receives printed postcards, obviously prepared in advance, and distributed by some organisation interested in the matter, so that all the sender has to do is to write his own name and address on one side, and that of his Member on the other, and for this small expenditure of trouble he has the effrontery—I say "effrontery" advisedly—to say to his Member "I now call upon you to be present in the House to support this when it is raised," that trade association is treating its supporters as being possessed of that same gullibility as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) ascribed to the dogs in greyhound races. Without commenting upon the case of my hon. Friend, I protest at these methods of propaganda being used by interested parties to endeavour to affect the decisions of this House.
10.33 a.m.
Mr. Logan: I trust that no attention will be paid by the House to such a protest as this being made in regard to the refusal to allow greyhound racing in the middle of the week. When I look round in the City of Liverpool at the recreation that can be given to men there, and the necessity for labour to be fully utilised at this critical time through which we are passing, the question of greyhound racing vanishes completely so far as I am concerned. When it is possible to get out on a Saturday afternoon, I think that is enough. Greyhound racing is a ramp of money-getting and plucking the public. I have only seen one meeting, but I notice
1558
any number, which take the money away from the fools who go there. Recreation is the greatest game of bluff on the boards today. [Interruption.] I would put horse-racing, the whole lot, on the one basis, but I do not intend to advocate that special attention should be giver to one activity to divert workers from their job. If absenteeism is likely to come, it is likely to do so where there is a chance of something for nothing, where bookies are "playing the game," and men are putting their money on something in the hope of making a few pounds. We have had enough of this kind of business. In every corner I see men congregating instead of being at work, and this kind of thing is going on. If they were as anxious to go to work as they are to go to greyhound racing, it would be an admirable thing for the country. I am just about fed up with it, and I hope this House will have nothing whatever to do with it at all. It is the greatest ramp in the country today.
10.35 a.m.
Mr. Piratin: I shall be only a minute or two, as I know the Home Secretary wants to reply. I do not believe the House will heed the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), who made no case whatever in the argument he presented in regard to workers who want to bet in the daytime. That is a fact with regard to horse racing, and not only dog racing, and it is carried on by street-corner bookmakers or on the telephone. That has nothing at all to do with dog racing. An important point—which was not elaborated by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) because he had to be so brief—is that the dog racing referred to is in the evenings. A number of letters which I have received—granted, some of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), which are, nevertheless, genuine—refer to the fact that there is no impingement whatever on the hours of work. In the summer, racing ended, I think, at about seven o'clock or half-past seven. I have not been to dog racing for many years. Many of those who go are, to use a colloquialism well known to themselves, "mugs." But that is as may be. If people want to go to see Hollywood films—which I do not like very much—

1559
while we allow them to be imported, I do not think this House is in a position to discriminate between one sport and another. I want to add my word of support for this plea, and I hope the Home Secretary will accede to the request made by my hon. Friend.
10.37 a.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): My hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) told me that if the Debate which has just concluded went on till 12.30, he did not propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment. Perhaps I ought to have asked him if he meant 12.30 a.m. or 12.30 p.m. But I make no complaint about that. I am an old hand at all-night Sittings; in fact, I rather enjoy them.
Mr. H. Hynd: I hope my right hon. Friend does not say that seriously. We have been in consultation throughout the night and during the morning, and, in fact, I offered to withdraw only about an hour ago.
Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that I had no offer of withdrawal an hour ago. What my hon. Friend said an hour ago was that he was sorry that he was keeping me from a Cabinet meeting. Let us be quite clear as to what discrimination there has had to be against greyhound racing. There is discrimination, because it is the only pastime which was previously regulated by legislation, and if anything was to be done with it, it was necessary to amend that legislation. Under the old legislation the greyhound people had io8 meetings a year. I amended the legislation so that they still have 108 meetings a year. That is better than anyone else who has approached this matter has done on this restriction of mid-week sport. The football people met me very well. They extended their season right up to 14th June so that they could move their league fixtures from mid-week to the weekends. They have asked permission in the coming winter season, during the very limited periods at the beginning and end of the season, to have a limited number of midweek matches, so that they shall not be compelled to run over the season, and thus interfere with other sports in the summer
1560
of 1948. That seemed to me to be a very reasonable compromise, and I have thanked them for the way in which they have endeavoured to meet me.
With regard to horse-racing, I never thought, as a native of Epsom, that I should be the first person who would arrange for the Derby to be run on a Saturday, but I saw the stewards of the Jockey Club and the members of the National Hunt Committee, and they agreed to shift the main racing fixtures from the middle of the week to the end of the week. We had the Grand National, the Chester Cup, the Manchester Cup, the Derby—and we shall have the St. Leger—on a Saturday. I was astonished when I got the figures for the mid-week attendances at the Chester Cup. One hundred and four thousand people attended the Chester Cup in 1946 in the middle of the week. I was at once met by the stewards of the Jockey Club and the members of the National Hunt Committee with every endeavour to meet the situation that I have described.
My hon. Friend asked me about the reports which I have received from the regional boards. On this question of greyhound racing, the Scottish Regional Board asked that there should be no exceptions to the rule that greyhound racing must be confined to Saturdays. The East and West Ridings said the same thing. The South-West Region made a general objection, and South Wales also made a general objection, adding, "No exceptions in colliery areas." When I have suggestions like that from the main industrial areas of the country, I do not think that I can afford to neglect them.
One of the reasons this legislation was passed, and why an endeavour has been made to secure elimination of mid-week sports generally, is the desire of the Government, which we are just managing to bring to a satisfactory position with regard to public opinion, to have staggered shifts during the week. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour came to the House only a day or two ago and announced the very severe action that the Government are going to take to ensure that that arrangement of industry shall be brought about. There is no doubt that greyhound racing in the evenings is a very considerable attraction to a large number of people who are engaged in productive industry. I was very careful when

1561
I introduced the Measure to the House to say that I was not singling out miners for absenteeism. The only thing about the mining industry is that a careful check on absenteeism has been kept for some years and we know weekly the number of absentees from the mines. We have no similar statistics with regard to any other industry in the country, but the reports I have given from the various regional boards will indicate to the House the view that they take of the impact of this particular form of recreation on production.
Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the Home Secretary say a word on this point? Where he has stopped greyhound racing in mid-week, and the ground is now being used by some other organisation for speedway racing, in what way is he encouraging production when the resulting crowd is bigger?
Mr. Ede: I will deal with speedways in a moment. I have given the House the reports from the various production councils, and the Government feel that the need for production and for the staggering of shifts is greater now than was the case when this legislation was passed. Other sports have been mentioned, speedway racing in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney came to me the other day with a deputation of greyhound racing people so that he should hear my case before he presented his views to the House. The question of speedway racing was mentioned by one member of that deputation, and I said that the report made to me was that the speedway racing crowd was a very different one from the crowd that goes to the other sports which have been mentioned, and is in fact—[Interruption.] Really, I listened quite attentively to hon. Members who have spoken and gave them as much time as I could, limiting my time so that they should have the fullest opportunity of putting their point of view. The speedway racing crowd is, in the main, a crowd of adolescents and of family parties, and when I said that to the deputation from the National Greyhound Racing Society who came to see me, accompanied by my hon. Friend and two other colleagues, they agreed. I do not say that the hon. Members agreed, but the members of the National Greyhound Racing Society said that it was so. They said the same criticism could not be applied to that crowd
1562
from the point of view from which I have approached this matter as could be applied to the crowd that goes to greyhound racing. I also have the evidence of the police who have the job of watching the assembly and the dispersal of these various crowds. Their report with regard to speedway racing and greyhound racing is the same as that which I put before the deputation, and which I understood was accepted.
Squadron-Leader Fleming: I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman, when dealing with this distinction between crowds, is referring to the case I put about Wembley, where mid-week there is greyhound racing and then it is tuned over to a speedway. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the crowd is different?
Mr. Ede: Yes, Wembley is the place with which I am most concerned. I sent a member of my staff to see that crowd as recently as that very wet Wednesday evening we had about a fortnight or a week ago. The report I had was that on that evening there was a very large and excited crowd, mainly of young people. The distinction between the excitement of speedway racing and the excitement of greyhound racing is that, as far as we can discover, there is no betting on speedway racing.
Mr. H. Hynd: Is tin right hon. Gentleman basing his case on betting?
Mr. Ede: No, I am not basing my case on betting, but it would not be fair of me to give other than the full information which I obtained. Let us he quite clear. Greyhound racing can take place every night in the week if there is no betting. If people want to see dog racing bat do not want to bet, they can have greyhound racing every night in the week. The dog race betting Act deals with that matter. It is entirely the question of betting which has brought it within the purview of legislation at all. I am assured by people who frequent greyhound racing tracks that hardly anybody goes there except to bet. The people who go 10 Epsom Downs to see the Derby, who do not bet but have a little family party on the Downs—that type of person is entirely absent from greyhound racing. That does not affect me in this matter, but it ought to be stated, and stated publicly. I do, not desire to prevent any sport from

1563
taking place all the while that it does not interfere with production and does not stand in the way of getting the necessary staggering of shifts, so that production can be stepped up as much as possible. Where I get a report from a production council and learn, after consultation with my colleagues who are engaged in the task of supervising production, that production will not be interfered with by the opening
1564
of a dog racing track for racing mid-week, I issue a permit for it.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November
Adjourned at Ten Minutes to Eleven o'Clock a.m.

  GERMANY (LAND REFORM SCHEME)
  GERMANY (LAND REFORM SCHEME)
GREECE
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Proposed Frontier Commission
  Proposed Frontier Commission
  British Forces
  British Forces
  AUSTRIAN MINERAL OIL RESOURCES
  AUSTRIAN MINERAL OIL RESOURCES
  FOREIGN COUNTRIES (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS)
  FOREIGN COUNTRIES (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS)
  INDONESIA (SITUATION)
  INDONESIA (SITUATION)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Special Rations (Farm Workers)
  Special Rations (Farm Workers)
  Pigs (Offal and Flare)
  Pigs (Offal and Flare)
KENYA
  Kipande System (Legislation)
  Kipande System (Legislation)
  Teachers' Training
  Teachers' Training
  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS)
  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS)
  POLITICAL OFFENDERS, CEYLON
  POLITICAL OFFENDERS, CEYLON
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, UGANDA
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, UGANDA
  NICOSIA PRISON, CYPRUS
  NICOSIA PRISON, CYPRUS
  HOMELESS FAMILIES, SINGAPORE
  HOMELESS FAMILIES, SINGAPORE
  CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES, HONG KONG
  CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES, HONG KONG
ROYAL NAVY
  Admiralty Charts (Terms)
  Admiralty Charts (Terms)
  Shipyard, Southwick
  Shipyard, Southwick
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  Gunnery School, Wembury
  Gunnery School, Wembury
POST OFFICE
  Collections and Deliveries
  Collections and Deliveries
  Dismissed Postmen, Glasgow
  Dismissed Postmen, Glasgow
  Telegraph Poles, Ulverston
  Telegraph Poles, Ulverston
  Postal Regulations Infringement (Penalty)
  Postal Regulations Infringement (Penalty)
  CLOTHING COUPONS (CHILDREN)
  CLOTHING COUPONS (CHILDREN)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Bomb Disposal (Transport)
  Bomb Disposal (Transport)
  Radar Equipment, Bolt Head
  Radar Equipment, Bolt Head
  Greece
  Greece
  Wireless Fitters
  Wireless Fitters
  Maintenance Depots
  Maintenance Depots
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Tinmining Equipment
  Tinmining Equipment
  Constellation Aircraft
  Constellation Aircraft
  Messrs. Short Brothers (Charter Flying)
  Messrs. Short Brothers (Charter Flying)
  TECHNICAL COLLEGES (CURRICULUM AND STUDENTS)
  TECHNICAL COLLEGES (CURRICULUM AND STUDENTS)
  SHIP REPAIRS AND REFITS (FOREIGN YARDS)
  SHIP REPAIRS AND REFITS (FOREIGN YARDS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Ango-Egyptian Financial Agreement
  Ango-Egyptian Financial Agreement
  Entertainments Duty (Amateur Societies)
  Entertainments Duty (Amateur Societies)
  LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT, ROCHFORD
  LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT, ROCHFORD
  COAL BOARD(MEDICAL STAFF)
  COAL BOARD(MEDICAL STAFF)
  SILICOSIS AND PNEUMOCONIOSIS
  SILICOSIS AND PNEUMOCONIOSIS
  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX)
  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Walpole—Took the Oath.

PRICE OF GRAPEFRUIT.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they are aware that whereas the price paid to the grower in Jamaica for a case of 72 lbs. of grapefruit amounts to only 5s., the retail selling price to the British public amounts to 48s. per case; whether it is a fact that the Ministry of Food's profit on this transaction approximates to 50 per cent., and whether in the opinion of His Majesty's Government this can be considered a fair and reasonable return in all the circumstances.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, supplies of grapefruit imported into the United Kingdom from Jamaica are purchased from the Jamaican Government on an f.o.b. basis, and His Majesty's Government have no information about the price received by the growers. The Ministry's selling prices to wholesalers are based on the average cost of supplies from all sources, not from Jamaica alone, and the noble Lord will appreciate that, apart from loss arising from wastage, there are many charges to be met between the f.o.b. point and the point of sale by the Ministry; for example, freight, handling charges, insurance, inland transportation, overheads and agency expenses. There are, of course, further charges arising between sale to the wholesaler and sale by the retailer.
It is not a fact that the Ministry of Food are making a profit on this com-
178
modity of anything like 50 per cent. Final figures in regard to current purchases are not yet available and while the precise figure for such profit clement as there may be cannot be stated, His Majesty's Government are satisfied that it is very reasonable in the circumstances. It should be borne in mind that on other citrus fruits the Ministry may incur some loss and it is the Ministry's practice to take account of the results of trading in citrus fruits as a whole.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Lord for his courtesy in the matter, is he not aware that I would not have asked this question had I not realized all these other costs which he has enumerated? is it not a fact that even taking freight, insurance, delivery and all the costs which he has mentioned, the price delivered to the Ministry of Food in this country is 23S. 4½d.? Is it not a fact that His Majesty's Government sell to the first-hand seller at 36s.? Therefore, is that not approximately 50 per cent. profit? How does that tally with the declarations of His Majesty's Government as to profits which should be charged by private individuals? May I ask His Majesty's Government why they will not give the benefit either to the grower in the hard-pressed West Indies or to the consumer? Is it that they wish to make this high profit to hide various losses which they are making owing to be inefficient buying oz other goods?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords I thought I stated quite definitely in my answer that the profit is nothing like 50 per cent., and I fail to understand why the noble Lord should base his supplementary on a statement which I have denied.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: I would not for a moment impute any ill-faith, but the noble Lord challenged rte. I have not been so foolish as to ask this question without knowing ail these costs which I am giving, and perhaps be will deny them. I say that the price delivered over here is 23s. 4½d., with all these costs added, and I say that they are selling to first-hand sellers at 36s. I beg to apologize if I have seemed to be offensive because I did not mean to be.
LORD HENDERSON: All I can say to my noble friend is that I will bring these

179
points to the attention of the Ministry. I am sure that the answer which I have given is based on the facts of the case.

INDIA OFFICE RECORDS.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they contemplate taking measures to secure for use in this country the important historical records now in the custody of the India Office.].
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am glad to give the noble Lord an assurance that we intend to retain in this country the historical records which are now in the custody of the India Office. These records cover the whole period of the British connexion with India, and are the essential material of the history of the East India Company and of the British Government in their dealings with their representatives in India. Though mainly, of course, concerned with India, they are not exclusively confined to that country. In addition to their importance as documents relating to matters of public administration, they contain much material relating to the lives of British individuals and families associated with India. It is obvious that these records should be available in this country for reference in the future.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer. I am sure it will be received with great relief by historical and other students who are interested in the use to be made of these records.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
INVERNESS BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

ELECTRICITY BILL.
2.40 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.]
Clause 26 [Control of dividends, interest and other payments]:
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to add to the clause:
"(11) The provisions of this section shall not apply to London Associated Electricity Undertakings Ltd., and notwithstanding anything in this section any company which is subject to the provisions of the London Electricity (No. r) Act, 1925, or the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925, shall be permitted to make such distribution of profits by way of dividend or otherwise as is permitted under the provisions of the said Acts, respectively."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment was very inadequately discussed in another place. Its object was misrepresented by the Government spokesman, and the Amendment was withdrawn without full explanation. I am most anxious that the matter should be made perfectly clear in your Lordships' House. The effect of the Amendment is perfectly clear; the object of it is what I have to explain. The effect is to omit companies which are working under the provisions of the London Electricity Acts, 1925, from the operation of Clause 26 of this Bill. Let me first remind your Lordships of the purpose of this clause. Clause 26 has been introduced into the Bill for the purpose of safeguarding the assets of those companies which will eventually pass to the new Electricity Authority, and to prevent their dissipation during the period which elapses between the publication of the intention of the Government to nationalize the industry, and the vesting date, when the assets will pass. It is, of course, a quite natural and proper clause to have introduced, because in the case of companies that are free to do what they like with their assets it would have been possible—I do not say it would have happened—for some undertakings in the meantime to have paid excessive dividends and to have used up their capital assets, in such a way that when the vesting date came the value of the assets which would pass would be considerably diminished. Clause 26, in order to prevent that, places on all these bodies up to the vesting date a restriction upon the dividends which they may pay, and upon the capital expenditure which they may incur, and so forth.
It may seem, therefore, that the object that I am seeking is that the London companies should be relieved of these restrictions, and that they, and they alone of all the undertakings, should be allowed to do these wicked things which Clause 26 says that they may not do. That was the sense in which it was interpreted by the Government spokesman in another place; and, of course, the Government were not willing to privileged position to that particular group of companies. I hope your Lordships know me well enough to believe that I would never come here and propose that a certain group of companies should be treated in a preferential manner, and should be given privileges and advantages not enjoyed by any other undertakings, merely because I happened to be connected with one of them. That is a thing I would never dream of doing. "Why then," your Lordships may ask, "are you proposing that these particular undertakings should be relieved from the operation of this clause?" My answer is this: because all the restrictions which are imposed under Clause 26 are already imposed on this particular group of companies by the Act of 1925.
They are, therefore, already in a special position, having restrictions imposed upon them by another Act of Parliament. In fact, this particular group of companies were nationalized in 1925, but in their case the vesting date was placed not six months ahead, but many years ahead, from 1931. Meanwhile sinking funds were established to write off the share capital of the companies, so that on the vesting date they would pass to the new authority without the payment of any compensation. They are in fact in precisely the same position which all other undertakings are under this Bill from the time that the Government's intention was announced until the vesting day.
Let me remind your Lordships what the actual restrictions of the 1925 Act are. That Act imposed a limitation of dividends, governed by a sliding scale of prices and dividends. In the case of this particular group of companies, that restriction is a very effective one. Other undertakings have provision for a sliding scale of prices and dividends which is not so effective, but in the case of this particular group that limitation is completely effective. Then the sums that may be carried to reserve cannot be carried for-
182
ward, and the companies are strictly controlled. There can be no substantial capital expenditure without the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the Electricity Commissioners will continue in existence until the vesting day. So no capital expenditure could be incurred by this company under the 1925 Act without the approval of the Commissioners. In the same way, the terms of issue of car ital are strictly controlled by the Electricity Commissioners and, as I have explained, in the year 1971 the whole of the undertakings will transfer into the possession of the Joint Electricity Authority for whose benefit all these assets are preserved, la the manner I have indicated, by the Act of 1925.
The Act of 1925 is not repealed by this Bill; it remains in existence. It will, of course, be superseded by the Bill after the vesting date, but all that this Amendment asks is that until the vesting date those companies should be left under the statutory control which already exists and they should not have imposed upon them double control by a second Act of Parliament. It would seem to me wholly unnecessary, illogical, and indefensible to pick out a particular group of electricity undertakings and place them under the control of two separate Acts of Parliament in respect of precisely the same matters. That is why I am moving this Amendment, not that these companies should have any privileged position or be relieved of any of the restrictions which Clause 26 imposes, but merely that they should .3e left under the control of the Act under which they have been operating, and will continue to operate, until the vesting date.
Lastly, London Associated Electricity Undertakings Limited, is specifically mentioned because it is not a company subject to the Act of 1925; it is a holding company; but it is a holding company which does not itself operate and only holds the shares of a number of companies that do operate under the Act of 1925 which are, therefore, subject to the restrictions of the Act of 1925, and which can pay no dividend in favour of London Associated Electricity Undertakings Limited, except under the limitation of that Act. There is no need, therefore, to impose any further limitation in respect of dividends which may be declared by that company. I hope I have made the position clear as to my reasons

183
for moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pane 12, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl of Lytton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Viscount Jowitt): Anybody who knows the noble Earl—and which of us in this House does not?—would know that he would never be actuated in moving any Amendment by any sort of desire to benefit any company in which he personally is interested. He has made quite plain what his motive is. The principle on which he bases his Amendment is this: Here are a number of companies already subject to some control and, in that they are already subject to some control, there is no need to exempt them from this further control. That is the principle of his Amendment. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment because it does seem to me that it would have, and it is intended to have, the effect of exempting these companies from the control of Clause 26. If the noble Earl comes to look at it, it is rather an odd reason, as it seems to me,, to exempt them from the control of this clause of this Bill, in that they are already subject to some limitation to which the ordinary company is not subject. The ordinary company might very naturally, I think, raise a great criticism of this control. and how should we stand if we said: "Well, you who have not been subject to this rigorous control before must now be controlled, but these people who have been subject to some control can get off this clause"? Quite frankly, I do not think we can do it; I think it would be invidious if we did it, and I think that the actual form in which this Amendment is drawn, referring specifically to some particular company, would get very near to bringing us into a hybrid Bill.
The long and short of the matter is this: I understand that London Associated Electricity Holdings Limited, which is not itself, as the noble Earl told us, controlled by the 1925 Act, is a holding company which owns various companies—it owns one at any rate: I think it is the Central London Company, which is controlled by the 1925 Act. The actual dividends paid in respect of the year 1945 as regards the London Companes were as follows:—London Power paid 6 per cent.; London Electric Supply paid 6 per cent.; Central
184
London—one which in particular the London Associated Electricity Undertakings Limited owns—paid 7 per cent.; City of London paid 7 per cent.; South London paid 7 per cent.; South Metropolitan paid 7 per cent.; Notting Hill nil; Metesco paid 9 per cent. and County of London paid 10 per cent. Metesco and County of London both operate outside as well as inside London and are restricted in relation to their London operations only; that is what I am told.
The scheme of this Bill in this clause which we are discussing is that this company for its final notional dividend may pay 4 per cent.—I am paraphrasing the words—or the last dividend, whichever is the greater; I think that is a fair way of putting it. If we were to exempt this particular group of companies from the operation of the clause, I am quite certain that other companies would feel they had a grievance. They would think it unfair that these companies should be exempted and, if I said: "Well, you see, the reason is that these companies are already under some measure of control," they would think that that made the position even worse because, after all, if you are going to control the payment of dividends, there is more justification for doing it in the case of a company which is already under some control than in the case of a company which is as free as the wind. Consequently, from that point of view, I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. We think that this would create a criticism and would create an invidious distinction between the London companies and other companies. For those reasons, and for those reasons only, I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble and learned Viscount has really not made an answer to this case. He said that this Amendment would be invidious, that it would set up a distinction; but the whole point of my case is that this particular group of companies is to-day subject to precisely the same restrictions as will be imposed upon the other companies and for precisely the same reasons—namely, that they are awaiting their vesting date and they are operating subject to an Act of Parliament which was passed in order to protect those assets in favour of the beneficiary to whom they will pass. That is precisely the object of Clause 26 which

185
is applicable to companies which had not hitherto been threatened with nationalization until the moment of the Government announcement. From the moment that the Government announced that the industry would be nationalized, those industries, of course, became for the first time in the same position as the London companies have been in since 1925. All that I am asking the Government to do is to place these companies in the same position with regard to their assets as we were in when the intention to nationalize this group of companies was announced in 1945 and not to place us under two different Acts of Parliament in respect of precisely the same matters of precisely the same character. There is nothing invidious in the distinction between them at all. If there is anything invidious, it is in selecting a particular group of companies for different treatment from that applied to all the others.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
Final payment of dividends and interest
(3) The stockholders' representative shall apply the sums paid to him under the foregoing provisions of this section (so far as they will go) for the following purposes and in the following order of priority:—
(a) in making interest payments on any debentures or debenture stock of the body, which have accrued up to the vesting date and have not been paid, at the rates permitted under the last foregoing section;
(5) Where the sums paid to the stockholders' representative under the foregoing provisions of this section are insufficient to enable him

(a) to make the interest payments referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section at the maximum rates permitted under the last foregoing section; and

(b) to distribute to the holders of the securities referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection gross amounts equal to payments of interest or dividend on those securities at the maximum rates so permitted;

and the body possessed immediately before the vesting date reserves applicable for the purpose of maintaining payments of interest and equalising rates of dividend, the Central Authority shall, if the Minister authorises them to do so, pay to the stockholders' representative an additional amount equal to the total amount of the said reserves so possessed or to the total amount of the said deficiency, whichever is the less, and the stockholders' representative shall apply that amount in like manner as the other sums paid to him under this section.
(12) In this section the expression "final financial period" means such part of the financial year during which the vesting date to occurs as precedes that date:
Provided that, in the case of a body whose financial year ends on the date immediately preceding the vesting date, the said expression means the whole of the financial year immediately preceding that date.
3.2 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (3), to insert as a. new paragraph:
"(b) in pitying such sums if any as may be authorised by the body in general muting to be paid to any person as compensation for the loss of office or employment under the body or in recognition of past services to the body."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is linked with a similar Amendment which we put down to Clause 29 of the Bill, but it is different in two respects. The object of the Amendment is to provide compensation or recognition to persons for loss of office out of the financial revenue to be distributed by the stockholders' representative. The Amendment which was linked with this Amendment, and which is to be moved in Clause 29, is different in two respects: first, because the Amendment in Clause 29 deals with ex gratia payments before the vesting date, whilst this Amendment deals with similar payments after the vesting date; and, secondly, because the Amendment under Clause 29 deals only with payments to officers as defined in the definition clause of this Bill. This Amendment is wider; it deals with persons who would include not only officers, as defined in the Bill, employees and managing directors but also other directors.
I would like to deal first of all with the employees. I do not think that the number of cases where the employees would have to be compensated or have payments made to them under this Amendment would be great, because I think that any payments which had to be made would be met under the subsequent Amendment to Clause 29, of which I have spoken. There are, of course, a number of cases, which are not provided for in the Bill al: the present time—of employees who retire before the vesting date who are not on any approved pension scheme or anything else. The custom with many companies has been that these people are given a lump sum, either in recognition of their services, or in he form of a pension, or both; at the

187
moment, the companies can do that only by exposing themselves to all the penalities that attach to Clause 29. However, this other Amendment, which I would like to refer to again later, deals With that set-up and, as I say, I think most of the payments to employees under this particular Amendment would be dealt with before the vesting date under the subsequent Amendment. Of course, there might be cases where that had not been done, where nothing had been paid, or where there had been some mistake, or it had been overlooked. This Amendment would enable the stockholders' representative in such cases to make ex gratia payments to employees. So much for the employees' side.
Obviously the main purpose of this Amendment is to do something for directors. Under the Bill the only directors who are eligible for any form of compensation or recognition for loss of office are directors who are dealt with as officers under the Bill, that is to say managing directors, or directors whose functions are substantially those of employees. Even those categories are not really altogether protected in the Bill because, as I read it, in the case of a director who was substantially an employee, for example, but who did not work full time for any one company, he would be eliminated from compensation under subsection (1) of Clause 55. But nothing is being done for all the other directors. It is not my purpose this afternoon to contend that all directors who lose their jobs without compensation or recognition will suffer great hardship on this account. I am not going to pretend that for a moment. I think probably a great majority of them will not, although I think it would have been a gracious gesture on the part of the Minister if he had made some provision—which I submit this Amendment does—whereby shareholders might show their recognition of the very considerable services that these men have rendered for years in this industry.
However, that is not my purpose. I think most of those directors are quite capable of looking after themselves, despite anything the Minister can do about it; but there are some cases, I suggest, where that is not the case, and where genuine hardship will be caused. Let me take the case of one of the old employees of the company—and there are a great
188
many cases like this—who, when he retires, is taken on to the board. He may or may not get a pension, but he is taken on to the board because he does not want to leave the company, and because the company are very glad to have him on the board. He may have been the head of one of their departments. There are quite a number of cases of this kind where such a director, who does not come in the class of directors who get any kind of compensation, is deprived of any compensation for losing this directorship which had been given to him. Perhaps, instead of a larger pension, they might have said: "We will give you a pension, and a seat on the board," or they might have given him a pension and no seat on the board, or they might have given him no pension and a seat on the board. I submit that those men do definitely suffer hardship under this Bill.
There is another case, which is the case of a director who is a technician, perhaps a consultant who gives particular advice. Perhaps he started in that way with a number of companies and, as a result, is taken on to the boards of a number of different electricity companies. He does not work full time for any single company, but the whole of his life has been given to different electricity companies. That man, if he loses all his directorships, as he will do under this Bill—he is not whole time with one company but does an extremely good job of work—will receive nothing, and I submit that again hardship is being caused by the provisions of this Bill. It is primarily because I believe there are genuine cases of hardship, and probably many cases of hardship, but even if there were only one case there is justification for an Amendment of this kind, and it is for this kind of case that I am moving the Amendment. One may ask: "Why has nothing been done for such cases?" I do not know. The only reason I can think of is that the Minister is allergic to the directors of electricity companies, judging by his utterances in and out of Parliament. I do not know the reason for his attitude. It may be because the directors have stood up to him and opposed nationalization. It may be that it is some deep organic antipathy which the Minister has—I mean, dogs do not like cats, bulls do not like red rags, and the Minister does not appear to like the directors of electricity companies. I do not know what it is, but

189
it is perfectly plain that, despite the fact that this has been raised on a number of occasions in another place, he is absolutely determined to do nothing for any director, whatever the circumstances, unless he happens to fall into these two categories.
I would like to quote what the Minister said in this connexion. It appears in the Official Report for June 24, at column 300.
"If there were an amalgamation of electricity undertakings or, as sometimes occurs, absorption of one undertaking by another, does one expect the part-time directors of the absorbed undertaking to be compensated by the major undertaking? If they are, on what basis are they compensated?"
All I can say is that the Minister does not seem to have any very good idea of how his Department works. I am rather astonished at this, because I have in my hand Statutory Rule and Order 2153, issued by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the object of which was to amalgamate the Sheffield and District Gas Company with an undertaking called the Worsborough undertaking. If your Lordships care to examine this document, you will find on page II that all directors, quite regardless of whether they are full-time or part-time, were fully compensated under this Order. And what is more, they got compensation on the basis of seven years purchase of their office. I have also in my hand another Order, No. 2212 of 1946, which deals with a similar. case, that of the Carmarthen Gas Company which was acquiring another concern. Here, also, the directors were compensated.
There is therefore no principle against compensation of directors that I can see. In fact, the Minister himself, on previous occasions seems to have done it. I have only found two instances up to date, but no doubt if I went through the files of the Ministry I could find a great many more. I submit that the precedents which I have produced would be sufficient for me to ask for a great deal more than I am in fact asking for. I claim that there are cases of hardship in this connexion, which should be dealt with, and I consider that it would be only fair and reasonable if the shareholders were allowed to do in such cases what I am certain they would have done out of common fairness and generosity but for the provisions of the Bill. I am not
190
asking that they should dissipate capital assets. It is revenue we are dealing with, and not even a full year's revenue, but revenue for the final period, which may be only a matter of three months. So it would not be a great loss, in any case, to the Central Authority. I submit that, in the circumstances, there is a very good case for an Amendment of this kind. It does not dissipate assets; it merely enables shareholders, in those cases where it seems proper to them, to do what I am convinced they would do but for the passing of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 41, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD CHORLEY: I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord who has moved it has explained that he is really not asking for very much, hut, in fact, the Amendment which he has tabled would enable every company which is. concerned to hold a general meeting before the vesting date, and the shareholders could then be invited to make awards to the sort of persons who are covered by the Amendment, and who are a very wide class of people, as the noble Lord appreciates. If that were done, the stockholders' representative would have no alternative but to pay those sums to the person concerned. The noble Lord has made some remarks, which are, perhaps, rather exaggerated about the Minister's inhibition regarding directors. He has also referred to some Gas Orders in which some compensation to directors was provided for. He has deduced from that that there is no principle against compensating directors. On that he is perfectly right. Not only is there no principle against compensating directors, but a very important clause of the Bill, Clause 55—which we shall come to in due course—is concerned with nothing more nor less than "Compensation to officers in connection with transfers." Of course, the noble Lord's case is not in regard to granting compensation to what are called whole-time directors. What he is anxious to obtain is compensation for the type of director who is called a part-time director.
LORD LLOYD: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him? I would

191
just like to get that perfectly clear. I have not sought to make a case for all part-time directors. The case I am trying to make is for those part-time directors who will certainly undergo hardship as a result of this Bill. I believe that there are quite a number of such cases. I also suggested that in view of the fact that this was to come out of revenue, strictly speaking (and that is a very material point), I do not see that it really belongs to the Government until the vesting date. It is revenue not capital assets. But, as I say, my main contention was that it should be for those directors who suffer hardship.
LORD CHORLEY: I am always ready to give way to any noble Lord, and if the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, wishes to make a speech in reply, I would be very glad indeed for him to do so.
LORD LLOYD: I apologize to the noble Lord for interrupting at such length.
LORD CHORLEY: I am glad that the noble Lord has made it clear that it is only a limited section of directors who are covered by this particular Amendment. I gather that he is satisfied with the arrangements which are provided for the main mass of the whole-time working directors and others who are concerned. The noble Lord is, I am sure, aware that the Government have, from the first and right along, set their faces against the provision of compensation for part-time directors—the sort of directors who hold directorships here and there in a considerable number of concerns. In connexion with this Bill, the Government are taking up exactly the same attitude as they have taken up in respect of other Bills which have already been discussed hi this House. It is true that there may be a number of hard cases as a result of this. Indeed the Bill makes provision under Clause 29 (1) (iii) that the Minister may agree to payment. That is a clause which deals with the re-opening of transactions resulting in dissipation of assets. There are various safeguards provided in the proviso to subsection (1) of the clause among which is one under which the Minister may, so to speak, confirm, whether before or after the event, the making of a payment.
192
Obviously, a number of the cases of the type which the noble Lord has put forward would be covered by this proviso. Let us take the case of the technical man who had put in a lot of work and had been rewarded with a part time directorship. Clearly, a good case might be made out in the circumstances for a man of that kind, and if a reasonable sum were suggested as compensation for him there is no earthly reason why that suggestion should not be put up to the Minister. I have not the slightest doubt that, if it were a reasonable case, the action would be confirmed if it had already been carried through or, if it were still only a proposal, no doubt the Minister would be prepared to give it his sanction. So, if it is just a question of dealing with genuine hard cases there will be no difficulty about that. The Amendment, however, would cover the case of every part-time director, whether he had a case or not, and is drafted in such wide terms that obviously the Government cannot accept it.
LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and apologize again, because I did not mean to make a speech, only to make my point clear. I am grateful for the assurance about Clause 29. I must confess that I did not read the clause to mean quite that and I had not considered that such cases could be dealt with under this clause. I am not going to press my Amendment, but I would like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government could not make assurance doubly sure and put in "with the consent of the Minister." I believe that that would go a long way towards meeting my point. I do not know whether the noble Lord could put those words in the Bill. If not, I must accept his assurance, which I do readily, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I ask the noble Lord to deal with two points in his reply? Did I understand the noble Lord to say that Clause 55 included in its scope directors of companies? I rather understood that, but I am not quite certain. And could the noble Lord enlighten us on the exact point of difference between the position of electricity directors and that of gas directors?
LORD CHORLEY: With regard to the first point, certainly the word "officer" in Clause 55 does cover the particular

193
type of director to whom I refer. With regard to the point raised under Gas Orders, I am afraid that without a chance of looking at them I cannot deal with them. It was not at all clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, whether they were part-time directors or not. I shall have to look into that before making an answer satisfactory to the noble Viscount. My noble and learned friend has drawn my attention to the fact that the term "officer" is defined in the interpretation clause as including "a managing director and a director whose functions are substantially those of an employee but not any other director, and also includes a servant."
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: But not a part-time director.
LORD CHORLEY: Certainly not a part-time director.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not quite sure about this. I understand the assurance, which seems a reasonable one, to mean that whole-time directors ought to be treated as officers, and there we are on common ground. I do not think that every director should be entitled to compensation; on the other hand there may be special cases. I understand the noble Lord to say that although they did not come into the definition of "officer" under Clause 55, if there were a case of hardship, some compensation could be paid out of these funds with the Minister's approval.
LORD CHORLEY: That is right, under Clause 29.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And that would be covered without putting in the provision, "with the Minister's approval." In fact the undertaking given would suggest that the Minister's approval is already in under Clause 29. I am very much obliged.
LORD LLOYD: In view of the noble Lord's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.24 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "reserves applicable for the purpose of maintaining payments of interest and equalizing rates of dividend, the Central Authority shall, if the Minister
194
authorizes them to do so, pay to the stockholders' representative an additional amount equal to the total amount of the said reserves" and insert:
"funds properly applicable for the purpose payments of interest or of dividend, the Central pay to the stockholders' additional amount equal to of the said funds."
The noble Lord said: On Clause 26 I moved an Amendment to allow companies before vesting date to make up dividends to the maximum rate permitted from funds properly applicable to such purposes without any recourse for permission to the Minister. I withdrew the Amendment on the assurance that the Government agreed with my sentiments and would put something in on Report stage. We now come in Clause 27 to the next stage. After the vesting date the company has disappeared, and the shareholders' representative has to disburse for the final period the appropriate dividend. Here I am proposing that the Central Authority should hand over to him sufficient funds, if they are available and properly applicable, to pay a dividend at the maximum rate and that he show d do so without having to ask the permission of the Minister, which seems to me unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("so") in line 6 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hawke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I said about a similar Amendment is on record. I have not looked it up but my recollection is fairly plain. I said this: I have not at the present moment authority to dispense with the approval of the Minister, but if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment I would see if I could get the authority. I think that is the position and the noble Lord must not put it one stage further, that this represents the considered view of the Government. If I remember rightly, I agreed that if he withdrew his Amendment I would be his advocate in trying to get the authority which I did not then have. I think the same thing applies here. If he accepted it in that case, I think he ought to accept it in this case. But it must be quite plain that I have not the authority at the present time. All I can hold out is the hope that I shall obtain authority, and I will do the

195
best I can to get it. If the noble Lord will treat this as he treated the last Amendment, I will deal with it on the same basis.
LORD HAWKE: I apologize for having overstretched the promise. I have not looked up the noble and learned Viscount's exact words; they have not been printed yet, and my imagination supplied the rest. I withdraw my Amendment on precisely the same conditions as the one on Clause 26.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: The next two Amendments are consequential on the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 2, leave out ("reserves") and insert ("funds").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 6, leave out ("reserves") and insert ("funds").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: The purport of these Amendments I explained yesterday in moving an Amendment to Clause 17. There are two that go together. The object is to make rather more efficient the machinery for the provision of funds for paying the final dividend. These provisions are really consequential on the Amendment which the Committee accepted yesterday. I feel that these should be accepted too, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—.
Page 45, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert:
("(a) there shall be ascertained and certified as soon as possible after the vesting date by an auditor appointed by the Minister the net revenue of the company for the final financial period.").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is consequential and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 17, after ("ascertained") insert ("and certified by the said auditor").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: The same applies to this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, leave out lines 27 to 34 and insert:
"(c) the said net revenue shall not, except to the extent (if any) to which it exceeds the amount ascertained and certified under paragraph (b) hereof, be subject to apportionment as between the company and the Electricity Board concerned under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the apportionment of the cash and investments of composite companies.
The provisions of subsection (1) of this section relating to the appointment of an auditor, except the requirement as to consultation with the stockholders' representative, shall apply to an auditor appointed under this subsection and there shall be paid to the auditor by the Central Authority such remuneration (whether by way of salary or fees) and such allowances as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury determine."—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (12), to leave out all words after "Provided that," and insert:
"where any body has not made the payments permitted under Section twenty-six of this Act in respect of the last complete financial year before the vesting date the said expression means that year together with such part of the financial year during which the vesting date occurs as precedes the vesting date."
The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment is really parallel to an Amendment which has been moved to fix the vesting date as not earlier than April 1. I do not wish to go further than that. I think the noble and learned Viscount said that he would accept this Amendment at the same time as he accepted the other. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 38, leave out from ("that") to end of line 41 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am very glad to confirm what the noble Lord has said. We do accept this Amendment. We would, however, like to make a small alteration, which I am sure the noble Lord will accept. We propose to insert after the word "payments" in the second line of the Marshalled List the words "of interest or dividend," which makes the matter more complete. If the noble Lord will accept that, we shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
LORD LLOYD: I shall be very glad to accept that suggestion, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the original Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLOYD: I beg to move the Amendment in its new form.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 38, leave out from ("that") to end of line 41, and insert ("where any body has not made the payments of interest or dividend permitted under Section twenty-six of this Act in respect of the last complete financial year before the vesting date the said expression means that year together with such part of the financial year during which the vesting date occurs as precedes the vesting date").—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
3 33 p.m.
Clause 28 [Income Tax provisions]:
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved to leave out Clause 28. The noble Lord said: My Amendment is to leave out Clause 28. I think from the expression on the noble and learned Viscount's face that he anticipates the reason for the Amendment. It has fallen to my lot on one or two Bills to pick out gems of obscurity in drafting. My first and best was in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, and we shared that pleasant pastime on the Companies Act. This one falls in the same category as that of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. In other words, I am sure we should all like to have Clause 28 in, if we knew what this Clause 28 meant. By and large, I am afraid I do not understand any of it. In addition to its obscurities, there is at least one statement in the clause which, so far as I am concerned, is very surprising. Subsection (1) of Clause 28 says that "this section shall be construed as one with the Income Tax Acts." The end of subsection (2) refers to certain payments that are ordered to be made in Clause 27—which in itself is not a model of clarity—and then there is the rather surprising statement that after the payments referred to in Clause 27 have been made, and Income Tax deducted, the balance, I think it is, "notwithstanding anything in the Income Tax Acts," shall be paid over to the Central Authority.
Clause 27, if I read it aright, says that as soon as possible after the vesting date, there shall be ascertained by an auditor,
198
"(a) the net revenue of the body for the final financial period;
(b) the total gross amount paid by the body by way of interest or interim dividend on any securities in respect of the final financial period."
Having ascertained that, the stockholders' representative shall pay the sum he receives in money interest payments, debentures, etc., in money distributions as described later on, and in paying the balance, if any, to the Central Authority. Clause 28 says that the amounts "shall, notwithstanding anything in the Income. Tax Acts, be paid over to the Central Authority for their own use and benefit." Do I understand from that that the Central Authority gets a gross payment without deduction of tax, instead of the balance which is due to be deducted for tax being paid to the Inland Revenue in the usual course of events? If so, why?
The next point which I cannot fathom at all—no doubt the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply will have a ready explanation—is subsection (3) of Clause 28. There is a small passage about half way down page 46 which is first-class as a model of obscurity; in fact, it is almost worthy of being put is that catalogue or collection of classes to which I referred on another occasion. Subsection (3) says:
"(a) If the payments of any interest of money, annuity or other annual payment charged with tax under Schedule D made by a body to whom this Part of this Act applies … together exceed—the total income of the body … plus (ii) the total of the assessments…."
then
"the said rule 21 shall have effect as if a payment of a gross amount equal to the excess had been made by the Central Authority, as if that payment were a payment of interest of money charged with tax under Schedule D not payable out of profits or gains …."
What does that mean? It is really in order to obtain elucidation, which I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will be able to provide immediately, that I have moved to omit Clause 28. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 28.—(Lord Rennell.)
LORD HAWKE: In supporting my noble friend Lord Rennell in this Amendment, I would say that I regard this as a great test of the versatility of our Civil Service. We all know that we

199
must have men who can master these difficult subjects, and possibly for certain reasons enwrap them in this difficult language. But they should be sufficiently versatile to be able to brief the Government Ministers who have to answer questions as to what they really mean. If I can understand the noble and learned Viscount's explanation in due course, I think it will be a great tribute to the versatility of that Service.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not mind at all explaining this matter. The only thing I object to is this. Of all the men in this House who understand it, or who could understand it if he troubled to read it, the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, comes first. He takes a kind of sadistic joy, as we pass from one Bill to another, in making me explain the complications of the Income Tax Acts. I must confess that I have had considerable experience in regard to the Income Tax Acts and, aided by the Civil Service, about which we have heard, I venture to tell your Lordships that I do not think this is really very difficult. May we start with the ordinary case of a company? A company pays Income Tax upon its profits. It pays dividends to its shareholders. It deducts from the dividends which it pays to its shareholders Income Tax at the appropriate rate. It therefore has the aggregate of the sums it has deducted in its own hands. So long as it is a body it can stick to that sum of money which has borne tax. That is the ordinary and simple case that every child understands.
The complication here is this. You are dealing with the final period of the final dividend. If the company had remained in existence this situation would have prevailed. But the company is brought to an end, and what is being dealt with here is not notionally a sum of money derived out of profits, but a sum of money dealt with by the Bill. The position is this. Under Clause 27 a sum of money has to be paid to the stockholders' representative. I am speaking from memory, but I think with sufficient accuracy if I say that to arrive at that sum of money you first of all ascertain what is the net revenue of the company. You then deduct from that the gross dividends and interest they have paid during the year of office. I
200
will call the first a and the second b. You then pay over to the stockholders' representative a minus b. Observe what that sum of money is. It is a statutory sum. It is not the ordinary case of a sum derived from profits, and unless you specially provide that that sum should be treated as what it really is—namely, a sum which is derived out of the profits of the company, which bears tax or has borne tax, you get into this trouble. That is what you pay over to the stockholders' representative. I am firmly convinced that the difficulty in regard to Income Tax legislation is due to the fact that we will not use algebraical symbols. It is extraordinarily difficult to express unless you do use algebraical symbols, and you have to do it by this verbosity of language.
Having paid over a minus b he then has to pay, not, be it observed, the dividend with all the consequences of paying the dividend, but such a sum as is equivalent to the last dividend. Now you have a minus b minus the payments which he has made. In making those payments he is told to deduct tax just as he would deduct it if he were a company paying a dividend. The whole complication arises from the fact that this clause is notionally placing him in the position of a company paying a dividend, whereas in fact he is paying a statutory sum and he is told he is to deduct tax. Now presumably be has something left in his hands. He has to hand to the Central Authority the balance which he has in his hands after making these payments. In the ordinary course, if you did not have any special provision, that sum would be paid to the Revenue because they are paying sums to people and making deductions; the money out of which you make those payments has not borne tax and you have to hand over that money to the Revenue. In this case the money is to be handed over to the Central Authority. But do not let it be thought that the Central Authority get any of this money, because the Central Authority themselves have to pay tax, and so this money goes to the Central Authority as one of the receipts upon which they have to pay tax.
That is the position explained very simply. I think the whole complication arises from the fact that, instead of having a simple payment of a dividend, with

201
the consequences about which we all know, you have what is equivalent to the payment of a dividend, but unless you specially provide for it in this clause you would get very different results. Therefore, we provide in this Bill that all the moneys paid shall be treated as though you are paying a dividend out of profits which have paid tax. In those circumstances, you hand back the balance to the Central Authority, who now stand in the shoes of the old company. That, simply explained, is the position under this clause, and I hope that I have been able to make it plain to your Lordships. If your Lordships want a more detailed, snore accurate and more elaborate explanation. I will gladly read out to your Lordships that which the civil servants have given me.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is it not delightful and simple when you know how it is done! I once had the privilege of meeting Einstein and, although I did not understand a word he said, I felt it was all crystal clear. I am deeply indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for this explanation which even I was more or less able to follow. As during the Recess he will obviously not have much to occupy him I suggest—assuming that we are to have a further legislative programme in the King's Speech—that he might take these simple clauses in future Bills and translate them into basic English and simpler mathematics.
LORD RENNELL: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and I think I have understood what he said. But if he will bear with me for a moment there is a very small point which I think is germane. The moneys which the stockholder is to get have been derived from the profits, if any, of the company during the year prior to vesting. In the normal course of events they are all taxable if they are profits, and the dividend is distributed after deduction of tax because the profits have already paid tax. If that is so, and the stockholders have received their dividend with tax deducted because the company has paid tax on its operations, why should not the Central Authority receive what is left over, tax deducted, instead of receiving it en bloc and then paying tax itself?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They will. If I understand it aright, the Central
202
Authority will receive everything which the stockholders' representative has in his hands after he has made this distribution and he pays the whole. thing lock, stock and barrel over to the Central Authority. When they come to deal with the Inland Revenue they will have credit for the fact that part of this money has already borne tax.
LORD RENNELL: In ether words the Central Authority will receive the net amount and it will not have been grossed up before it is paid to the Central Authority. Frankly that is not the way I read subsection (2), hut I am sure that is right. The only other thing I have to say—and I do not wish to press the point—is that I view with a certain amount of misgiving and horror the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount to modify the Income Tax legislation by the introduction of algebraical formulae. No doubt it will be very much more comprehensible to him, but I rather wonder whether it would be made any more lucid to the other unfortunate payers of Income Tax. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: As a matter of fairness, I should like to say that I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that this clause might be understandable by anybody who can understand arithmetic if letters such as a, b, c, and even x were occasionally introduced. In other respects I only want to say that I congratulate the noble and learned Viscount upon his explanation of this very difficult clause, although I do think, having heard his explanation, that the clause itself might have benefited if what we now know is its true meaning were made clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Re-opening of transactions resulting in dissipation of assets.
29.—(1) This section shall apply in any case where on or after the tenth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, anybody to which this Part of this Act applies, being a company, have—
(a) made any payment to any person without consideration or for an inadequate consideration:
and the payment, sale, disposal, acquisition. agreement or variation thereof, or other transaction was not reasonably necessary for the

203
purposes of the body or was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the body:
Provided that this section shall not apply:

(i) to any payment or other transaction to which Section twenty-six of this Act applies;

(ii) to any payment or other transaction made or entered into for any charitable purpose; or

(2) The Central Authority may, at any time before the expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with the vesting date, make an application to the arbitration tribunal in respect of any transaction to which this section applies, and all parties to the transaction, and all persons who were directors of the body at the date when the transaction was entered into shall be made parties to the application.
(3) Where the arbitration tribunal is satisfied that the transaction in respect of which an application is made is a transaction to which this section applies, then, unless it is shown by any of the parties to the application that the transaction was in the ordinary course of business and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act or with any anticipation of the making of any such provision, the tribunal shall determine the extent of the net loss or liability …
(7) This section shall, in relation to a composite company, only apply to transactions entered into by the company in their capacity as authorised undertakers, and the company, and not the directors, shall be made parties to applications under this section.
3.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is our usual "which" instead of "whom" or "whom" instead of "which." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 12, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the words "was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body or was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the body," which immediately precede the proviso, and insert "would not have been made but for the anticipated coming into operation of some provision contained in this Act." The noble and learned Viscount said: We have here rather a difficult question. It is again only a question of how we can make clear what it is that the authorities can claim in respect of what is called dissipation of assets. We are dealing with a company which is supposed to have made away
204
with some of its funds to various people otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, and in particular methods which are described in Clause 29 (1), paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). I will mention the first as being an example of the way in which assets might be dissipated. If a company has made any payment to any person without consideration or for an inadequate consideration, then, as we find later on, the directors liable may have to repay that sum. But after having specified five different ways in which dissipation may result, the draftsman has quite reasonably and properly put in an omnibus clause which is in these terms:
"and the payment, sale, disposal, acquisition, agreement or variation thereof, or other transaction was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body or was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the body:"
It has occurred to a great many people, as I know, that that phrase "was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body" is a phrase which is not very happy, because the tribunal or the person who is to determine that question may have different views on what is "reasonably necessary." That fact has to some extent been realized by the framers of the Bill, as appears if we compare with it a phrase on the next page, page 48, line 8:
"Where the arbitration tribunal is satisfied that the transaction in respect of which an application is made is a transaction to which this section applies, then, unless it is shown by any of the parties to the application that the transaction was in the ordinary course of business and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act or with any anticipation of the making of any such provision, …"
That "unless" allows for various things to be done.
This shows what is the real point of these improper transactions, which is that there may be unwise and perhaps not over honest directors. I will not say they are common, but they may exist: men who have entered into the transactions mentioned in Clause 29 (1) for the purpose of evading the provisions of this Bill. It is that test of whether the payments made or the transactions entered into are unfair or improper that is the subject of the present Amendment. I am not going to pretend that the words of the Amendment may not in some cases create some difficulty; in fact, such a phrase as the one on the following page, which I have

205
already read, will also create some difficulty. There may be borderline cases in which it is difficult to tell whether a particular payment is reasonable or not, and there may be similar cases in which you cannot be quite sure that a property or rights have been acquired for an excessive consideration, and whether that was "reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body."
My submission is that we should assimilate so far as we can the phrase which I want left out in Clause 29 and in substance take in what is meant on page 48: that the transaction should have been one which would not have been made but for this Bill being on the stocks and the strong possibility that it will become law within a short time. That is the substance of this Amendment. I agree that it is difficult; but I submit that the clause as altered by the Amendment is an improvement on the clause in the Bill. It is less likely to lead to trouble, because directors are prima facie to be taken as being honest and as not having entered into a transaction which was "unreasonable," which showed an unreasonable lack of prudence or which did something with the object of evading the Act. That is all that I want to establish. I am in favour of guilty directors being dealt with in accordance with what they have done.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 28, leave out from ("transaction") to end of line 30, and insert ("would not have been made but for the anticipated coming into operation of some provision contained in this Act.")—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD LLOYD: He is a very bold man who ventures to speak immediately after an ex-Lord Chancellor on what is essentially a legal matter, and it is with diffidence that I do so, but there are one or two points I would like to add. The matter seems to turn on those words "not reasonably necessary," and "unreasonable lack of prudence." I agree that there are a great many safeguards in this matter before any man can be brought before the tribunal. The Central Authority have to prove that the transaction was in fact one of those listed in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (r); and they have then to prove, not two things, as was suggested by the Solicitor-General in another place, but one thing only: that the transaction was "not reasonably necessary"; or that it was
206
made with "an unreasonable lack of prudence." I think there was an idea that they had to prove both those things. There are safeguards, but nevertheless we may ask what is "reasonably necessary" and what is "unreasonable lick of prudence"? lit seems to me that a lot of things which are extremely desirable are not necessary. Therefore I feel that more cases than may be imagined might be brought before this tribunal.
I believe that this clause is having a very frustrating effect, not only on the electricity industry but on other industries threatened by nationalization. Suppose the Central Authority are able to convince the tribunal that a thing might not have been reasonably necessary—and, after all, to say what was reasonably necessary is very difficult. Not only directors, apparently, can be parties to the transaction, but other people also; in fact anybody quite outside the electricity business is liable to be haled before this tribunal, with all that that involves. It is having a most frustrating effect in industry. I can give the example of the Dursley Gas Company. They could not supply all their consumers and wanted some more gas in bulk from the Gloucester Gas Company. The Gloucester Gas Company were not particularly kern, but they said they would supply it. Then there arose the question, who was to pay the capital costs to run the mains to connect those two undertakings? On account of this clause, neither company was prepared to take the risk. The end of the story was that the Ministry said they wanted gas from the Gloucester Company and the Gloucester Company said they would supply it, provided they could get an undertaking from the Ministry—which has now been given—that by so doing they would not be prejudiced in the event of nationalization of the gas industry. Enterprise and initiative is being frustrated. Therefore, while I cannot improve on the legal arguments I should like to put that side of the picture, as I believe it to be a very important one. I support the Amendment moved by in noble friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess I thought we had get Clause 29 very clearly drafted indeed. The noble Lord who spoke last apologized for speak rig on a legal matter, but he is perfectly capable of reading the King's English and

207
of understanding this clause. What have you got to do if you are going to hold these directors liable? First of all, you have to find these directors; and you have to find that the transaction falls among those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) in subsection (1). Then you have the conjunction "and" followed by further alternatives. Subsection (1), after paragraph (e), says:
"… other transaction was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body or was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the body."
It is not at all easy to define or apply those words.
Then comes a proviso which takes certain things outside the operation of the clause altogether. It says:

"(i) to any payment or other transaction to which Section twenty-six of this Act applies;

(ii) to any payment or other transaction made or entered into for any charitable purpose; or

(iii) to any payment or other transaction … which has been approved in writing by the Minister … ."

That is all we were talking about yesterday—the desirability of getting a thing franked, as it were, by going to the Minister and telling him what you propose to do, and getting his approval. You have to get a transaction falling within those mentioned in one of the paragraphs from (a) to (e) and the words after the first or second "or" following the conjunction "and." Then subsection (2) says:
"(2) the Central Authority may, at any time … make an application to the arbitration tribunal in respect of any transaction to which"—
I am seeking to amend this by adding "in the opinion of the Authority"—
"this section applies."
Because the tribunal will not be seized of the matter at that time. It goes on:
"and all parties to the transaction, and all persons who were directors of the body at the date when the transaction was entered into shall be made parties to the application."
So the tribunal first of all becomes seized of the matter.
Subsection (3) says:
"Where the arbitration tribunal is satisfied that the transaction in respect of which an application is made is a transaction to which this section applies"—
208
that means to say, falling within subsection (1) but not within the proviso. Even then, where they are satisfied of the fact, the person accused has a right to get out if he can show that the transaction falls within the category . mentioned in subsection (3), because that subsection contains these words:
"unless it is shown"—
the onus is now on him—
"by any of the parties to the application that the transaction was in the ordinary course of business and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act or with any anticipation of the making of any such provision."
I claim that if we want to prevent the dissipation of assets—and I am quite sure we all do—there is a scheme in my form of words which is not unfair. I certainly do not want to hit anybody who ought not to be hit, and I think that by my scheme and form of words I have brought that about. I have considered very carefully the alternative words which the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, has suggested. In many cases in this Bill and in other Bills I have accepted his suggestions and therefore I was very ready to accept this one; but, on the whole, it seems to me that the words and the scheme we have got in the clause are better. You might have—it is very unlikely, but you might have—a dissipation of assets in the sense of this clause, not arising from the anticipation of this Bill at all. You might have a very improvident transaction (perhaps the director was drunk when he entered into it) in which he bought something at a gross over-value or sold something at a gross under-value—nothing to do with this Bill at all. That director should be responsible for so doing, for he is dissipating assets in every sense of the word; and yet, because the dissipation was not because of this Bill or anything to do with nationalization, under the proposed Amendment he would be exempt from the provisions of the clause. But he is a man who is virtually for the time being the guardian of property which is going shortly to become the property of the Central Authority.
For that reason, I do not think I can accept the suggested words. I prefer the words as we have them here, and I claim that any fair-minded man looking at this scheme will be satisfied that we have really been at pains to devise some scheme which gives ample security to the honest man against being hit. I cannot accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not going to criticize the legal side of this business. It may well be that this clause is drafted so as to apply the onus of proof as fairly as it can be. I am not so much concerned with the chance that an individual will be wrongly charged under this Bill, still less that he will be wrongly convicted; he may be had up, but I think probably he will not be convicted unless he ought to be convicted. It is easy to be wise after the event and to say that something was done with an undue lack of prudence, but it is an extraordinarily difficult thing for a Judge or an arbitrator to put himself in the position in which the man was at the time he had to take his decision. There are quite a number of things which turn out one way or the other. Sometimes a thing is done which may have seemed rash at the time but which has turned out well, and everybody is thankful that it was done; sometimes it turns out badly. In difficult times in business, as in politics, the hardest thing but the most important thing to do is to take a balance of risk. The worst thing that can happen, either in the conduct of your business or in the conduct of an administration, if I may say so, is to do nothing for fear of doing something wrong. You can be excessively prudent as well as excessively imprudent.
What is worrying me about this business is not exactly where the legal onus is put, but what is going to he the effect of all this in the transitional period on getting things done. I am afraid that the effect will be to slow down just at the time when we ought not to slow down, and everybody knows to-day that there is nothing like enough electrical equipment installed in the country. Every sort of ingenuity has to be exercised in improvizing and making ad hoc provisions and ad hoc arrangements. If a man is in charge of his business, he will go and do those things and make those arrangements and take his chance. They involve expenditure, they involve risk; they may very often, sometimes certainly, involve loss, but loss which is quite a right thing for an undertaker to suffer as the servant of the whole of the public whom he is serving in his area. If those businesses are continuing undertakings that will go on. But what is going to be the position of an undertaker who, when in any doubt, sees all this chain of possible
210
offences? We talk about them here and the Lord Chancellor explains them to us and we understand them, and they do not look very frightening to us. On the other hand, the man outside, when he sees this great chain of possible offences a ad pitfalls into which he may unwittingly fall and for which he can be had up after the event, is not going to say: "If I am an honest man I shall not be convicted"; he is going to say: "I am not going to take the chance of being summoned before the tribunal in order either that civil damages should be recovered from me, or that I may be convicted. I am no longer going to be responsible for the business. I must play for safety." And, if he goes to his lawyer, I think the lawyer is bound to advise him—or if he came to the Lord Chancellor or to me I would be bound to advise him—"do not think you ought to take that chance. At any rate, you cannot take that chance without going to the Minister and the Ministry and having it cleared up."
That may be the only way out; I do not know. But what I am sure of is this: if it is the only way out, and it is the only safe way out, then there should go out from the Government spokesman the clearest possible declaration to all those concerned in these businesses that we want them to carry on, we want them to improvise, we want them, if necessary, to take risks, and that they can come to the Ministry. And I hope to goodness the matter will be devolved into the different regions of the country, and that they will have an immediate answer and be told to go ahead. Unless that assurance is given, and is acted upon with a promptitude not always found in Government Departments, then I am quite sure that people—and they could not be blamed—will play for safety, and things will not be done which the consuming public—the industrial and domestic consumers—badly want done, and which those who have to take over these under-takings equally want to have done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I respond to what the noble Viscount has said, because I think this is of the utmost importance, and I do agree with him? It is of the utmost importance that people should not be petrified into inaction in this matter. Development must go on, and everything must go on, so far as it can in these very difficult days. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that

211
people should take their problems round to the Minister. They will be frightened to act in these matters—at least I should be. If I were a trustee and I were in difficulty, I should go to the Courts and ask what I ought to do; and that relieves me of all responsibility. If I am in doubt, I put it on to the Court. So let these people who have to act go to the Ministry and get their authorization. I have been at pains to inquire as to how this matter is going, and what sort of delay there is. I gather that there has been some delay about gas, but with regard to electricity I am assured that there has been no hold-up and that the answers have come through quite promptly. The Minister does want to be co-operative about this, because it is essential that he should be; and the only way of doing it is that people should take their problems to the Ministry, and the Ministry (as they can do in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, and probably in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand) will, quite promptly—if I may use a modern vulgarism—"O.K. the transaction."
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Before we conclude discussion on this Amendment one must appreciate the necessity of a clause such as this to deal with the dissipation of assets and I understand that proviso (iii) of subsection (1), the appeal to the Minister, was put in really to help the industry in the way the Lord Chancellor has suggested. I can, however, say from experience, that in the only case I have come across in the form of one of these companies we have not yet succeeded in obtaining an answer from the Ministry. No doubt there are other cases where the matter has been very promptly dealt with, but in my experience we have had one question on which we thought we ought to be covered, and in three months we have not yet received an answer. I am not saying that this is a very important matter generally, but I am saying that does add to the difficulties and to the doubts in industries.
On the one hand, you feel you must be covered, and properly covered, by this appeal to the Minister and, on the other hand, you feel you must be getting on. You must, in effect, make forward commitments which are quite proper and which it is necessary for the Central Authority to take over when they take
212
over the undertaking; and you naturally wish to be satisfied, as the Lord Chancellor said, being in a sense a trustee, that for the future owner of the industry everything has been done properly. The case I mentioned was not of vital importance to the industry, but it was a matter which could be described in the terms of the next Amendment, I think on line 35, which refers to matters in the ordinary course of business. I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor could agree that something on the lines of that Amendment could be put in, because I feel that that is really of more help than the Amendment which is now proposed.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do not want to say much in reply because, after all, the position has been excellently explained, if I may say so, by those who have spoken after me. What the Lord Chancellor says is quite right. In a case of difficulty there can be an application to the Minister, and I thought the statement of the noble and learned Viscount in regard to his position as a trustee was an excellent example of what happens in cases where trustees are asked to do things which are a little doubtful. But when we hear from the noble Viscount who has just spoken that this is occasionally taking a good deal of time—and time may be quite vital in cases of this sort—for that reason I cannot help thinking that the Lord Chancellor laid a little too much stress on the proviso in subsection (3) which allows for an approval in Writing by the Minister.
On the other point, I will add only one thing, because I want it to be on record. Contrary to what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, says, other people may think that, in view of the provisions of this Bill, a dissipation of assets is discreditable to those who are going through with it and ought to be stopped. I have no sympathy with them. The people I am sympathetic with are the directors who have thought it necessary to take a particular step with regard to purchasing, we will say, some machinery urgently wanted, or which they think is urgently wanted, or to do something else which involves a substantial use of funds. When such a director is challenged by the Central Authority, and an application is made to the arbitration tribunal, he is willing to face the proposition that he acted, as he

213
thought, in good faith; he thought he was acting honestly and properly, and he never anticipated that it was going to be the subject of a claim for a large amount of money. I object to the answer to him about this: "We do not care whether you were honest or not. We are of opinion that your act showed an unreasonable lack of prudence, or it was not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the body." That is not the position in which an honest director should be placed, in my opinion, and I strongly protest against it.
Then the Lord Chancellor, with great skill, says that at page 48 you find, a provision under which, even if he is held prima facie liable for his transaction though perfectly honest, he may even then get off. The subsection says
"unless it is shown by any of the parties to the application that the transaction was in the ordinary course of business"—
it may not be in the ordinary course of business, it may be something in the nature of an emergency which has never happened before—
"and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act or with any anticipation of the making of any such provision."
I am not saying that there is no value to be attached to those words. All I am saying is that they are wholly inadequate protection in the case of a director who is acting with complete good faith, who is called upon to spend money under certain emergencies which call for immediate action, and who takes a step which someone—who very likely is not a technical man at all—thinks unreasonable, in the circumstances of the case, and that, therefore, the director should be made liable. Those are the contentions which I have laid before your Lordships, and I am very confident that they are not without foundation. I would strongly urge in the interests of the Bill as a whole—because this is not in my view a. thing which can be left out of sight—that the Lord Chancellor should consider whether some modification in the language of Clause 29 might not be made at a later stage. But, having regard to what has happened, I do not propose to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
LORD LLOYD: There is just one other point which [would like to make. It is with reference to the position of gas companies. The noble and learned Viscount
214
stated that the electricity companies could appeal to the Minister in writing and that that was their defence. That is in the Bill. I appreciate the noble and learned Viscount's point. But what is the position of the gas companies? There is nothing specifically in writing to protect them. Would he be able to give us an assurance that the gas companies if they write to the Minister, will be exonerated? Secondly, in view of the delays that have occurred, would the noble and learned Viscount speak to his right honourable friend with a view to seeing if some special service could be set up in the Ministry to deal with this particular aspect of the case—that is, people writing to ask whether transactions are in order or not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot, I am afraid, deal with gas. I have often wished that I could. But after all, when you do get a Gas Bill—if and when you do—you will no doubt have some date, just as there is in connexion with this Bill, January to, 1947—which I think was the date of the introduction of the Bill. You will have some date of that sort I should think. At the present time, the gas people are quite untrammelled. They are not controlled and they can do as they like. I cannot do anything about them.
LORD HAWKE: There is one other small point I would like to mention helm e we pass from this Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount has been telling electricity directors that they must consult the Minister in making difficult decisions in the days that are before us. He will, I hope, realize that that is likely increase very considerably the traffic to the Ministry. I suggest that special arrangements will have to be made to enable decisions to be made quickly at a low level, otherwise decisions will never be made properly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to insert in the proviso to subsection (1):
"(iii) to any reasonable payment made by way of a gratuity or otherwise in respect of services previously rendered by any persons, who are or have been officers of the body."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I do not think will be objected to—in principle at any rate—on behalf of the Government. They have made a statement in another

215
place which shows that they are in favour of it, and I rather gather that words of the kind proposed in the Amendment will simplify the making of reasonable payments by way of gratuity.
It is not always appreciated that companies, especially large and important companies, are constantly making payments by way of gratuity, or which are in substance gratuity, without any legal obligation to pay—for instance, payment of workmen during holidays, payment without any contractual obligation to pay, payments to men who are sick, or who have left their employment owing to sickness and who have no right to compensation under one of the Acts. Many companies do, in such cases, constantly make payments, and of course there are numbers of other gratuities which are paid in respect of services previously rendered. For instance, if a man has served a concern faithfully for many years and is not entitled to anything more than a small pension, the directors may well think it proper to add to his pension.
When this matter came up in another place Mr. Glenvil Hall (as reported in Column 322 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for June 24) said (referring to an honourable member):
"He will be glad to know, and the House will be delighted to know, that it will still be possible for those directors to do as many of them will desire to do—that is to make provision for old and valued servants in this way. There is nothing to prevent them from doing it before the vesting date, and neither the Minister nor anyone else will raise any objection even if it does, to that extent, dissipate the assets of the particular undertaking."
I rather gathered that the honourable gentleman thought that that was plainly possible under some clause in the Bill—and he mentioned Clause 48 (1). I am in grave doubt as to whether this is really clear, as to whether there is something which, beyond doubt, enables these payments to be made. Even if I am wrong, as I may be, and there is something which might by some doubtful implication authorize the payments, I think having regard to what I have said, and the undoubted propriety of payments of this sort, that words of the kind mentioned are proper to be inserted in this place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 35, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD LLOYD: This is the alternative Amendment on Clause 29 to which I referred when speaking on an earlier Amendment. I think that the case for this Amendment has been put with admirable clarity by my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, and I should like to support it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I understand that the statement by the Minister which has been quoted by the noble and learned Viscount would, in fact, be enough to cover this, under the approval which the Minister could give if asked formally to do so.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: He might not be there.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: In practice we, at any rate, have taken it that it is proper for us to continue paying gratuities of this sort. There is, however, one question which I would like to ask in this connexion. I ask it here because I cannot see where else in the Bill the point can be covered. Can we be satisfied that the practice of companies who have treated their staffs and workmen in this sort of way will be continued by the area boards and the Central Authority? I am not referring to ordinary pension schemes, which are provided for, or to the compensation clauses, but to the habit of undertakings of giving extra pensions and certain gratuities to people who have been with them for a long time. I cannot ask for a specific answer to my question now, but I hope that this matter will be considered.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should briefly like to support this Amendment. I think it is covered by the assurance given on the Amendment moved to Clause 27, mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and in another place I find it said that an Amendment of this sort may make a difference between a company treating their employees generously and saying that they must stick to the letter of the law. The Minister in charge of the Bill said to that, "We will certainly consider all these arguments." And I feel sure the noble and learned Viscount will be able to say this will apply in this case.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The assurance is no good. In justice to the undoubted legal view, I must repeat once more, for the tenth time, that an assurance as to what will be the effect of a particular

217
section or sections of an Act of Parliament cannot be referred to as evidence before an arbitrator or court of law. You are not even able to say what the Minister said on the hearing of a Bill. And therefore, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I do not think it right to ask the question whether the assurance of the Government covers what is wanted. We want words to cover it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, but if that doctrine prevailed we should never get through any Bill. It is quite true that an assurance is not part of an Act of Parliament, but it is a novel doctrine to me that in considering what to do with a Bill you have no right to consider assurances given on behalf of tire Minister. I think that Mr. Glenvil Hall's statement on Clause 27 was perfectly accurate and I think my statement was accurate; and it is applicable here, too. Of course the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, is perfectly right in saying that companies frequently give gratuities and sums of money which they are legally not compellable to pay and it is eminently sensible that they should, because by so doing they create a happy feeling among their employees and they gain the reputation of being good employers.
Some people who do not understand these things believe that the directors, who are trustees for their shareholders, are not entitled to pay sums of money unless they are under a legal liability to do so. That is a complete misapprehension. It is often in the interest of the shareholders that they should be generous to employees. Therefore 1 feel, particularly in the case of companies who have been doing this in the past, that you cannot possibly say that the transaction was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body or that it was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence. I do not think any tribunal would look at you if you tried to argue that. I agree that one must be careful of the other side of the picture. Where there are companies very shortly to fade away, and for the time being they find themselves in possession of assets which are to be handed over to the Central Authority, there is the temptation for some of the less thoughtful of them to distribute money all round to good friends who have served them well and loyally in the past. I
218
regret to say that some people are not hesitant about cheating a railway company although they would not dream of stealing anything from ordinary people. Similarly, there are some who think that if they can help the old employees, although it does mean that the Central Authority will have a little less, that will be all right. I am not suggesting that thoughtful or honest men will take that line, but there is that danger.
Therefore, frankly, I am reluctant to put in this express clause. It does seem to me almost an invitation. On the other hand, I feel quite satisfied that reasonable payments, made as they are normally made, would not be objectionable would not come under this ban imposed by Clause 29. But, again, if anybody is frightened by reason of the amount which is paid being rather more titan usual, or fears that he might possibly be charged and these things alleged against him, do let him go round to the Minister. We have set up a special department on these matters. I am sorry to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said and I will look into this case; but so far as I can find out answers have been coming back in four or five days. The Minister has not the least desire that the present practice of paying reasonable gratuities should be discontinued; on the other hand, we must avoid the danger of people being rather more generous with other people's money than they are with their own. I think it would be a bad thing to insert the actual words of this Amendment in the clause.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am surprised at the statements made by tie noble and learned Viscount. In the first place, I repudiate his suggestion that I said you are never to rely on any statement made by a Minister in the progress of a Bill. That is not what I said Dr intended. But I do repeat—and I think to some extent the noble and learned Viscount agreed with me—that what I said is absolutely irrefutable. If you want a provision to authorize certain things, you must have it in the Bill, not-withstanding all the Minister may say. I take my stand on that as a matter Of constitutional law. In this case of gratuities is it proper to say that the directors. who want to give a gratuity to an old servant can go round to the Minister and. get his approval in writing?

219
I suppose there are thousands of cases in which it will be necessary for gratuities to be given by the great number of companies affected by this Bill. I think the Minister would be little pleased with the result of a debate on this clause if there were thousands of applications. Many would be for quite small sums. Fifty pounds may be a matter of the greatest importance to a poor man. Is it reasonable in this year of our Lord, with all the things the Minister has to do under this Bill, to suggest that if you are in difficulty about paying £50 to an old servant you can go round to the Minister and seek his approval for the transaction—thereby causing him to spend an hour in seeing whether or not it is a proper case? It does seem to me that is not a proposal which really ought to meet with the consent of this Committee. I am in great difficulty here. The Committee is at this hour not a very full one. It may be that it would not be right to take the course of insisting on this clause in this particular form, but I reserve the right to raise this question again after consideration on Report. I would urge the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to see if he cannot meet me to some extent in what I cannot help thinking is a very proper case. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved to insert, after proviso (ii) to subsection (1):
"(iii) to any payment or other transaction made or entered into in the ordinary course of business."
The noble Lord said: I think that I can move this Amendment very quickly, as its object has already been discussed at great length. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, thought that the alternative clause might achieve all that is desired. All that we really want to cover is that if decisions have to be taken quickly there should not be any delay. As we know there has been certain delay, and it is vital that there should not be. There is also the question of the arbitration costs, which are bound to occur since many of the companies will have to go to arbitution. It is for those reasons that I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 35, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Wolverton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, but I cannot accept this Amendment. The scheme of the clause, as I pointed out before, is this. The tribunal have to be satisfied that the person comes in one of the (a) to (e) categories, and that the transaction is unreasonable or was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence. Then you have the provisos: If the tribunal are satisfied that the man comes within one of the enumerated classes, and is not within the provisos, you will find that even then he comes under the (a) to (e) categories unless it is shown that the transaction was in the ordinary course of business, "and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act." The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to take out those words, "and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act."
I will give the noble Lord a simple illustration. It is the ordinary course of business to buy a horse for a delivery van, or something of that sort. Suppose that you buy a horse, and you generally give £1,00 for a horse, although on this occasion you give £1, 000. Buying a horse is the ordinary course of business. Surely it is much better to have this test—whether you made a payment to a person for inadequate consideration, or you acquired any property for an excessive consideration. If the tribunal come to that conclusion, and they then come to the conclusion that one of these other points is satisfied, they leave it to you to show that the transaction was a reasonable transaction, and in the ordinary course of business, and was not connected with the passage of this Act. That is the scheme, and I venture to think it is much better than that suggested by the noble Lord, which would lend itself to abuse. I do not like always to be pointing out the possible abuses, as though I were dealing here with the most dishonest set of men. We all know that we are dealing with an honest set of men. Nevertheless, in passing an Act of Parliament we should certainly look to see what results the words might lead to. That is why I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
LORD WOLVERTON: In view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. The only point is that people will have to write in to the Minister for permission for every single thing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved to insert after proviso (ii) to subsection (1):
"to any payment or other transaction made or entered into in connection with a submission to arbitration under this Act or any proceedings before any tribunal established by regulations made under this Act."
The noble Lord said: I have listened with great interest to the analysis of the noble and learned Viscount of this clause, which seems to be giving us so much trouble. There is one set of payments referred to in my Amendment, and I do not know how the noble and learned Viscount would propose to provide for them. It may be that he will consider they are ordinary and normal payments, but ex hypothesi a company which may have to go to arbitration, or can be called to arbitration, cannot beforehand make provisions by asking the Minister whether expenditure under this is authorized.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Lord tell me what sort of arbitration he has in mind?
LORD RENNELL: The arbitration referred to in the latter part—namely Subsection (3) of Clause 29. The company may be called to arbitration, or asked to go to arbitration, on one of these payments. Where and how will the company be authorized to make payment for its inevitable expenses in such an arbitration? If the company itself takes the initiative of providing technical evidence, and making its case, is it the thesis of the noble and learned Viscount that they shall go to the Minister beforehand to ask whether those expenses are authorized expenses? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 35, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Rennell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Quite frankly, I had not visualized this case at all. I do not see how anybody can say that the company is a party to an arbitration. It is very unlikely that it would be. The normal parties would be the directors. I had not visualized the company coming in on this. However, I
222
agree that under the word "parties" might. If they are subject to any such claim, could any reasonable person say that the expenses which they incurred, and the payments which they made their solicitor and counsel, can possibly come within the description "not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the body," or that they are made with an unreasonable lack of prudence? A ma n who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. If the company is sued most certainly the company ought to instruct competent people to appear for it; that means to say, paying adequate slims of money. There can be no doubt at all, I should have thought, but that expenses so incurred are reasonable in every respect and, therefore, would not come within the clause at all. Of course, If you went to a junior, or even a senior barrister, and marked his brief "£1,000,000," that would be a pretty good dissipation of the assets and would be a little unreasonable. Therefore, it is a question of degree. I always thought when I was at the Bar that it was good thing that people should litigate on a generous scale, and I should be most unhappy to set any different principle now.
LORD RENNELL: I quite see the point but if the noble and learned Viscount will look at subsection (1) of Clause 29, at those very words he has quoted so frequently, there are three possibilities. There is "the payment, sale" and so on. Payments of this sort cannot come under that. Nor can they come under the third head, "or was made with al unreasonable lack of prudence," assuming, of course, that they did not make the brief £1,000,000, as has been suggested. Therefore, they can only come, I presume, under the wording, "or other transaction was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body." Those purposes I read as being the general purposes for which the company was constituted—namely, to conduct electrical undertakings, or whatever it was that the company was doing prior to being taken over. It is not one of the purposes of that body to go to arbitration. It seems to me that there is a gap there. If the noble and learned Viscount will look into the matter, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment at this stage. I thin]: there is something more in this point than there perhaps appears to be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly look at it, but my impression is that this will all happen after the vesting date, and on the vesting date the body is dead. I do not believe the body will be there at all. Therefore, I do not think there is anything in this point. However, I will gladly look into it.
LORD RENNELL: Not all the bodies will be dead, because in our discussions yesterday it was agreed that some would remain partly alive. If they are dead then obviously that body cannot be party to an arbitration. In that case, am I to understand that the whole of the costs of that arbitration fall on the directors? I presume that is correct. If, however, a part of that body remains alive—those holding companies of which we spoke yesterday—that part might be a party to an arbitration and would not cease to exist.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Anybody who is alive can be a party to an arbitration, but nobody who is dead.
LORD RENNELL: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is to make plain what should have been there all the time. Here I am referring to the stage when the Central Authority have got the matter in hand, and I am proposing to put in the words "in the opinion of the Authority." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 2, after ("which") insert ("in the opinion of the Authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "may" for "shall" in the phrase "shall be made parties to the application." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is only to substitute the word "may" for "shall". I am so old a hand in these matters, especially in actions against directors, that I know that, even though they owe you money, you very often do not sue because they may be bankrupt; they may be people who have left the country and in some cases they may have died and left small assets. You have to
224
leave some discretion in the plaintiff as to whom he shall select, out of the people who are prima facie liable, as the defendants in an ordinary action. I think it makes no difference here, as it is really only a matter of drafting, but I would suggest that you do not want the Central Electricity Board to sue people who are no good as defendants. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 5, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a very small point, but I will certainly look at it again. I confess that my present feeling is that it ought to be "shall," and for this reason. It is quite clear that the Amendment contemplates the possibility of some directors not being made parties to the application, but what one wants to consider for a moment is in whom is the discretion to determine who should be parties to the application? If it was the Tribunal there would be no objection, but of course it cannot be the Tribunal because the people are going to be taken before the Tribunal. Therefore it must be the Authority who will be in the position of the plaintiff. If they are to determine, I think it would be open to some objection because it might be said that they arbitrarily picked on some directors and left some out. There might be a sense of grievance. Although it is perfectly wise to leave out the kind of directors who are men of straw and cannot pay—which is what the noble and learned Viscount has in mind—if you make this change it might be that the Authority would be empowered to use their discretion rather differently and leave out those directors, for instance, who they thought were not to blame. I think they should all be put before the Tribunal and the Tribunal should sort them out. Therefore, I am a little disposed to think that "shall" is better than "may." But it is not a matter upon which I care very much, and I do not suppose the noble and learned Viscount does either. I will look at it again to see whether my present impression is the correct one.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment at page 48, line 27, although

225
it appears under the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, is in fact a Government Amendment. I am glad to find myself in such good company or rather sheltering under his umbrella. It is purely a matter of drafting and therefore I am sure your Lordships will agree with it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 27, leave out ("subsection (1) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 5, and insert ("In the case of a composite company").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30:
Provisions as to foreign investments.
(3) If any such body contravene or fail to comply with the provisions of this section or any regulation made thereunder, all persons who were directors of the body at the time when the contravention or failure occurred shall be jointly and severally liable to make good any loss suffered by the Central Authority in consequence of the contravention or failure.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert the following new subsection:
"(3) The Minister or the Central Authority may at any time before the expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with the vesting date make an application to the arbitration tribunal in respect of any transaction as to which the Minister or the Central Authority claims that this section applies or as to the failure to dispose of any investments and all parties to the transaction, and all persons who were directors of the body at the date when the transaction was entered into or when the investments should have been disposed of must be made parties to the application. Where the arbitration tribunal is satisfied that the transaction in respect of which an application is made is a transaction to which this section applies or that there has been a failure to dispose of any investments then the tribunal shall determine the extent of the net loss or liability caused to or imposed on the body by the transaction or by the failure to dispose of the investments and shall make such orders against all or any of the parties to the application (other than the
226
Minister or the Central Authority) as it thinks just, having regard to the extent to which they were respectively responsible for the transaction or for the failure to dispose of the investments or benefited from the transaction or the failure as the case may be, for the payment by them to the Central Authority of sums sufficient to enable the net loss or liability or such part thereof as the tribunal thinks just, to be made good or met."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a somewhat lengthy Amendment which it is proposed to insert in substitution for subsection (3).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will accept it in principle.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I was myself going to suggest that perhaps the drafting might be amended in some respects. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble and learned Viscount himself will realize, it is a very difficult matte: to draft this subsection. I think the drafting is defective and I should like to have an opportunity, if I may, of working on the subsection and polishing it up. When I say that I mean my draftsmen. In principle, I can accept the Amendment. Your Lordships will see that it makes two alterations. First: of all, it takes these matters out of the purview of the Court and puts them before the Tribunal. Secondly, it fills up a gap of which I was conscious in my subsection in regard to letting out the director who is not in any way to blame. Those principles I accept. If the noble and learned Viscount would not press the Amendment now—although if he does I will accept it—but will allow me to have a look at it, when I have succeeded in drafting something I will show it to him and I am sure we shall be able to agree.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I shall be quite content to take that course, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shell stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount to

227
give us some indication as to the effect of this clause, particularly in the light of the debate we had yesterday, both as regards the prohibition of purchase and the obligation to sell. It was common ground yesterday that the Central Authority and the area boards did not wish to have anything whatever to do with extraneous assets, and extraneous assets included primarily assets outside this country. As the Lord Chancellor has explained to us, the last thing in the world the Government wanted to do was to acquire these assets, and we discussed at great length what was the best way of enabling the companies who own such assets to carry on in the possession and management of their assets. I made a proposition to your Lordships to which we shall return at a later stage, but I would like to comment upon the provisions of this clause as it stands. Even if the Bill stood without any concession with regard to these holding companies—and it was admitted that concession there must be, whichever way the concession is to be made—why was it necessary to make these provisions?
The first subsection says:
"It shall not be lawful for any body to whom this Part of this Act applies other than a composite company to acquire any foreign investments."
"Composite company," as your Lordships know, is a term meaning only those companies which are engaged in gas or water as well as electricity. Is it really necessary to put that prohibition upon a holding company which already has a number of foreign investments? Suppose it has an extremely favourable opportunity to acquire something which is very germane to one of its foreign undertakings, as a matter of good business it would obviously be good sense and good business to acquire it. Treasury permission is required and would no doubt be given. And observe, the Government do not at all want to take it over; they do not want to have anything whatever to do with these foreign assets. Surely it is enormously important that these companies, trust companies as they are in effect, should not be precluded from making such wise, sound, profitable investments—investments indeed which may become very good breeders of trade.
228
The next subsection I find even more difficult to understand. It says:
"Every such body shall, within such period as may be prescribed, supply to the Minister and the Central Authority particulars in the prescribed form of all foreign investments of the body, and shall dispose of those investments in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed."
But why? Why should they be forced to dispose of those assets "at such time and in such manner" as the Minister may prescribe? We agreed last night that the last thing the Minister wants is to have anything to do with these foreign assets and that what the holding company wants is to retain the assets and manage them. We have to find the most convenient way of doing that. But why should we then have a provision in the Bill that the undertaker who does not want to part with his assets vis-à-vis the Minister who does not want to receive them should be under an obligation to sell them "at such time and in such manner" as the Minister prescribes? And then the Bill goes on to say that anybody who contravenes this goes to prison—or whatever it is. I do not want to save him from going to prison; I want to save the trade of this country and to save this important foreign trade from a most unnecessary and uncalled for interference.
Subsection (4) says:
"… foreign investments' means any assets the transfer of which is governed otherwise than by the law of any part of Great Britain."
That includes, your Lordships will observe, not only any assets in a foreign country but any assets in the Commonwealth. I think it is a most extraordinary thing that we should in this Bill—which as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, tells us has nothing whatever to do with business carried on abroad or in the Commonwealth—butt in (if I may use such a crude expression) and say that these people who have acquired these investments in foreign countries or in the Commonwealth should be forced to sell them. Subsection (5) says:
"If it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing the disposal of foreign investments of any body under this section, to postpone the vesting date in relation to that body, he may direct that the vesting date for the purposes of this Act shall be"—
such as he chooses to fix. I do not think that is relevant. It would be a very extraordinary way of doing the thing.

229
But why should not these people be left in possession of these assets which the Minister does not want to take over and which they wish to retain?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to say a word, particularly with regard to subsection (4). At first I was not certain that that was not really worded so as to include Colonial and Dominion investments, by error, because I cannot understand why under this Bill it should be suggested that an English holding company was acting unwisely or contrary to the interests of the State in holding, or continuing to hold, investments in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa, as they have clone for many years past; and the total amounts involved are many millions. Everybody knows that a great many of these companies are quoted on the Stock Exchange, and many people here who hold investments in South African shares or, let us say, nickel shares, are unable to tell you off-hand whether the companies are English or Dominion ones. It really makes no difference.
During my time at the Bar a number of companies which were registered here and had assets in South Africa were transferred to Johannesburg simply in order to avoid a certain amount of Income Tax which they were justified in doing—but they remained substantially the same companies. I am quite unable to see why the clause is worded as it is. The phrase in subsection (4), "any assets the transfer of which is governed otherwise than by the law of any part of Great Britain" shows, I think, beyond doubt that companies, however English they may be in other respects, which are registered in a Colony or a Dependency, or of course, abroad, are governed as regards transfer by the law of the land in which the company is supposed to be situated, which is of course the place of the registration of the company. If that is not in doubt, then the very serious doubt I have is whether, for some reason not well explained in public, it is thought improper to allow companies to which the subsection applies to continue to hold investments, many of them of the greatest value and interest, in these English-speaking countries such as the Dominions and Colonies. I venture to think that some explanation should be given of the curious wording of this clause. If it remains as
230
it is I can conceive of some very strong observations being made in our Dominions in regard to so strange a provision.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there is some misunderstanding about this clause. I want first to correct a mistake I made yesterday. When I was referring to what happened about these assets, what we conveniently call the extraneous assets, I spoke of the block of flats to which the Earl of Lytton was referring, and one of the foreign assets to which Lord Rennell was referring, as being extraneous assets of a like case, but they are not. I ought to have called your Lordships' attention to Clause 30, which contains the provision that a company can be ordered to dispose of its foreign investments before the vesting date.
The reason for it is this—and it really rather simple. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, stated just now, foreign investments in a company registered in a foreign country or in a British Dominion are governed by the law of that foreign country or that Dominion, and all questions such as their transfer, and that sort of thing, are governed by the law there in force. Suppose you had a holding company which was knocked on the head on the vesting day and destroyed and ceased to exist under subsection (11) of Clause 14 about which we were talking yesterday; what would be the position of its foreign investments if it held them up to the moment before it died? There is a grave danger of those foreign investments being bona vacantia because, unless the foreign countries by their law are going to recognize their transfer by operation of our law, those investments will belong to no one, and on the register in that foreign country or Dominion you will still see the name of this holding company inscribed. When the Central Electricity Authority come along and want to deal in those things, it is quite possible that the foreign country will say, "We are very sorry, we know nothing about you; we do not recognize you at all. So far as the company whose name is here as the holier of this stock is concerned, it is dead End these things belong to no one." Thai is a risk against which we have to guard, Therefore, to guard against that risk, it is necessary that those things shall be disposed of some little time before the vesting date.

231
Having said that, I come back to what I said yesterday. It is quite right that the Minister does not want these things, but what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, forgot for the moment—we are all apt to forget these things—is that all the companies who own these investments are themselves coming to an end, and we have to deal with this problem. These unfortunate companies—or rather these fortunate companies—who are being taken over are coming to an end; death stares them in the face, it may be on April 1 next or April 2, though I think April 5 is a Monday, and then something has to be done about it. What we want to do about it is this. As I said, we must take them over lock, stock and barrel, because the Stock Exchange price, if we are going to adopt that method of valuation—I am not going back to our old discussion on that point—applies only to the undertaking as a whole. You cannot allocate a particular part of the price so arrived at to particular assets; we have only a global figure to deal with. We do not want these foreign assets and, therefore, having taken them over, we are perfectly willing that they should be disposed of in any way that seems best to the company concerned, always providing they are disposed of in such a way as not to dissipate the assets. I have no doubt that what I said yesterday in regard to this point will be fresh in your Lordships' minds. Although I was in error in not referring to Clause 30, the principle is the same.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am greatly indebted to the Lord Chancellor for having explained why it is necessary, in the opinion of the Government, to put in this clause, because unfortunately some Governments might not recognize the legislation in this country as conveying a title. We see how interesting and unexpected and unfortunate are the ramifications of these activities, and so we have to go through the unfortunate process of forcing these companies to realize their investments, or, in default of a better solution, to sell them back to themselves, and to buy them back at an inflated price—by "inflated price," I mean a higher price than the Government would have given for them, as was plainly shown yesterday. If the situation might be so complicated and so injurious that
232
that could not be done before the particularly hopeful day on which we expect to start this new adventure—on April 1—the vesting may even be postponed.
I think all your Lordships were here when we had our discussion last night, and I will not go back to it now, but we shall have to return to it at the next stage. What the Lord Chancellor has now said, I am sure you all will agree, emphasizes the vital importance of finding a really satisfactory way of letting these companies with foreign assets continue in existence. Then this clause would be quite unnecessary.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Personally, I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor. The explanation which he has given us of Clause 3o removes from my mind a very unpleasant idea on the subject of the Government's view of Colonial and Dominion securities, which apparently does not exist in real life, and all that is necessary is something in the nature of machinery. It was not uncommon, and I believe it is not very uncommon now, for assets to be found belonging to a company which has been wound up, and my recollection is that in those cases, although prima facie they would vest in the Crown if there was nobody else on earth to claim them, we did discover a way of reviving the company and so being able to transfer and divide up the assets among the shareholders. I have not been able, since the noble Lord spoke, to find the exact words in this Bill which relate to the winding-up of these companies and their extinction—because there may be a winding-up without an extinction of a company as a living entity which can hold property and can dispose of it in the proper way. I am inclined to submit—in fact, I do submit—to the Lord Chancellor this consideration: that those in charge of the Bill should see if there is not a much easier way of disposing of the whole matter than that contained in Clause 30, namely, by words in reference to the liquidation of the company, to keep alive the companies in question as living corporations for the limited purpose of holding such securities as are here in question and, it may be, any other securities which the Central Electricity Board will not touch with the end of a barge pole. That, I venture to think, would certainly not be beyond the ingenuity of the gentlemen who have been in charge of the draftsman-

233
ship of this Bill, and I hope that that course may be taken before we get to the next stage.
Clause 3o agreed to.
Clause 31:
Establishment of Electricity Arbitration Tribunal.
(7) The arbitration tribunal may, at any stage in any proceedings before them, refer the proceedings for hearing and determination to a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, and where any proceedings are so referred, the person or persons to whom the proceedings are referred shall be deemed to constitute the tribunal for the purposes of those proceedings, and shall have all the powers and duties of the tribunal in relation to the hearing and determination thereof.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM had given Notice that he would move to leave out subsection (7) and insert:
"The Arbitration Tribunal may, for the purpose of obtaining any information which the Tribunal may require, direct any member of the Tribunal or any officer or person appointed by them to hold an inquiry, but nothing in this Act shall authorise the Tribunal to delegate any of their judicial duties as arbitrators."
The noble Viscount said: This is a very small matter, and I rather think there is something in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment which, to some extent, deals with the question, is there not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My intention was to draft an Amendment to cover this point.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: And that is the Amendment on the Paper, is it not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I have read it, and though to my mind it is not exactly the same as mine, I think it will do very well. Therefore I shall riot move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This and the succeeding Amendments are the Amendments which I have had drafted to carry out in substance the point with which the noble Viscount has been dealing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 13, leave out ("the proceedings for hearing and determination").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 15, leave out from ("purpose") to the end of line 19, and insert ("any question arising in the proceedings, for inquiry and report, and the report of any such person or persons may be adopted wholly or partly by the tribanal and, if so adopted, may be incorporated in an order of the tribunal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32:
Procedure and enforcement of orders of arbitration tribunal.
(4) An appeal shall lie, with the leave of the Court of Appeal or of the House of Lords, from any decision of the Court of Appeal under the last foregoing subsection, and such have may be given on such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords may determine.
(7) In relation to proceedings which, under the last foregoing section, are required to be held in Scotland, this section shall have effect subject to the following modifications
(b) in subsection (6) for the reference to the Lord Chancellor there shall he substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendments are merely drafting. The position is this that the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Administration of Justice (Appeal) Act, 1934, already provide what is to happen with regard to an appeal to the House of Lords—namely, if the Court of Appeal give leave, that all right; otherwise you can come and apply to the House of Lords. It is undesirable in practice to keep repeating i hat in every new Bill. It is already provided for in the law of the land.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Ls a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 17, leave out ("(3) and (4)") and insert ("and (3)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 17, leave out ("respectively").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (7) to leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Advocate." The noble Viscount said: I rise with some trepidation to move an Amendment which may be thought to involve the arcanum of Scottish law, into the precincts of which Englishmen do not usually step. The substance of it is very simple. The subsection to which it applies relates to modifications, for the purposes of Scotland, in some provisions contained in the earlier part of Clause 32, and the paragraph which it is thought may be improved is the one at the bottom of page 52, which supplies for the reference to the Lord Chancellor, reference to the Secretary of State.
The duties of the Lord Chancellor in England under the clause in question are duties in connexion with the framing of rules or regulations—I have forgotten which they are called—in regard to certain arbitrations, and whatever may have been the case in the past, nobody would be more competent at the present time than the Lord Chancellor to frame rules or regulations of that kind in England. But, when we come to Scotland, I venture to think—and I hope the Government will appreciate the fact—that the proper person to frame rules of a legal character in reference to arbitrations should be a lawyer, and Ministers, however skilful and able they may be, are really not people who hitherto have ever been employed to draft rules or regulations of this kind. There happens to be in Scotland a high official who is always, in my experience, both a lawyer of eminence and yet a person whose conduct can be called into question. That is not the case in regard to the person suggested in the clause—namely, the Secretary of State—so far as legal training is concerned, and the only person who is equivalent in a sense to the Lord Chancellor for Scottish purposes is the Lord Advocate. I may say that I have not been alone in forming that opinion, because several noble Lords who are well acquainted with Scotland, and some of them with the Lord Advocate himself, have told me that this is certainly the
236
right Amendment and will satisfy opinion on the other side of the Border. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 45, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Advocate").—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble and learned Viscount commenced by saying that he moved this Amendment with some trepidation, but I can assure him that his trepidation is nothing compared with my task in attempting to persuade him that this is not a helpful Amendment. As he pointed out, the Bill sets up an arbitration tribunal, and subsection (6) of Clause 32 says that the rules are to receive approval by the Lord Chancellor. In subsection (7), where it is laid down that in the case of Scotland for the reference to the Lord Chancellor there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State, the noble and learned Viscount wishes a reference to the Lord Advocate to replace that for the Secretary of State. This question was raised and discussed in another place as to whether it was appropriate that the Secretary of State, who may, in accordance with Clause 32 (8), have a right to be heard before the Tribunal in certain cases, should approve the rules to be made by the Tribunal determining its procedure.
The suggestion was then made that the rules should be approved by the Lord President. This suggestion, however, could not be accepted because the Lord President is not answerable to Parliament. He is opposed to accepting functions of this kind, and is not, in fact, furnished with the staff necessary for their discharge. The proposal in the Bill, that the rules should be approved by the Secretary of State, is in accordance with the general practice of leaving to the Secretary of State, as regards Scotland, functions not appropriate to the Lord President of the Court of Session, which are entrusted in England to the Lord Chancellor. There is an exact and recent precedent, which I might point out to the noble Viscount, for this proposal in Clause 106 of the Transport Bill.
Nor is there anything unusual, if I may point this out, in asking the Secretary of State to undertake a quasi judicial duty in a sphere in which he has interests as a departmental Minister. Under the Fire

237
Services Bill, for example, an appeal by statutory water undertakers lies to the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, as the Minister corresponding to the Minister of Health, although he is also, as the Minister corresponding to the Home Secretary, interested in fire service administration. The fact is, that a ministerial Pooh-Bah like the Secretary of State must be prepared to assume a variety of hats, and comport himself according to the hat he happens to be wearing; and his capacity for behaving impartially in accordance with the hat for the time being on his head is not seriously questioned in Scotland. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that, in this one instance, the Secretary of State will not behave with complete impartiality; or that there would be any conflict of duties, any more than there might be in the case of the Lord Chancellor, who in England approves the rules of the Tribunal, and may ultimately have to deal with appeals from its decisions.
The proposal to give the duty to the Lord Advocate is wholly unprecedented, and the Lord Advocate is not, any more than the Lord President, furnished with the staff necessary to undertake administrative and executive work. The Lord Advocate is a Law Officer of the Crown like the Attorney-General and the Minister responsible for public prosecutions. He has, generally speaking, no other executive functions. Further, as the Secretary of State's legal adviser, and as the person who might well represent the Secretary of State before the Tribunal, he is no more a disinterested party than the Secretary of State. 1 beg to submit therefore that it would be better—and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will agree—that the clause should remain in its present form.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do very much regret the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has given for a number of reasons. It was he who used the title Pooh Bah. I might have used it if he had not done so. I think that it is rather a pity that where a number of offices are combined into one an excessive burden should be put on to that office. It is quite untrue to say that the Secretary of State occupies the same position in Scotland as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor in England. How it is that we have succeeded in getting along in Scotland without a Lord Chancellor I do
238
not know, but we have succeeded in doing so for some reason or other. This is essentially a legal matter, the regulations are essentially legal in character, and the Lord Advocate is not the legal adviser to the Secretary of State. He is the .e al adviser on Scottish affairs to the Prime Minister, which is an entirely different thing. I would challenge the noble Lord to give examples. There may have been one or two in the Transport Bill. We went through it pretty thoroughly, but I will not say that a few things may not have slipped in which should not have clone so. I think that, as a matter of tradition, the Lord Advocate is the proper officer, in a purely legal matter, to handle such cases as those which would normally be handled in England by the Lord Chancellor, apart from those which would be handled by the Lord President of the Court of Session. I regret the noble Lord's answer, which I think is wholly wrong according to the traditions of the high office of Lord Advocate. I very much hope that the noble Lord will reconsider this.
LORD MORRISON: May I point out that I said I was advised that this would be wholly unprecedented.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: As I have Amid, I do not regard myself as an expert in this matter. I feel that there is great weight in what the noble Earl who has just spoken has said to your Lordships, and it is within my knowledge that number of other Scottish Peers take the same view. But, in the circumstances in which I am now placed, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34:
Determination of questions as to application of Part of this Act.
34.—(1) The Minister shall, within the prescribed period, serve a notice on every body who in his opinion are a power station company or electricity holding company to whom this Part of this Act applies and, unless that body serves on the Minister, within such period (not being less than twenty-eight days) after the service of the notice as may be prescribed, a counter notice in the prescribed form (which is not withdrawn) stating that in their opinion this Part of this Act does not apply to them, this Part of this Act shall be deemed to apply to the body.
5.35 P.m.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (1), after "within the prescribed period," insert "not being later than six months before the vesting date." The noble Lord said: Clause 34 deals with the cases where there may be some doubt as to whether bodies are or are not going to be taken over under this Bill. The clause says that the Minister shall within the prescribed period serve notice on every body who in his opinion are a power station company or electricity holding company, and so on. My Amendment would seek to add after the words "within the prescribed period" the further words "not being later than six months before the vesting date." During discussions on Clause 1 and Clause 14 earlier in the Bill the importance was stressed of seeing that the members of the British Electricity Authority and the area boards should be appointed as early as possible in order to give them an opportunity of getting down to the work of preparing plans for the time when they will assume their responsibilities, and from the assurances that were given and from what was said on all sides of the House, it would appear that that principle was generally agreed. This Amendment is really, I suggest, a natural corollary or development of that principle.
The Amendment aims to give adequate time for any disputes to be settled which may arise as to whether any electrical generating power companies or electrical holding companies shall or shall not be liable to be taken over under the Bill, the point being that we want to get these disputes settled in adequate time. In other words, it is to ensure that in making their plans the Central Authority or the area boards may be quite clear in their own minds as to whom they have to include in their plans and whom they have not to include. As the clause stands at present, the procedure is that the Minister initiates the process by serving on those companies notice that he considers that they are power station companies or holding companies and should be taken over under the Act. The only time factor that is introduced into the clause as it now stands is the time factor within which those companies have to make a counter-appeal if they wish to do so. There is no date laid down by which the Minister has to make his initial demands, Whilst I have no doubt that in the interests of all
240
concerned the Ministry will, perhaps, go out of their way to see that these settlements are made as soon as possible, there is nothing, as the Bill now stands, to stipulate the exact time.
I feel that it is only fair to all concerned, and particularly to those who have to operate the concerns on the vesting date, that the matter should be in black and white in the Bill, and that this notice should be served at the earliest possible moment. This is not a backdoor way of attempting to postpone the vesting date. It is a serious attempt to improve the administrative arrangements and to make it easier for those who have to assume these very great responsibilities on the vesting date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 31, at end insert ("not being later than six months before the vesting date").—(Lord Rochdale.)
LORD CHORLEY: I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. The difficulty is that, if the Minister were tied down in the way in which this Amendment would tie him down, it would be quite impossible for him to take over companies of the existence of which he is not at present aware. There may well be companies of that kind—holding companies—and if the Minister were tied down in this way he would not be in a position to deal with them. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that, and I hope that in the circumstances he will see fit to withdraw this Amendment. The noble Lord did say that he had no doubt that the Ministry would do their best to see that this matter was carried through with expedition. I can assure him that that is very much in the Minister's mind and that every effort will, in fact, be made in respect of these particular power station and holding companies to deal with them within the time. But the noble Lord will, I am sure, appreciate that there may be a few such concerns which cannot be dealt with under his Amendment, and in the circumstances I hope that he will withdraw it.
LORD ROCHDALE: I do appreciate the difficulties that the Minister would have, possibly, in ascertaining the facts relating to some of these companies. While I said that I thought it likely that the Minister would be as expeditious as possible in this matter, I added that I hoped that something would be put into

241
the Bill in black and white to draw attention to that very fact. However, in view of the assurances which the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Power to obtain information]:
LORD CHORLEY: It is my turn to score two easy boundaries. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 54, line 28, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move. Amendment moved
Page 54, line 35, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
General duties and powers of Central Authority and area boards in financial matters.
36.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Central Authority so to exercise and perform their functions under this Act, including their functions in relation to area boards, as to secure that the combined revenues of the Central Authority and all the area hoards taken together are not less than sufficient to meet their combined outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account taking one year with another.
(2) Without prejudice to the powers of the Central Authority under Part I of this Act to exercise, by means of directions given to area boards, a general control aver the policy of those boards in financial as in other matters, such directions may require area boards—

(a) to submit for the approval of the Central Authority periodic estimates of revenue and expenditure;

(b) to obtain the approval of the Central Authority in the case of expenditure properly chargeable to capital account and in other classes of cases where it is desirable in the opinion of the Central Authority to secure co-ordination between different area boards in matters involving expenditure.

5.42 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved in subsection (1), to leave out "the duty" and insert "the policy." The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands it is the duty of the Central Authority to see that their total revenue plus that of the area boards amassed together is sufficient to defray the expenditure chargeable to revenue account taking one year with another. Clause 45
242
defines this revenue, but I will not enter into any details of that sort. If my Amendment were accepted, it would become the policy of the Central Authority to see that their own revenue and that of each area board was sufficient to cover their respective charges to revenue each year. The point at issue here, is whether the Central Authority and the area board; should have a fixed target or a nebulous target. The Bill, as it stands, is complete nebulosity. My Amendment is not designed to be unduly restrictive, but at the same time I submit that it gives the Authority and the boards a definite target. and, of course, a definite target to all their employees.
The type of man whom the Minister would be well advised to get into those area boards, and I think he will do so. is the man who has taken a pride in producing a good balance sheet and good figures. But I do not think that such a man is going to take very kindly to coming in under this clause as it is now written. There is a psychological aspect about it. It is not good for morale or the esprit de corps of these immense bodies that there should not be any definite responsibility to balance their accounts. And this system of communal responsibility does not really work in this wicked world. Communal responsibility means there is always the next fellow. There is always another area board and nobody quite knows whether they are in one year or not.
I think the Government may well say that they want power to have these things run at a deficit. So far as I can see that would be for two reasons. They might wish that some rural area, for instance, should be subsidized in effect, or they might, for reasons of higher financial policy, wish to go in for deficit financing. Dealing with the second point first, fie proper place for deficit financing, and I admit that nowadays deficit financing is sometimes wise and necessary, is on the Budget at the highest level. If it has to be spread about the country, then it should be done by a provision in the Budget providing an aid to the revenue bodies that there should not be any of the Electricity Authority, but that would not alter the target because that would be taken in as part of its revenue. In this way, if a certain area board is lo be run at a loss, it is perfectly proper that the Central Authority should make

243
them a definite promise that they will be assisted in their revenue to the extent of a fixed sum, and thus their targets will be preserved. It seems to me that by that means we shall always have a body of men who are striving to make both ends meet and who are willing to take the unpleasant decisions which are often necessary in pursuit of that object. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said yesterday that the area boards would be powerful and independent bodies. Without an Amendment of this sort they cannot possibly be powerful independent bodies. I hope I have made the case clear and that the Government will be able to do something in respect of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 10, leave out ("the duty") and insert ("the policy").—(Lord Hawke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I listened to the noble Lord, as I always do, with interest and profit, but I am bound to say that the arguments he adduced seem to me to be arguments I should adduce to answer his Amendment. His Amendment is to leave out the word "duty," which is becoming rather an unpleasant word nowadays and is apt to be shirked, and substitute the word "policy." I vastly prefer the word "duty," and if he is talking about nebulosity, the light of the star which is Duty is fading into the Milky Way when you get to Policy. I want it frankly and definitely stated that this has to be run to make both ends meet. I am quite prepared to say you need not necessarily show every year complete accounts, but over a period of years, or to use the phrase commonly used, "taking one year with another"—by that I mean rather a longer time than one year—over a definite limit of time, say two or three years, this scheme must be made to pay. People will have to pay for their electricity enough to prevent this being a general charge on the Budget and I want that quite clearly to be enshrined in the Act. The word "duty" is a better word than "policy" and, that being so, I would very much rather have the word "duty."
LORD HAWKE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAWKE: I beg to move the next Amendment to omit all words in subsection (1) after "secure that" and insert other words.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, leave cut lines 13 to 16, and insert ("the revenues of the Central Authority and each of the area hoards are each not less than sufficient to meet their outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account").—(Lord Hawke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The issue here is whether the board or the industry should be the financial unit under the new set-up. No doubt each system has its own advantages, but in our view the balance of advantage lies with the adoption of the wider unit of the industry. We have had much discussion on that, and I think, notwithstanding the arguments on the other side, that a proper degree of competition between boards is just as possible if the Central Authority have over-all responsibility for balancing budgets as if that responsibility falls on individual boards. The medium for comparison of trading results is the annual account. Under the Bill each board must . publish accounts for its area. After all, let us remember they are nationalizing and not regionalizing this industry. All that is really essential is that the industry as a whole should pay its way. There may be certain areas which are rather the weaker brethren, and they might have to be helped by some of the other areas. Just as I said yesterday that sometimes the rural electrification might have to be helped by the urban, so I visualize a circumstance in which there might be one area which has to be helped at the cost of the other areas. I think that is right.
Although the Central Authority are the focal point of financial responsibility, there is nothing to prevent them requiring the area boards normally to work within a balanced budget scheme. It is to be expected that they will do so. But the Bill allows exceptions to be made where desirable. The effect of omitting the words, "taking one year with another" would be to leave undefined the period over which a balance as between revenue and expenditure is to be struck, and it would, therefore, presumably be the financial year of the board. Each board, presumably, would be compelled in practice to budget year by year for a surplus; and, moreover, if

245
overtaken in the course of the year by some unexpected change, they would have to make immediate changes in tariffs or expenditure. I think that would have the effect of introducing an unnecessary degree of rigidity into the scheme, which must remain flexible.
For that reason, I would much prefer to keep the words we have, and so long as there is an understanding on the part of everybody concerned that this industry must be made to pay its way, I would like to allow the little latitude that comes from my words, "taking one year with another." That was the scheme which we deliberately adopted in the days of the Coalition in our Economic White Paper in regard to the Budget; and just as it was right there with regard to the Budget, so I think it is right here. I quite agree that we should not use this as a kind of escape hole, to think that this industry can carry on without regard to adequate and proper finance.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is very desirable that we should have this discussion. I think the issues are pretty nearly balanced. As regards the first, we should none of us have any doubt that, by and large, this industry has to pay its way. That is common ground to everybody. I do not dissent from the proposition that you should take one year with another. On the other hand, we must not live in unsatisfied hope in this business. Taking one year with another does riot mean hoping that something will turn up. It does mean a genuine financial structure under which you pay your way, and, indeed, create a reserve. Provided that you are wise and prudent in your accounting and in your forecasting, then I think "taking one year with another" is probably the right thing to do.
Then comes what I think is much more difficult. I leave out the Central Authority, because they can pay their way only by collecting money from the area boards. Though the Central Authority are the entire controllers of finance, the area boards are the entire finders of finance. They buy the current and finance the Central Authority in that way; and they also, as we shall see in later clauses, have to contribute in such way as they are directed by the Central Authority to the reserves and the finances of the Central Authority. The Central Authority have to budget for themselves,
246
as for their subsidiaries, so as to pay their way.
There is, further, the much more difficult question of whether these area boards should pay their way individually or as a whole. The Committee will have observed that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has made it very plan to-day that the real control is in the Central Authority. There is a little tendency, when it is convenient, on one Amendment to emphasize the importance and the individuality of the area boards, and on another Amendment to emphasize the superiority of the Central Authority. In this particular case one has no doubt where they stand. I am not sure that the noble and learned Viscount did not use the word "subsidiaries"; at any rate, he meant it, because they are going to do in this matter exactly what they are told. They are going to be told whether dually they are to make a profit or loss, and one is to be "milked" for the benefit of another, as well as for the benefit of the parent company. I think it is probably right.
There are two conflicting principles here. One is that each of these area boards should do the best they can aril, within such powers as they have, be is efficient and enterprising and show is much initiative as they can. I must not mention the profit motive in this particular connexion; I have to call it "excess of revenue." Probably in the next Bill we have it will have another pseudonym. The same old cast appear, but they always appear with a new name. But the incentive—the carrot in front of the donkey's nose—the natural carrot, and the one to which nearly all donkeys, whether Socialist or Tory, respond, is the incentive of doing a bit better. If you put each of these Boards on their own, not in competition in the sense that each can compete with the other, but in the sense that if they make a profit they can have some of it for themselves, then you will have the best incentive to these different Socialist boards to do their best. Inevitably, if one is efficient, or slack, or not so enterprising, and knows that its losses are to be made up out of its neighbour's profits, and not out of charging the customer more—the customer who can give a kick—there will be less incentive to these bodies to do their best.
On the other hand, I think it would be hard if you had an area which needs

247
development which, because it is a country area and naturally sparsely populated, has to bear all the costs itself. I am not thinking only of the amenities of the people in the country because I am fonder of the country than I am of London—though I do not get there very much—but because it is important that the most effective way we can save dollars is by doing more in our own country. We shall not do that unless we bring efficiency into the rural industries, and the amenities which electricity brings. The companies have made a fine effort to do this. It was not the failures of the companies to bring electricity to the country districts but very often, I regret to say, the conservatism or the innate Socialism of the farmer who did not take it. You may have an area which is an industrial area and yet which needs developing. You have an area which is rich industrially and rich in the density of its population. .It may well be that some levy will be made upon the richer district—where you can sell more electricity because of density—for the benefit of the other.
On the whole, therefore, I come down on the same side as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on this. I am with him on having to pay your way; I am with him on making it one year with another; and on the whole I am with him in not forcing each of these individual authorities to pay its own way. But having said that, let me add this. If we do deliberately take away that extra incentive from these local bodies and jumble the thing up a bit more in the way of taking from one to give to another, it does become a subsidy: and the one thing you must not have in any of this is a concealed subsidy. It must be perfectly clear what is done. People must know what they are being charged, and they must know where they are contributing to somebody else as well as to themselves. It therefore becomes all the more important that when we come to the accounts clause we should get it into a form upon which we all agree, as we did on the Transport Bill. We must clearly put upon them the responsibility of showing, in the plainest possible way, the financial results of all these operations—what happens to the money and how it is being spent. On the whole, I come clown on the side of the Government on this.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: We are really discussing two matters here: first, whether you will take one year with another or whether the board should be confined to a single year; and second, the question of whether the area boards should balance their accounts singly or whether they should be taken as a whole. May I take the first point? As your Lordships know, I have not always agreed with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, about this Bill, but in this matter I think he is right. I would like to assure my noble friend Lord Hawke that the procedure adopted in the Bill is in fact that which is a common practice in these undertakings to-day, and I very much doubt whether any business man would undertake the responsibilities of this Bill if he were not able to take one year with another. It is always the practice of an electricity undertaking to have a policy extending over two or three years. They may make large profits one year and put a certain amount to reserve in order that they may have some money to take out of reserve for a lean year. That being their policy to-day, I think it is reasonable that that policy should be continued. I really doubt whether any area board would agree to function unless they had that limit.
With regard to the second point, of course we have so far had no example of a nationalized industry; but even now the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, and who is living in London, is in fact paying more for his electricity in order that the Central Electricity Board may supply it more cheaply to the outside districts. If you were to insist that the operations of each area board should be confined to their own area you would defeat the whole object of nationalization. You would then be merely having regional arrangements, and would defeat the object of the Bill, which is that the industry should be conducted as a national industry, and as a whole should provide for the needs of the rural workers, so long as the total transaction is a business-like one. Like my noble friend Viscount Swinton I feel that on the whole the Lord Chancellor is right in resisting the noble Lord's Amendment. I would like to assure the noble Lord that from my own experience the policy laid down in the Bill is one which will work and is in

249
accordance with the business practice of the industry.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to say a little on this Amendment concerning the division of the accounting between the area boards and the Central Authority. I feel also that the proposal to leave out "taking one year with another" is not a wise one for the reasons just quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Part III Of the Bill deals with the financial arrangements of the area boards and their relationship with the Central Authority. In a speech made either to-day or yesterday, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said he wanted to see as much independence as possible given to area boards, and I am sorry to say one feels a little disappointed that in this Part of the Bill there is a strong indication that the area boards are to be treated as appendages or, as was said in the debate yesterday, puppets of the Central Authority, I believe very firmly that that is wrong.
I will not accept the distinction between nationalizing the industry and regionalizing it, which has been quoted as an argument in favour of the Bill on this point. I would say that the Bill nationalizes, in the sense that it tramfers to public ownership; and beyond that it is a question of organizing the industry in public ownership in the best possible way. I do not see that the conflict is one of principle at all. I would support this Amendment for the reason that the area boards have, in fact, been drawn as large units: indeed, it is said by some that they are too big. They contain, so far as possible, balanced areas of supply, both urban and rural, in so far as it is possible to divide the country into such units. They should be units which are able to support themselves as, roughly speaking, do those units at the present time. One imagines that present undertakings are operating in that way, and if one looks at the records one would find something not very different from what this Amendment proposes.
Further, I believe that any subsidy which may be required as between one area and another, if such a case should arise—and one must admit that it is a possibility—should be made openly and for the purpose of definite assistance between one part of the country and another. It should be declared and made
250
known in the published accounts. I would be the last to say that that would always be a wrong policy to adopt, but I feel strongly that matters of this sort ought it to be made quite clear. I remember that when we were discussing the Transport Bill recently there was a point which to my mind was very similar, and that was the Amendment providing that the Minister should not give any directions to the Commission which would prevent them from earning their revenues. That is not the same wording as that we are now discussing, but it is exactly the same point. It is probably right that development should be undertaken in certain areas, particularly rural areas, and that the inspiration, if not direction, should be derived from the Central Authority through the Minister; but that should not prejudice the earning capacity of the undertaking. It is right that directions of that sort should be given.
It is rather difficult to confine the discussion to this Amendment because those that follow it on this Part of the R11 all point in the same direction. But I look upon this as one of the important ones, as the first step in making it possible to keep the boards on their owns feet, to make them able to compete with each other in the service they can give to the public so that people can take pride and satisfaction in each board doing their work economically, efficiently and cheaply in a way which can be seen from their accounts. For those reasons I support this Amendment and hope that something can be done on these lines.
LORD HAWKE: Any humble Amendment of mine which can have produced. such an eloquent explanation as we have had from the noble and learned Viscount, and such eloquent speeches from other members of your Lordships' House, is one which I do not regret putting down. I must confess that I remain unconvinced as regards regionalization, but I beg leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (2) (b) to leave out "in the case of expenditure," and insert "of programmes of development involving capital expenditure and of expenditure otherwise." The noble Lord said: I feel the great danger is that of over-centralization, and the need for matters to be continually referred back

251
to higher authority for decision, with a consequent slowing down of progress and loss of efficiency. Particularly is this a danger during the early years, when the individuals concerned will not be able to be sure how far their own authority goes and how the thing is going to work. During the Second Reading I went out of my way to draw attention to this matter, and although then I was not thinking particularly about matters of capital expenditure, as we are in this case, the principle holds just the same. I believe that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor shares the fears on this point; I read that into the remarks he made when mentioning the appointment of members to the area boards. At the same time, I find it a little difficult to know when it is right that the channel of communication should be from the Minister through the Central Authority down to the area boards, and when it should go direct. That is obviously a matter of opinion. I do not know what is the criterion on that matter in the present Bill.
As I read this clause, the Central Authority may require the area boards to obtain their approval in the case of every single item of capital expenditure chargeable to capital account. I feel that that is ridiculous. I may have exaggerated the matter in putting it in this way, but the fact remains that unless something is clearly stated in the Bill there will be a very dangerous tendency towards greater and greater centralization, and for more and more matters of relative detail to be referred back. There is also introduced a very dangerous way of escape for those who might not be able to act on their own judgment, and who, rather than "blot their copy-book," prefer to refer things back rather than take decisions themselves on matters of detail.
This Amendment is not intended to limit the over-all powers of the Central Authority. It seeks to lay down that they may require to approve programmes of development which involve capital expenditure, but it makes it quite clear that it is the intention that so far as possible the area boards should have the maximum degree of freedom on matters like this. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the previous paragraph, where it says:
252
"to submit for the approval of the Central Authority periodic estimates of revenue and expenditure."
I think in this Amendment it is exactly on a similar basis as regards capital expenditure. I beg to move, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 24, leave out from ("Authority") to ("properly") in line 25 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
LORD RENNELL: I would like to say how much I support what the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has said. I think there is a great danger of centralization. That is being borne in on us in various directions, probably most urgently in the centralization that is permitted in the administration of coal. I am not referring to production or anything of that sort, but to the capital expenditure and estimates. I think many of the Committee will know that certain difficulties have already arisen, and are likely to arise to a greater extent still, by that centralisation. I very much hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have very much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37:
Fixing and variation of tariffs.
37.—(1) The prices to be charged by the Central Authority for the supply of electricity by them to area boards shall be in accordance with such tariffs as may be fixed by the Authority from time to time, and different tariffs may be fixed for different area boards.
6.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to subsection (1):
"and in fixing the tariff for an area board the Central Authority shall take into account the cost of production of the electricity generated at the generating stations within the area of that area board and supplied to that board."
The noble Viscount said: I have my name to two Amendments on this clause. I do not believe them to be contradictory. They deal with different aspects of the same thing, but I wish to make it clear that they are complementary to each other. In the first one I have tried to perpetuate some of the advantages which

253
I believe to be in the present system. There was some discussion in another place on this clause, on the form of tariff which was to be used for charges between the Central Authority and the area boards. There was a very inconclusive debate, which did not cover the point I have made here, which is that we should continue the system whereby, in each area, the costs of generation are directly reflected in the price of the electricity sold. That has always been a feature of the industry and it has had one very important effect, of course, in areas where, owing to the proximity of a coalfield in the early days, industry has settled—heavy industry in particular. Their current has been cheap, and that has been part of a system Which has caught up with the present distribution of the heavy industries in the country.
It is on industrial grounds really that I am moving this Amendment. At the present time, under the 1926 Act, the Central Electricity Board buys from the companies who have generating stations at the cost of generation, and sells back to them, roughly speaking, at the same cost plus the overheads of the Central Electricity Board, which include, of course, the cost of the Grid transmission system. But there is a particular subsection which says that the companies owning selected stations are protected in the charge which is made to them by the fact that it should not exceed that cost at which they would have generated themselves had they had a station in operation in their own area. Therefore, in effect, at present the cost of electricity, as between the distribution companies and the power companies who are distributors as well on the one hand, and the Central Electricity Board on the other, is directly reflected in the cost of generating in that area.
I do not know that there is anything in the real objects of the Bill which would counteract the proposal that that system should continue. I would particularly refer to the need that there is, which is recognized by the Government, for rebuilding and developing industries in what are known as development areas. Those are practically all coalfield areas. It is those areas in which heavy industry has settled, where there is a shortage of work and factories and employment, that one would hope that the cost of electricity would he less, and it needs to he less as
254
one of the inducements for industrial development. It does not seem to be right that the advantage of being on a coalfield and having a short haul and, therefore, cheaper coal should be, as it were, distributed throughout the country in areas where it is riot really needed.
One must remember that a very high percentage of the current used in this country goes to industry; it is something of the order of sixty per cent.; in fact, I think it is more. The alternative for an industrial plant of any size, if the undertaking finds the electricity expensive, is to generate its own electricity, which it is entitled to do, to combine with a neighbouring firm and to share the generating plant with them, or to use other forms of power. Gas can be used for driving machinery, and it is even still possible to Use steam. All those are alternative sources of energy which are subject to the local price of fuel in the district. It is for that reason that electricity ought to have the same sort of ratio of prices in one district as in another.
I do not want to confuse this with anything relating to the old question of undue preference as between one consumer and another, because that is a phrase which is used in referring to dealings between some undertaking and a number of individuals. The area boards can hardly be looked upon as individuals in this case. They are the agencies through which electricity is to be distributed to the places where it ought to go. It is my strong belief that it ought to be so adjusted as to have some relation to the actual value and cost of fuel in any area. It should have some relation to the need for cheapness of electricity in that area as compared with others, in such a way that it fills in part of the industrial picture, and fits in with the at present devised location of industry—the steel works, the heavy chemicals, aid other plans sited in places because of such factors as the transport of raw materials, the transport of coal and local supplies of coal, fuel, and current. We do not want to upset that rather delicate a ad rather complicated balance of affairs, and so I hope to see this sort of arrangement perpetuated.
I think I have said enough to explain the object of this Amendment. It is following on the same idea of keeping each area as separate as possible and as

255
independent as possible, and I believe that the more of that that we can put in this Bill, the better it will work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 34, at end, insert ("and in fixing the tariff for an area board the Central Authority shall take into account the cost of production of the electricity generated at the generating stations within the area of that area board and supplied to that board").—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount will not be surprised to hear that, in view of the discussion we have had on Lord Hawke's Amendment, which has just taken place, I am not prepared to accept this Amendment. I quite understand the noble Viscount's idea, and I understand that there is a strong case for it. There are the two schools of thought, I agree, but I really dealt with this in the last Amendment when I said that what we were doing was nationalizing and not regionalizing. That puts it in a nutshell. I do not think we can, in considering what price an area board shall pay for its electricity, have regard to the considerations which the noble Lord would desire.
The cost of generation—though I speak as a child in these matters—I suppose, depends upon the size of the station and, I suppose, the modernity of the station, the age of the station and the nature of the fuel, whether oil or coal—we had that consideration in regard to Bankside recently—and also, no doubt, the distance from the coalfields. All these are factors. I do not think we should be right in a national system, where they are all taking their supplies from the Grid, where they may be either exporting or importing supplies, to let these comparatively fortuitous considerations, some of which I have mentioned, enter into the fixation of prices. Therefore, the noble Lord will not mind, I am sure, if I content myself with saying that, because we have had a full discussion on the previous Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I hardly expected that the Lord Chancellor would welcome this Amendment, but I felt that it was a view to be put forward. There is one point I should like to raise. With respect, this Amendment is not quite the same in purpose as the last Amendment
256
which we discussed, because its object is to provide for the consumers of the area boards the current at what is to be now the economic price for that area. It is not primarily designed to have any effect on the relationship of the area boards, themselves vis-à-vis the Central Authority. To that extent, it is, I submit, a little different in principle from the earlier Amendment. However, I feel that in the circumstances that is as far as we can go with it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), at the end to insert:
"Provided that the tariffs shall he framed so that the prices and methods of charge shall be in accordance with principles to be formulated from time to time by the Central Authority in a scheme which shall be submitted by them to the Minister and laid before each House of Parliament and the tariffs from time to time in force shall be published in such manner as the Central Authority think best adapted for ensuring their publicity."
The noble Lord said: This is a little different again, because it does not put upon the Authority any duty to vary the tariffs between one area and another. It states, in short, that they must be made known. The methods of charge are to be in accordance with the principles formulated from time to time, and submitted, and published, and so on. It is perhaps a matter on which we can hope that we may all much more easily come to have the same view. It is less contentious, and perhaps there is less question of principle in it. It seems to me that, whilst it has not been possible to carry out the suggestions made even in the last Amendment governing the differences of tariffs between the different areas and the hoards, it is still perfectly practicable—and indeed it is allowed in the Bill—that the Central Authority should charge different tariffs for different areas.
If that is so—and I am glad that it is so—it rather reinforces the suggestion in this Amendment that the tariffs should be published so that each area should know where it is, and know what its board is paying for the current. The public, as consumers, can then judge for themselves what sort of a job the area board are making of handing the current on to them. We can thus have some-

257
thing of the proper competition between one area and another, a competition between area boards trying to achieve the best results. I think it would be an encouragement for them to do that and, if it is found to be right in practice that central boards should sell at different rates in different areas, that could be made perfectly clear. It could, in fact, be used rather in the way which we were leading up to in the Amendment we discussed not so very long ago—that is to say that each of the boards should stand on its own feet financially.
It is possible that in order to achieve that the Central Authority might decide to sell at slightly different rates between one area and another, so that anything which is done in that is an important part of the make-up of this business; it is part of the annual report, if not part of the accounts, if I may put it that way, although it has been decided that it shall not be part of the accounts, because the separate boards are not to have separate covering of their expenses. But it is part of the policy of the undertaking, and should really be made well known and clear. I hope very much that the Lord Chancellor will be able to agree to this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Ridley.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would like to say a word or two in support of this, because I entirely share the Lord Chancellor's view with regard to the last Amendment, as I did over the whole of Clause 36. Equally, I think that must lead us to the conclusion that this is a right and proper Amendment, because this Amendment, while giving a complete power to charge different charges, lays down that it should be made abundantly plain how those charges are arrived at and what they are. It is, of course, entirely in accord with what has been laid down in the Act of 1926. It has nothing whatever to do with regionalizing as compared with nationalizing; it is entirely informative.
Your Lordships may remember that in the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1926 in Section 11 it was laid down as follows:
"The price to be charged by the Board"—
that is the Central Electricity Board—
"for electricity supplied directly by them to authorised undertakers shall be in accord-
258
ance with such tariff as may be fixed by the Board from time to time, and the tariff shall be fixed so that over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners the receipts on income account shall be sufficient to cover the expenditure on income account"—
and other expenditure. The section goes on:
"The tariff shall be so framed as to include as part of the charge and show separately—

(a) a fixed kilowatt charges component;

(b) a running charges component;

And then it goes on to say that the charges
"shall be ascertained in accordance with s itch principles"—
and this is very important—
"as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners; or the tariff may be framed in such other manner as may be determined by an order of the Electricity Commissioners, but such an order shall not come into force until it has been laid before each House of Parliament."
Then it says in subsection (3):
"The tariff fixed under this section may it the Board think fit, be different for different areas."
This Amendment is slightly less particular than that section, which was universally accepted and has worked very well. It provides, as my noble friend has said, that
"the prices and methods of charge shall be in accordance with the principles to be formulated from time to time by the Central Authority in a scheme which shall be submitted by them to the Minister"—
and the Minister is given power and indeed the duty to approve—
"and laid before each House of Parliament and the tariffs from time to time in force shall be published in such manner as 1 he Central Authority think best for ensuring their publicity."
It is, therefore, entirely in order to give the knowledge, which I think we all agree should exist, of what are the principles upon which this tariff for bulk electricity is based, and to give clear publicity to the price at which it is sold. There are some things on which we have differed. The one thing which the Lord Chancellor and I have agreed upon completely all the time has been the importance of clear it publicity and clear information. I remember the Lord Chancellor saying once of another great Socialist though his Socialism was slightly more gradual.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Mine is twenty years.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was referring to the inevitability of gradualness. The Lord Chancellor ambles faster along the primrose path of Socialism than Mr. Sidney Webb, but they both agreed that when we have Socialism, whether we have it gradually or quickly, we must live in a glasshouse so that everybody can see us. This is the application of that principle, that we should live in a glasshouse and that everything should be absolutely clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree with the last observation—I do not mean about Mr. Sidney Webb and myself, but about the necessity of full publicity. I am quite certain that publicity is our safeguard in all these matters. I am quite certain that it is the fact that we have publicity which prevents corruption creeping in, and I think the more we have the light of day on all these transactions the better. Therefore I would not have the slightest objection to the last three lines of this Amendment: "the tariffs from time to time in force shall be published in such manner as the Central Authority think best adapted for ensuring their publicity." That is perfectly sound and right.
But I am a little frightened about the rest of the Amendment, and for this reason. If it were, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who has just spoken said it was, a question of the Minister approving, it would be rather a different matter, and I would very readily consider, if noble Lords thought it desirable, a provision whereby the principles on which the Central Authority propose to fix tariffs were referred to the Minister for his approval. At the present moment they are not, and the Minister has no power to do anything about this, save that general power that your Lordships remember in one of the earlier clauses, enabling him to give general directions if it is in the national interest so to do. Apart from that, he has no power to approve tariffs. It may be desirable that he should have that power, or it may not. There is this to be said against his having that power. The Bill fairly and squarely puts the obligation on the Central Authority to make ends meet, and enables them to charge what they like, and they might say, "If the Minister has to approve what we are going to charge, we are not in a position to
260
fulfil our functions." That is one argument. The argument in favour of having the Minister approving is that you thereupon get more direct Parliamentary control. A principle that I believe in very strongly in connexion with these matters is this. Just as you must have very great publicity so you must have Parliamentary control. Then you can have members of Parliament discussing these matters in the light of full knowledge, and the Minister can be pulled up if he is doing anything wrong, and taken to task. I think that that is a real safeguard, and thank goodness it is a great feature of our democratic system.
If you had it that the approval of the Minister was necessary, Parliament would be able to tackle him about the tariff and, possibly, say that he ought never to have approved. I cannot say, here and now, which of these two things is right, and I would readily invite your Lordships to consider this matter. If you feel that the Minister should have power to approve tariffs, I will gladly take the matter up with the Minister. That is a proposal which I am very willing to consider. I do not want to have these tariffs laid before Parliament or going before Parliament for approval or quasi approval. A tariff is a very very complicated thing and it may, of course, have to be moved quickly. We have provided in this Bill that it may have to be altered from time to time. I agree that there should always be the fullest publicity about what is being done and, of course, you can have the whole matter discussed in the House. But I am reluctant, under the new dispensation, to go back to the words "in accordance with principles to be formulated from time to time."
I have never looked at one of these tariffs but I have little doubt that they are very very complicated, and I doubt if one would be understood easily by an ordinary member of the public. I should think that they are probably matters which can only be readily understood by experts, and people who are not experts would have difficulty in formulating principles. I think it would probably be very much easier to have a tariff framed and when you have got it to have discussions on it. We shall have consultative councils, consumers' organizations, and the newspapers—if they are able to extend to more than four pages by then—and everyone else all discussing

261
these matters. If your Lordships like the publicity part of the Amendment I have not the smallest objection to it. If your Lordships like to consider the desirability of the Minister giving his approval I will gladly consider that with you. But I think I would rather have it in the way I have outlined than in the form of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Lord Chancellor has met us very fairly on this. Let me say as regards to the laying of the thing before Parliament, that I would agree that that is not necessary. If the thing is to be discussed in Parliament, there are ways and means of discussing it. But I am not sure that the discussion would be of a very expert nature except in the case of a few participants like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I have been at some pains to discuss the matter with experts, and they do lay tremendous stress upon this—that the principles on which the tariffs are formulated should be laid down. In the past Parliament carefully laid down, on the advice of the greatest experts of the day, that the principles on which the board fixed its tariff should be clearly stated and presented. That was done on the best expert advice. I believe that all the greatest experts in the country, whether producers or distributors, were quite unanimous with regard to this. The 1926 Act lays down that there shall be these two factors. I have been careful in the Amendment not to fetter the discretion of the board because, though probably to-day every great expert would agree that these two principles are the right principles on which a bulk tariff should be framed, times change and practices change, and other and better principles may emerge in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt just to put to him this question for the purpose of eliciting information? Could any intelligent person look at a tariff if it was published without seeing what the principles were?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Oh yes. Most emphatically. A tariff would merely give you the cost and so on. That was why it was considered so important to know the principles upon which a tariff
262
was based. Again, I am not speaking as an expert. I am not an electrical expert though I have had a great deal to do with electrical business. I believe that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will find that there is almost complete agreement in the industry—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will bear this out I think—as to how important it is that the principles upon which the board frame their tariff should be known. I do not want to press the Lord Chancellor on this now. Obviously we are very nearly at one about it. I withdraw at once the idea that his should be laid before Parliament. But I do attach great importance to publication of the tariffs. And I am advised that almost more important than publication of the tariffs is the publication of the principles. I would be entirely guided by the Lord Chancellor as to whether the Minister should approve, or whether it should be left to the Cent-al Authority. But I believe that we should have these two things, a laying down of what the principles are, and publication of them, approved by the Minister if you will (that I leave entirely to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor) and then publication of the tariff itself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we can easily come to terms on this. I am afraid that I am not instructed upon it now, but I will gladly get instructions and see if I can find an Amendment which will meet the wishes of noble Lords. I am glad that the noble Viscount does not press for submission to Parliament. I am sure that would hamper the Central Authority too much. For a really intelligent understanding of the tariff, he tells me it is necessary to have the principles stated. I think that the statement of the principles should come within the ambit of my publicity department. I will take this matter up with the Minister and find out what I can do between now and the Report stage to meet this.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think it would be better to withdraw this Amendment now and have an agreed clause put down on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I just add a. word to what has been said. I, too, do not attach a great amount of importance to submission to Parliament, but I would be very keen to have the Minister's

263
approval, and I most certainly agree that publicity is wanted. I feel it is of great importance that the principles on which tariffs are made and founded should be well known and understood. I do not think that understanding them is necessarily a matter of very great difficulty. In the 1926 Act the principles of what is now in operation are set out in Clauses to, 11 and 13, and they are not very difficult to understand. It is not, in my view, essential to dress this up in a lot of technical verbiage. I feel certain that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor fully appreciates the points which we are desirous of making and that he will be able to put down a satisfactory Amendment for the Report stage. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before we pass on I should like to make reference to two points with regard to the clause as whole. First of all I should like to refer to the statement of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, last night to the effect that as much independence as possible should be given to the area boards. For that reason it was agreed that the Minister should appoint representatives of the boards with the approval of the Central Authority. But when I look at Clause 37 and read it in association with Clause 6 it seems to me that the area boards are tied hand and foot. The noble and learned Viscount said we were not regionalizing in this Bill but nationalizing, and certainly these two clauses are full nationalization with a vengeance. If you look at Clause 37 (1) you see that the Central Authority shall fix tariffs for bulk supplies and has power to fix retail tariffs of area boards. If any variation is desired, it has the power to vary the tariffs in the area boards.
The Bill gives full power to the Central Authority to do all these things and yet there is no appeal from the Central Authority. At a later stage my noble friend Viscount Swinton is going to move an Amendment for an Appeal Tribunal, and I have risen to draw particular attention to the very wide powers given to the Central Authority to fix tariffs without any proper provision for appeal. Under the Bill, as I understand it, any grievance about tariffs is taken to the consultative council. The consultative
264
council can no doubt consult with the area boards, but if they are not satisfied they go back to the Central Authority who are the people who primarily fix these tariffs. I hope that when it comes to the Amendment of my noble friend on Clause 57, the Government will give very serious consideration to it, not only from the point of view of the consumer, but from the point of view of the whole set-up of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Investigation into and modification of provisions of Act of 1943 regarding price of electricity supplied under s. 16 (1).
38.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, before the expiry of the tenth year after the passing of the Act of 1943, cause an investigation to be made into the working of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section sixteen of that Act and of the Fourth Schedule thereto regarding the price to be charged by the North of Scotland Board for electricity supplied under the said subsection and shall cause a report of the result of the investigation to be laid before Parliament.
6.52 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (1), after the first "The," to insert "Minister and the." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of Clause 38 at present provides that the Secretary of State shall cause an investigation to be made, but as any order resulting from the report of the investigation is required to be made by the Minister and the Secretary of State, both of whom are concerned with the relations between the Central Authority and the North of Scotland Board, it has been thought appropriate to provide that the inquiry shall be initiated by the two Ministers jointly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 1, after the first ("The") insert ("Minister and the").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40:
British Electricity Stock
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, and of the Third Schedule to this Act, British Electricity Stock shall be issued, transferred, dealt with and redeemed upon such terms and in accordance with such provisions as may be

265
prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, and any such regulations may, in relation to any such stock, apply with or without modifications any provisions of the Local Loans Act, 1875, or of any enactments relating to stock issued by a local authority.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (2), after "transferred," to insert "and." The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak at this time on the three Amendments standing in my name. The purpose is to secure that a stock issued under this Bill shall not merely be redeemable stock in the sense that it can be redeemed at Government option but shall be a stock which has a date by which it must finally be redeemed. This does not seem to me to be an unreasonable request. It does not touch the basis of compensation. I am not concerned to argue whether this basis be just or unjust, or whether the compensation be too great or too small, merely that it should be certain. If compensation be effected in an undated stock then the holder of the stock can by no means be certain that he will avoid financial loss. The latest loan issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer now stands at approximately 10 points below its issue price, it being stock redeemable solely at the Government's option. We cannot be sure that the fall in the gilt-edged market has been arrested. It may even be accelerated when a thousand millions of home railways stock is put on the market. I hope I am not unduly optimistic in believing that the noble and learned Viscount has some sympathy with this Amendment and I trust he may feel able, to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 7, after ("transferred") insert ("and").—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Viscount has taken a convenient course in discussing the three Amendments together, although nominally the first is the only one before us. Clause 40 (2) provides that the terms upon which British Electricity Stock is issued, transferred, dealt with and redeemed, shall be prescribed by regulations. The noble Viscount by his Amendment wants to restrict the power to make regulations in regard to redemption to fixing the date of redemption. There are other matters
266
in relation to redemption, such as the manner and the amount of the payments to be made, the establishment of a redemption fund, etc., which must be provided for in the regulations. I take it that the real object of the noble Lord is to ensure that only dated stock is issued.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Stock with a final date by which it must be redeemed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what I mean. Then I can tell the House that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already indicated during Committee stage in the House that dated stock will, in fact, be issued. There be none of this redeemable stock or stock redeemable only at the option of the Government on some unspecified date.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very glad that statement was made because some of us were puzzled by the provision of Clause 20 (1) (c) which says:
"any stock issued as aforesaid in respect of securities guaranteed by the Treasury shall be of the same nominal amount, shall carry interest at the same rates and payable at the same dates, and shall be redeemed at the same dates and by the same procedure and by payment of the same amounts, as in the case of the securities."
That, of course, stands completely and carries its own exceptional rights but every other stock issued to existing share. holders would take its own chance.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

EDUCATION (EXEMPTIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

ELECTRICITY BILL.
House again in Committee.
Clause 41:
Apportionment of liabilities in respect of stock, borrowed moneys, etc., as between Central Authority and area boards.
41.—(1) The Central Authority may require any area board to contribute, to such extent as may be determined by the Central

267
Authority, towards the satisfaction of the obligations of the Central Authority in respect of—

(a) the redemption of British Electricity Stock or the payment of interest thereon;

(b) the repayment of sums to the Treasury under the next following section or the payment of interest thereon;

(c) the making of payments under Part II of this Act by way of compensation to local authorities; or

(d) the repayment of any sums temporarily borrowed by the Central Authority or the payment of interest thereon;

and the area board shall comply with that requirement.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved in subsection (1) to leave out "to such extent as may be determined by the Central Authority, towards" and insert "rateably in proportion to the book values of the assets for the time being vested in the Central Authority or the area board as the case may be." The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the extent to which the Central Authority may require area boards to contribute towards the satisfaction of the obligations of the Central Authority in regard to the matters which are detailed in the subsections of Clause 41; that is to say, for the redemption of British Electricity Stock, the repayment of sums to the Treasury under the next following clause, and various other similar items. It seems right to me that the area boards should be required to contribute in the way outlined, but as the clause now stands it says that the apportionment between the area boards shall be as determined by the Central Authority; in other words, it may be laid down in a perfectly arbitrary way.
Personally, I feel strongly that we should know the true financial position of each of the area boards year by year. In saying that, I want to make it quite clear that this has nothing whatever to do with the question that was debated earlier on as to whether the electricity industry budget should be on a national or on an area basis. But we do want to know the true position of each of those boards financially, however they may be dealt with afterwards. For that very purpose it seems that there should be capital items in the accounts of each area board comparable to the actual assets taken over by the board in respect of which the Central Authority has actually issued stock. All this Amendment seeks to do
268
is to ensure that that shall be so, and it proposes to do this by relating the indebtedness of the Central Authority to the book values of the assets that have been taken over by the area boards.
It may be argued that to arrive at these book assets might be difficult, but I do not see any serious difficulty in the way. I suggest that the book values could be taken either from the existing book values which occur in the statutory accounts that all other undertakings have to submit to the Electricity Commission now (that would be one way of doing it, and to support that point of view I would like to remind your Lordships that the rate of depreciation each year is a rate that has been approved by the Electricity Commissioners), or the book values could be entirely new book values, which presumably must be made out if the old ones are not acceptable for the purpose of arriving at the appropriate demands on each area board for Income Tax purposes. Whichever method is adopted I do not think matters from the point of view of it being accepted that it should not be difficult to have proper book values for the assets taken over by each area board. I suggest that this is a really important provision. After all, we are asking no more than we should of an independent private company which bought certain capital assets. They would enter them into their accounts at the cost which they paid for them. Unless this is done, I see that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to have a true financial picture of the results of the year's working of each area board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 24, leave out from ("contribute") to ("towards") in line 25, and insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like very briefly to support this Amendment, which has been so clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. It is really one of administration. I think it is necessary so that we can know the true financial position of any of the area boards. I think that is explained if the Central Authority are to be responsible for capital and interest charges in connexion with British Electricity Stock issued. This Amendment will provide for a proper apportionment of these stock charges between the area boards in relation to the book value of the assets actually taken over by the boards. I do not think it

269
should be difficult to ascertain these book values; in fact they must be found for the purposes of Income Tax. The Amendment is really designed to improve the efficiency and administration of the organization as outlined in the Bill. I do strongly support this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of this Amendment is to take out the words on page 59, line 24, "to such extent as may be determined by the Central Authority," so that the subsection will read:
"The Central Authority may require any area board to contribute towards the satisfaction of the obligations of the Central Authority … ."
Instead of having the completely flexible system which the Bill proposes, you are going to have—for reasons which the noble Lord very plainly described—a more or less inflexible system. It is to be dependent upon book values. I do not like this Amendment. I do not like it first of all because it brings an element of inflexibility into what ought to be a very flexible system.
May I tell the noble Lord that you need not assess book values to deal with Income Tax? You cannot get out of paying Income Tax by the simple method of not dealing with your book values. That is one reason why I object to this Amendment. I think we have agreed to-day in all parts of the House that this must be run on a national and not on a regional basis. There have been a few voices raised in protest, but broadly speaking that is agreed. I am not certain myself that book value of assets is a good basis. At any rate, it is not the conclusive basis at which I should look. First of all, in looking at what is the hook value of assets you have to remember this. At the present time you will probably find among these companies—if my experience goes for anything—the book value of assets dealt with in wholly different ways. There is no standard which you have to apply, and the trouble is that very different systems apply.
If I wanted to put in the front rank the book value of assets, I should want to be assured that all the companies with whom I was going to deal dealt with their book value of assets on more or less the same basis. After all, the area boards will inherit, amongst other things, accounts of the various constituent com-
270
panies and they will find, unless I am very wrong, that the book value of assets is dealt with on quite different bases. If I were to impose upon all the area boards an obligation to get the book value of their assets on the same basis that objection would go; but on the other Land it is a difficult accountancy proposition and it would take a good deal of time. Until that is done I do not think it is fair to place too much reliance upon the book value of assets.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt? I think the basis upon which those accounts are kept is laid down by the Central Electricity Authority and they are all kept on the same lines.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wish I could feel that the noble Viscount was right, but I am assured by those who know—I have no knowledge myself at all—that you will find the widest possible variations.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There ought not to be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps there ought not to be, but I am ass fired there are; I do not knew, but I am told there are. Anyhow, do not let us exaggerate this matter. If you get a more Dr less uniform system, that that is one of the matters to which you have to have regard is, to my mind, quite plain. I have not the shadow of a doubt but that if you, get a uniform basis, or still more if there is a uniform basis to-day, it is one of the matters which the Central Authority should take into consideration. But I think there are other factors too which they should take into consideration: for instance, the revenue-earning capacity of the assets, or perhaps the tariff structure in particular areas.
There are various other matters which should be taken into consideration, and my objection to this Amendment there fore is, first of all, that it makes inflexible that which essentially should be flexible; and secondly, that it singles out one or two important considerations, disregarding other more important considerations. From that point of view I object to the Amendment. If it is a question of publicity, your Lordships all know where I stand; the utmost publicity must be given to the area hoards over the publishing of their accounts. If anyone says he does not know how any area board stands in

271
this matter I can only say he must learn to read accounts. I have no half-way house about this. I am complete and absolute in my determination to see that there is the most full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to assume that there will be that disclosure; and, that being so, I ask him not to make that which should be flexible, inflexible, and not to pick out one item when there are other items perhaps of equal importance which should be considered.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am bound to side here with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. We must not lay down, I think, an absolutely hard and fast rule. I have been greatly worried about this. There is to be a discretion; this thing is to be run as a whole; and it is, possibly, to be subject always to the most minute particularity in every form of accounting, as the Lord Chancellor has said. Your Lordships have acceded to the proposition that each area board is not necessarily to run in exactly the same way and on exactly the same financial lines, and that one may bear a larger share of the contribution to the Central Fund expenses than another. But once we have accepted that proposition—and I think we accepted it rightly in an earlier clause—then I agree with the Lord Chancellor that we cannot lay down that there should be a mathematically proportionate contribution to general reserves or particular reserves or towards the expenses which the Central Authority have to carry. I think we must see, when we come to the accounts clause, that we get this as clear as we possibly can.
It is common ground that we should know exactly whether each of these businesses, in each of its activities, is making a profit or a loss. To do that you have to arrive in some way at the capital employed in the business. I should have thought that for the purposes of Income Tax, although the basis need not necessarily be uniform, the Income Tax authorities must know what is the capital structure in order to ascertain the profit made. After all, you make a profit on something—on your capital; therefore you must know, in each of these businesses, in order to assess them for Income Tax, what profit they have made. And that does not mean just an excess of revenue
272
over outgoings; it does mean a relation to capital generally employed in the business.
I do not want to carry this further at this stage. I would advise my noble friends not to press this Amendment. I think really we are in general agreement that when we come to the accounts we must concentrate on making perfectly sure (as I think we did in regard to the Transport undertaking, which incidentally is very much the same; you may be making a loss on the railways, but making a profit on the roads) that we know how we stand financially on each undertaking that we conduct. It would be wise to concentrate, with the most meticulous care, upon the form of the accounts which are laid down, and leave a pretty broad discretion to the Central Authority and to the boards what contributions are to be made to this or that fund.
LORD ROCHDALE: In view of what has been said about this Amendment—and I must say I appreciate much of what the noble and learned Viscount has said upon this point—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Reserve Funds of Central Authority and Area Boards.
(2) The Central Authority and the area boards shall contribute to the central reserve fund such sums at such times as the Central Authority may determine and the management of the said fund and the application of the moneys comprised therein shall be as the Central Authority may determine:
Provided that—
(a) no part of the said fund shall be applied otherwise than for the purposes of the Central Authority and area boards; and
(4) If an area board establish an area reserve fund, they shall, from their surplus revenue, contribute to the said fund, to such extent as the Central Authority may approve, and the management of the said fund and the application of the moneys comprised therein shall be as the area board may determine:
Provided that—

(a) no part of the fund shall be applied otherwise than for the purposes of the area board; and

(b) the power of the Central Authority to give directions to any area board shall extend to the giving to them, with the

273
approval of the Minister, of directions as to any matter relating to the establishment or management of the area reserve fund or the carrying of sums to the credit thereof, notwithstanding that the directions may be of a specific character.

8.47 p.m.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved in subsection (2) to leave out "determine" where that word first occurs, and insert "approve." The noble Lord said: I feel rather sad that the Amendment which I am going to move is being moved to-day instead of yesterday. Had it been moved yesterday, after what we heard about the independence of the area boards, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would have accepted it. However, since the Lord Chancellor has to-day decided that the area board is subsidiary to the Central Authority, I have very little hope of my Amendment being accepted.
The object of the Amendment is to endow the area board with that elementary independence which an independent institution is entitled to exercise—namely, to decide what to place to its own reserves. I hedge that round by giving the Central Authority the power to approve or disapprove the reserves so created, instead of determining or giving orders; because if there is one test of the financial independence of an institution, it is whether or not somebody can tell it what to do about its excess revenues—about the importance of placing them to reserve or otherwise. This independence is not permitted to the area boards. The object of my Amendment is to give back to the area boards the independence which they can have and which to-day we are told they have not got. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 30, leave out ("determine") and insert ("approve").—(Lord Rennell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord fully anticipated, I regret to say that I cannot accept his Amendment. May I say just a few words about area boards since he has given me the opportunity? I do not say that these area boards are independent; I am conscious of the fact that if you have to buy your electricity from a gentleman who has the right to fix the price at which you have to buy, you lack a certain element of independence.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is a ring!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That's the very reason why I want the area boards to have a little independence from the Central Authority. That is why, those being the circumstances, I object to the provision that the Central Authority should appoint the area boards. I wart the area hoards, when they are told that they have to pay, at any rate to be able to express themselves forcibly and tell the Central Authority exactly what trey think of them. I think that is, at any rate, some use. If the area boards are to be appointed by the Central Authority when they start off on their little exposition of the true position, the Central Authority would be able to say to them: "If you talk any more like that, you will not be appointed again." That will not do at all. That was why I was anxious that they should, at any rate, not be appointed by the Central Authority. Do not let it be said that I think these area boards are as free as the wind. I admit quite frankly that they are not; but there is no reason why we should make them even more enslaved
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is the technique the Lord Chancellor has just described—"If you talk like that you will not be appointed again"—the technique the Minister is going to apply?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Oh, no The technique I have been describing is always employed by the silent people those who do not talk. Therefore, For the reasons I have given and for other reasons of which the noble Lord is wet aware, I regret to say that I cannot accept his Amendment.
LORD RENNELL: Having regard to the noble and learned Viscount's very clear exposition of the independence or otherwise of the area boards, which m ill entirely satisfy all your Lordships, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved to insert at the beginning of the proviso to subsection (2):
"(a) the contributions to be made by the area boards in any financial year shall be determined rateably in proportion to the book value of the assets for the time being vested in each area board and to any surplus revenue accrued to the area board in that year."
The noble Lord said: In view of whit was said on the last Amendment that I

275
moved, I will be quite frank and say that I am moving this Amendment for information. Subsection (2) (b) gives the Minister considerable power of direction with regard to the Central Reserve Fund, and enables him to give directions "as to any matter relating to the establishment or management" of the Fund, and so on. It seems to be perfectly right that the area boards should contribute to the Central Reserve Fund, and I have no doubt that there will be no objection to that. But a certain amount of doubt might easily arise in the event of there being no general basis, no clear published basis, as to how the apportionment of the contributions is to be arrived at. With the normal trading concern, as I see it, reserves could be built up only in one way, and that is from the surplus profits.
If that were to be the only criterion in this instance—that is to say in the case of the area boards—then I can quite easily see cases where a smaller board, and possibly a more efficient board, would be paying into the Central Reserve Fund considerably more than a larger board which was running with less efficiency; in other words it would he putting a premium on inefficiency. If, on the other hand, the basis were to be not the profits that have been earned at all, but the size of the board concerned, then that would not take into account the fact that certain boards, owing to the locality in which they operate, may find it much more difficult to make profits than other boards. Area boards who have to operate with a high proportion of agricultural consumers are obviously going to find it more difficult to make ends meet than those who are operating with a very high proportion of industrial consumers. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to suggest, whatever may be the formula to be arrived at, that it should take into account the size of the concern, on the one hand, and its efficiency and profit-making capacity on the other hand. I must admit that I am not by any means wedded to the wording of this Amendment but, as I pointed out earlier, I have put it down in order to find out what is in the back of the Minister's mind. He must have something in the back of his mind, because he has reserved to himself such a considerable power of direction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 33, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Rochdale.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know what is in the back of the Minister's mind. What is in the front of his mind is this. The Bill provides that the Central Authority shall be able to tell the area boards what each of the area boards are to contribute towards the Central Reserve Fund. There is a risk—it will be a theoretical one, I think—that that power might be rather oppressively used. It might be oppressively used, in the case of a particular area board who were doing well and showing themselves thoroughly efficient, to make what I think is called excess revenue. It is conceivable that the Central Authority might come along and say: "You shall contribute a good deal." I do not think that that is likely, I sincerely hope that it is not. That being so, it was felt right to guard against that and protect the area boards from such a risk—which as I say is a remote one—and that the Minister should have power, altogether apart from the clause which gives him power to give general directions in the national interest, to control the operations of the Central Authority in this connexion, and if he thinks that they are being too harsh to any particular area board to be able to say so. In view of these considerations we cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALE: I fully appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has said as regards the powers that the Minister has retained, and the reasons. But I must say that I had hoped for a little more enlightenment as to the basis on which he was going to work. Perhaps we shall hear more of that later on. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in proviso (b) of subsection (4), to leave out "with the approval of the Minister." The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may remind my noble friend Lord Rennell of what I think was in the front of his mind when he put down this Amendment. I think the object is that the Central Authority and not the Minister shall have to tell the boards about their reserves. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 15, leave out from beginning of line to the second ("of").—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MORRISON: I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is perfectly correct. The Amendment would permit the Central Authority to give directions to the area boards in regard to area reserve funds without seeking the approval of the Minister. These directions, I would point out, relate to the establishment and management of the funds, but not to their application, and the Minister's approval would be used only to ensure that a proper standard of management was observed. It is not clear what objection there can be to this, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I understood that the object of the last Amendment was that the Minister could, so to speak, act as arbitrator and guardian, so that one local authority was not dealt with too harshly in order to subsidize another. This is something different. Here is a question of how the fund is to be administered. I would have thought that if any direction were to be given it should be given by the Central Authority and not by the Minister. However, I do not press this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Sums which are to be chargeable to revenue account]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment, to bring the phraseology into line with that of Clause 22. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 15, leave out ("expressed") and insert ("to be deemed").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46:
Accounts and audit of Central Authority and area boards.
(2) The form of the said statement shall be such as to secure the provision of separate information as respects the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the main other activities of the Electricity Board concerned.
(3) The accounts of the Central Authority and of every area board shall be audited by auditors to be appointed in respect of each financial year by the Minister.
(5) So soon as the accounts of the Central Authority have been audited, they shall send a copy of the statement of their accounts referred to in subsection (a) of this section to the Minister together with a copy of my report made by the auditors on that statement or on the accounts of the Authority and shall also send copies of the statements of accounts of every area board to the Minister together with any reports on those statements of accounts as aforesaid.
9.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, at the end of subsection (2) to insert "and to show as far as may be the financial and operating results of each such activity." The noble Viscount said: Now we do come to an Amendment of great importance but on which I am sure we shall be in complete agreement. The noble and learned Viscount said: "The one thing we are in more agreement on than any thing else is that there shall be absolute and complete disclosure of the whole financial position of each undertaking:" I have no criticism of subsection (1) of this clause. Subsection (2), however, dealing with the form of the statement of accounts says that it
"shall be such as to secure the provision 01 separate information as respects the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the main other activities of the Electricity Board concerned."
That is all right so far as it goes, but information does not necessarily mean a clear statement as to whether or not in those transactions a profit or a loss has been made. We had a great deal of discussion on the Transport Bill, not because there was any difference of opinion, but in order, on a question where it was extremely difficult to apportion capital assets, to see that we put in words which would show that a clear financial statement was issued with regard to every operation. We proposed trading accounts and separate profit and loss accounts, and it was agreed that the requisite words be inserted. They were put down by the Leader of the House, Viscount Addison. Clause 95 of the Transport Bill says:
"The said annual statement shall be so framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information as respects the principal activities of the Commission …"
That is what we have here, and the Leader of the House proposed to insert this:
"and in combination with periodical statistics and returns rendered by the Commission to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each single activity,"
which are exactly the words I propose in this Amendment. I feel sure they will be generally agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Viscount has described with great accuracy the circumstances in which he came to place this Amendment on the Paper. Clause 46 (2) was amended in the Commons so as to require the annual accounts of the Central Authority and of each area board to give separate information in regard to
"the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the other main activities of the Electricity Board concerned."
The Amendment now proposes to amplify this to require "the financial and operating results" of each such activity to be shown "as far as may be." Similar phraseology is used in the Transport Bill and there is no objection to its acceptance here.
LORD RENNELL: I think the very brief statement which the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment made is really all that need be said. It is an essential principle of the operation of an industry of this sort, as a whole, that the separate activities of generation on the one hand and of distribution on the other should be shown separately, and that the financial results should also be shown separately. As it is obvious from the spokesman of the Government that that end has been achieved, I think it is unnecessary to detain your Lordships any longer, except to express great satisfaction on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House for the way in which the Amendment has been accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved to add at the end of subsection (3):
"Provided that a person shall not be qualified to be so appointed unless he is qualified to act as auditor of a company (not
280
being a private company) under any enactment for the time being in force relating to the qualification of an auditor of such a company as aforesaid."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name seeks substantially to do with the audit of the accounts of the Central Authority and the area boards what subsection (1) does with the form of account. That subsection provides that the accounts "shall conform with the best commercial standards." My Amendment seeks to make it obligatory that the audit of accounts of the Central Authority and the area boards shall be carried out by a qualified accountant. This matter has been raised once or twice on other nationalization Bills, but I would like to point out to your Lordships that we have now—or I hope we shall shortly have—a standard to which we can refer. The Companies Bill is now before another place and, therefore, we cannot yet discern its final form. However, on the assumption—which I do not think it unwarranted—that the clause will not be amended, I would like to refer your Lordships to Clause 22 (1) of the Companies Bill. It says:
"A person shall not be qualified for appointment as auditor of a company unless either

(a) he is a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of this provision by the Board of Trade; or

(b) he is for the time being authorised by the Board of Trade to be so appointed either as having similar qualifications obtained outside the United Kingdom or as having before the eighteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-five, practised in Great Britain as an accountant."

Those are the standards demanded of a person thought fit to audit accounts of public companies. It seems to me proper that qualifications should be demanded of persons called upon to audit this very important (as it is to be) nationalized industry. Accountants—and I have the honour to be one—are young in professional life. We have not the same antiquity as the law, or perhaps as medicine, but I think it has come to be recognized that accountants play an important part in the life of our nation. I do not think it is too much to demand that the Government should recognize (as they recognize the other older professions in Acts of Parliament) that when profes-

281
sional advice and help is required proper qualifications should be demanded. May I recall to your Lordships that I take no narrow view of these matters; in fact, I was one of those who moved that in the case of private companies such a qualification should not be demanded, because I thought it was perhaps an unnecessary approximation to the closed shop. But in this case I think a qualification is demanded, and I think the proper qualification as set down and admitted by His Majesty's Government in the Companies Bill should also be written into this Bill which is now before us. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
LORD MORRISON: After the eloquent speech of the noble Lord I regret that I am unable to accept his Amendment; and I do not propose to follow him into the argument with regard to the closed shop. I desire to give what I think he will agree are three excellent reasons why the Government find themselves unable to accept the Amendment. It has been the Government's policy to reject similar Amendments in relation to other nationalized industries. There are three arguments. The first is that the Minister has no intention of appointing any persons to such important duties if they are not properly qualified to carry them out. If he did he could, and no doubt would, be criticized in Parliament. The second reason is that the Companies Act of 1929 makes no provision for qualifications of auditors of companies. The present Companies Bill may be altered before it is enacted. The third reason is that the accounting profession are sponsoring a Bill to define the qualifications of a practising accountant, and meanwhile it might not be wise to attempt a definition in relation to public corporations. For those reasons I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Before the noble Lord replies, may I make a suggestion to the noble Lord who has just spoken? I can conceive that there are certain objections, especially at this time with the Companies Bill not yet an Act of Parliament, why this precise form of Amendment is open to objection. I can quite follow that, but whether an auditor is appointed by a Minister or by anybody else, I think that in an important matter
282
such as this it is essential, and in accordance with practice, that the qualifications of such an accountant should be mentioned. "An accountant" foes not mean anything without a statement of qualifications. There is nothing here about his ever having passed an examination. So far as I know a chimney sweep is an auditor if he is willing to audit. I strongly urge on the noble Lord, assuming that he does not object to this, to say that between now and the Report stage he will see if it is not possible to lay down some rules under which the country will be satisfied that these very important accounts, both of the Central Authority and the area boards, shall be audited by experienced accountants who have a real knowledge of the business I hey profess to perform.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I too heard with the very greatest surprise the rejection of the very reasonable Amendment which my noble friend has moved on this subject. It is suggested that we should trust the Minister to ensure that accounts are audited by a proper person. I am always very suspicious indeed when either House of Parliament is told that they should trust the Minister to make sure that something is done. The whole basis of our constitutional history is trust of the Minister, and ought it not to be our constant endeavour in legislation to ensure against the almost incredibly remote chance (but still the chance) that the Minister may do something wholly improper—as Ministers have done in the past and as, for all we know, Ministers may do in the future?
What does my noble friend ask? He asks not that the accountant of these bodies should have particular qualifications, but merely that the accountant should have the same qualifications as those to which the accountant of any public company is subject under the law in force for the time being. It astonished me to hear the noble Lord suggesting that there was anything unreasonable, anything but the plainest common sense in that provision. Noble Lords may point out that when these accounts are presented to Parliament it will be relevant for Parliament to challenge the accounts. But, contrary to what has been suggested by the noble Lord, it will not be proper for Parliament to challenge the competence of the accountant employed by the Minis-

283
ter. It is not unlikely that he would be empowered under the clause as it stands to have the accounts audited within the Ministry. In that event we should be wholly precluded from challenging the competence of the person who audited the accounts. I beg the noble Lord to think again, and to consider whether this is not, after all, a very reasonable provision such as may suitably be inserted in nationalization Bills, both present and future, and whether it is not in the last resort a very proper provision in the interests of the nation.
LORD RENNELL: I have heard with profound surprise the reasons adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in declining to accept this Amendment. The second reason, that the present Companies Bill is not yet an Act of Parliament is, surely, entirely irrelevant. The terms of the Amendment do not propose that this Companies Bill shall be taken as a model. It merely proposes that those enactments which are in force for public companies at any time shall be applicable to this authority. And to adduce that, among other reasons—with none of which I find myself able to agree—for declining to insert the provision that these accounts should be audited by a qualified auditor is so surprising that I feel sure the noble Lord will wish to reconsider the matter. I must associate myself absolutely with every word that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has said, and protest against the possibility, however remote, of an unqualified auditor being appointed. I am not satisfied, in view of the reasons that have been given for refusing this Amendment, with the assurance that in fact a qualified auditor will be appointed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In the course of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, indicated that the Minister intended to appoint qualified auditors. If that is so, is it beneath the dignity of the Minister, to include that in the Bill? As the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has said, we do not trust the assurances given day after day, and week after week. They may be all right so long as the noble Lord is in his place, or the Government are in their place, but directly they are out of office, or the next Minister comes along, we have only what is in cold print in the Bill. It should not be
284
beneath the dignity of the Minister to include this provision in the Bill. "Properly qualified" auditors would probably be a sufficient term to cover the point. I think it is very little to ask that the Government should agree to this.
LORD MORRISON: I do not wish to involve your Lordships in a lengthy argument on this subject. I have carefully noted all the points made. I think perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham was exaggerating a little when he suggested that the Government might even appoint a chimney sweep to audit the accounts. I should not like to be on the Government Benches if and when that matter was debated in Parliament! As I say, if the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will withdraw it now, I am quite prepared to have it reconsidered and brought up again.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: After that assurance from the noble Lord, I will not press this Amendment, but I would like to say a word about it. Taking his last reason first, it is perfectly true that a Public Accounts Bill is under negotiation, but I do not think that is an adequate reason, when we are considering legislation, for not putting proper safeguards into this Bill. Going backwards along his reasons, the fact that the Companies Bill is not law, as the noble Lord Rennell has pointed out, is not relevant to this Amendment, which is drafted to cover just that particular point. The first reason I agree with entirely, and I do not think it right that we should accept on this point, any more than we should with regard to the qualifications of a doctor or a dentist, the assurance that a qualified person will be appointed. In view of the noble Lord's assurance—and I hope that we shall arrive at some agreement—I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (5) at the end to insert: "and copies thereof shall be made available to the public at a reasonable price." The noble Lord said: The Amendment in my name seems to me to be covered by a subsequent Amendment which has been put down by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I am very grateful to the Government for giving us this Amendment, and I am prepared not to press my Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: I hope the noble Lord will move his Amendment because I was going to say in reply that on consideration it appears to us that the words of his Amendment are preferable; I was going to accept the noble Lord's Amendment in preference to the Government Amendment.
LORD LLOYD: I am always grateful for an opportunity to do the noble Lord a good turn. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 47, at end insert ("and copies thereof shall be made available to the public at a reasonable price").—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48:
Acquisition of non-statutory undertakings.
48.—(1) This section applies to any person, not being a body to whom Part II of this Act applies, who at the passing of this Act is engaged in supplying electricity to the general public and who, at any time after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, has incurred or incurs, in respect of works approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section (whether before or after the execution of the works) expenditure properly chargeable to capital account; and in this section any such person is referred to as "the undertakers," and his business, so far as it consists of the supply of electricity to the general public, is referred to as "the electricity undertaking."
9.23 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "public," where that word first occurs, up to and including "account." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the clause on the acquisition of non-statutory undertakings. We are very grateful to His Majesty's Government for this clause which, I think I am right in saying, was put into the Bill because it was pressed in another place by the Opposition. It was pressed for two reasons. The first was that these non-statutory undertakings, many of which are small concerns, would be likely, with the establishment of this great Government monopoly, to be forced out of business, quite apart from the fact that, if they remained in business, they might well be ruined, with great hardship to their employees. There was the other consideration, that a good many of them might consider they would do better to
286
get out of business while the going was good, which would, if they went out of business before the new Electricity Authority were in a position to supply electricity in those places where they have been supplying it, result in great hardship to their consumers. We are grateful to the Government for this clause, and this Amendment is merely an endeavour to improve the clause.
The Government have gone a long way to meet this point, but this Amendment is designed to remove certain restrictions which still remain in this clause. The words that I seek to leave out are the words which qualify the non-statutory undertakers which are to be taken over; and the qualification is that capital expenditure on works approved by the Minister must have been incurred since November 19, 1945. My objections to this qualification are, first of all, that obviously the Minister could render the whole of this qualification invalid by refusing to give any approval. I am not suggesting for a moment that he would; but he could. The second objection is that this leaves a great deal to chance. A company may wish to get the approval of the Minister, and as the clause stands a company that spends £5 on works which are approved would be qualified. A company which did not spend that money, on the other hand, would be disqualified. Finally, if the Minister refuses approval, there is no appeal.
I suggest to your Lordships that it would be to the advantage not only of these non-statutory undertakers, but also of the public at large, that as many as possible, and certainly as many as want, should come in and be taken over by His Majesty's Government, and that they should be given an opportunity of doing so. As I have said, a number of them may be frightened of being put out of business by this new Electricity Authority which is to be set up. The more prudent of them might well decide to go out of business while the going was good, and that would cause great hardship to their consumers; and, what is more, it would exclude from the three hundred odd non-statutory undertakers quite a number of undertakers who would otherwise wish to come in.
I submit that the small non-statutory undertakers, many of whom have done a

287
very good job of work, cannot be as efficient as a larger concern, and I am sure it is in the interests of the public that so far as possible these small concerns should be incorporated in the larger scheme. The Government have objected to taking over more of these non-statutory undertakers on the ground that a great deal of their equipment is not standard, and that these undertakings are not worth much to the Government. I suggest, as against that argument, that that very fact would enable the Government to take them over a great deal more cheaply, and I feel, therefore, that we should do well to eliminate this provision and allow as many non-statutory undertakers as wish to come in, quite regardless of the provision, to be taken over if they so desire. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 42, leave out from ("public") to ("and") in line 2 on page 65.—(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD CHORLEY: I was very glad to hear the noble Lord express his gratitude to the Government for having gone so far as to meet this particular matter, because he will not be so disappointed when I tell him that we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has, quite properly, pointed out the scope of Clause 48. In effect it is to deal with the position of non-statutory undertakings in a biggish way of business who, in order to meet the substantial numbers of consumers who take their current from them, have to embark upon fairly substantial capital works. The relevant date, of course, is the date as from when it was known that there would, in fact, be nationalization of the industry.
The noble Lord's Amendment, in effect, would enable any one of these non-statutory suppliers to insist on being taken over. There are all sorts of people of this kind. Some of them have very small concerns indeed—a mere garage, or a cycle shop, or something of that kind in the country. In some cases they are a one-man show, almost tied together with bits of string. The noble Lord's Amendment, as I say, would enable the owner of a little concern of that kind to insist on its being taken over and merged in the Government scheme, and moreover would, in a sense, put such people in the position of statutory suppliers, a status which has certainly not been theirs in the
288
past. In those circumstances the clause as it stands is as far as the Government feel it is proper and reasonable to go, and I am sure the noble Lord, on thinking the matter over, will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would the noble Lord kindly tell us how far the clause does go, so that we can sum up the whole situation?
LORD CHORLEY: I think the terms of the clause are reasonably clear. It states at the beginning,
"This section applies to any person, not being a body to whom Part II of this Act applies, who at the passing of this Act is engaged in supplying electricity to the general public and who, at any time after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, has incurred or incurs, in respect of works approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section (whether before or after the execution of the works) expenditure properly chargeable to capital account."
The whole point, of course, is in the words "works approved by the Minister." This is capital expenditure. It might well be incurred where possibly a number of new houses have been built or new works have been started, in order to enable consumers of that kind to be supplied.
LORD LLOYD: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but I must confess that I am a little disappointed that he cannot meet me on this point. I think that he slightly exaggerated the smallness of these undertakings. Some, I agree, are very small, but there are a number, I believe, who will be excluded from the Bill by this provision to the extent that they did not happen to apply to the Minister for this permission. In some cases they will feel that the risks of continuing in business against the competition of a nationalized undertaking are such that they are better out of it. This will lead to great hardship on their particular consumers. However, I do not consider this matter sufficiently important to press it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 40, at end insert ("and for references to the vesting date there shall be substituted references to the date of transfer").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49:
Supply of electricity to railways.
(2) The terms and conditions on which electricity is supplied by an Electricity Board to any railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Minister and the Minister of Transport jointly, or, in the case of a supply by the North of Scotland Board, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport jointly.
(3) Where electricity is supplied by an Electricity Board to any railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction, that supply may be used, with the approval of the Central Authority, or, in the case of a supply by the North of Scotland Board, with the approval of that Board, on the same terms and conditions, for any other purposes for which electricity may be required by the railway undertakers.
(4) The Central Authority may, with the approval of the North of Scotland Board, provide in the North of Scotland District a supply of electricity to railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction, and a supply provided by the Central Authority outside the said District may, with the like approval, be used in that District.
9.34 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add at the end of subsection (2):
"and such regulations shall make provision for securing that the charges made for any such supply and the other terms and conditions on which it is provided are such as to avoid financial loss resulting to the Electricity Board from the provision of the supply."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to fulfil a pledge which was given by the Minister at the Report stage in another place, when dealing with an Amendment which was moved by the Opposition. Though rather differently placed with the Amendment then proposed, I think it would have had a similar effect. Two points which were made were: first, that the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1935, does in fact deal with the question of the supply of electricity to railways being made, so to speak, on the basis of not subsidizing the railway, and that as that Act will be repealed, some provision ought to be made in the present Bill. The same point was made in another way: that there was, or might be, some fear of an understanding between the nationalized electricity undertaking and the nationalized railways
290
under which an indirect subsidy might be provided to the railways. That is a matter which ought to be avoided at all costs. My right honourable friend does not think there is any danger of that kind, but he does agree, ex abundanti cautela, and therefore he has tabled this Amendment on behalf of the Government, which I hope your Lordships will accept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WOLVERTON: The point contained in my Amendment has been made by the Amendment just moved, for which I thank the noble Lord. I will not move my Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (3) to leave out from "traction" to "for" ["for any other purposes"] a rid insert:
"the Board may enter into an agreement with the railway urdertakers for the use of that supply, on such terms and conditions a3 may be agreed."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment on the same lines as the last one, to give effect to an undertaking given in another place on Report stage. It was thought that the words at present in the clause, "on the same terms and conditions," which refer to the terms and conditions on which electricity should be supplied to the railway companies for traction and haulage, were a little too tight and might with advantage be loosened. That is done in the words proposed: "the Board may enter into an agreement with the railway undertakers for the use of that supply, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 45, leave out from ("traction") to the first ("for") in line 3 on page 69, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 4, at end, insert ("Provided that an area board shall not make an agreement under this subsection which involves

291
the use of the supply outside the area of that board, unless the agreement has been approved by the Central Authority)."—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: The next three Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 69, line 7, leave out ("for the purposes of haulage or traction") and insert ("under this section").
Page 69, line 13, leave out ("for the purposes of haulage or traction") and insert ("under this section").
Page 69, line 59, leave out ("for the purposes of haulage or traction") and insert ("under this section").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5o to 53 agreed to.
9.37 p.m.
Clause 54:
Provisions as to pension rights.
54.—(1) The Minister and the Secretary State may make joint regulations for all any of the following purposes, that is say—
(a) for providing pensions to or in respect of persons who are or have been in the employment of an Electricity Board or a Consultative Council, or persons who have been members of the Central Electricity Board or have been employed by any body to which Part II of this Act applies or have been employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers, but who have not been taken into the employment of an Electricity Board as aforesaid;
(3) Regulations made under this section shall not be invalid by reason that in fact they do not secure that persons having pension rights are not placed in any worse position by reason of any such amendment, repeal, revocation, transfer, extinguishment or winding up as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, but if the Minister and the Secretary of State are satisfied or it is determined as hereinafter mentioned that any such regulations have failed to secure that result, the Minister and the Secretary of State shall as soon as possible make the necessary amending regulations.
Any dispute arising as to whether or not the said result has been secured by any regulations made under this section shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for his or their determination thereon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the usual Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 9, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers" and to insert:
"regularly employed by any body, other than a local authority, to which Part II of this Act applies or have been regularly employed in or about any undertaking or business vested by or under this Act".
The noble Lord said: We now come to two clauses dealing with what I may call the displaced persons. Clause 54 deals with pension rights, and I will try to outline what the clause does and does not do. Under this clause the Minister may make provision for pensions to employees of any of these boards, consultative councils and members of the Central Electricity Board; also for the whole-time employees of any body taken over who themselves have not been taken over by the Central Authority. He can establish pensions schemes to cover these matters, and he can continue, amend and revoke existing schemes, and transfer their funds, or wind them up. Any regulations he makes in this respect must secure that persons having pension rights are not worse off. Any dispute must go to a board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour. The Bill does not provide; so far as I can see, for any pensions for those who draw pensions at the present moment by grace rather than by right; nor for pensions for those who are employed other than by any one particular undertaker. In this particular Amendment we seek to deal with this latter class, though we have an Amendment down later on dealing with the other classes.
As a result of the wording on the Bill, which uses the words "whole-time employees," the following anomalies arise. The expression is not defined, and is not found in existing electricity law. So far as it is known, the expression would cover casual or temporary workers of one undertaking, but at the same time it would not cover employees who are employed by more than one undertaking. Our words are "regularly employed." These words are hallowed by long usage in Statute, and are the words used in Section 16 of

293
the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. These words have been interpreted to cover employees jointly employed, but they definitely exclude casual and temporary employees. The Act of 1919 actually provides pensions for people who have "been regularly employed in or about the undertaking, or any authorized undertaking." That, your Lordships will see, is substantially our wording.
Benefits are provided for anybody who has suffered loss of employment, or diminution of emoluments, has given up his employment in consequence of being required to perform non-analogous duties, or has been placed in a worse position as to conditions of service. Under that Act the person concerned can go to a referee within five years. Our words provide that the benefits or security given in Clause 54 of this Bill will extend to the same class of persons as receive the security and benefits under the Act of 1919, and, indeed, of 1926. A later Amendment will secure that the benefits are of the same type. There are other arguments which can be used in this matter, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Rochdale, will put them forward to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("but") in line 12, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hawke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may say so with the greatest respect I venture to think that this Amendment is moved under a complete misapprehension. The object here is to enable us to give pensions to anybody who has been employed—nothing about regular; nothing about "whole-time"—by any of the bodies to which Part II of the Act applies. We introduced these words "whole-time" for this reason. There may be people, and there are people, employed by a holding company which is not to be taken over, who are servants of that holding company but who in fact spend their time in working for the subsidiaries of that holding company, giving their whole time not to one subsidiary but to two. We thought we would put in words to deal with the case of a servant of a company which is not being taken over, and that is why we added this phrase. If your Lordships will read the clause with me, I am quite certain you will be satisfied that
294
we have done what: the noble Lord waits without his qualifications about "regular" or anything of that sort. The clause reads:
"for providing pensions to or in respect of persons who are or have been in the employment of an electricity board or a consultative council, or persons who have been members of the Central Electricity Board or have been employed by any body to which Part II of this Act applies:"
That is as general as it can be. All you have to do is to have been employee—never mind about regular or any other qualification—by a body to whom Part II of the Act applies.
Then we went on to use the phrase which has given rise to so much misapprehension. The noble Lord is not the only one who has been misled by this phrase, because I confess I was myself. The phrase is this:
"… or have been employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of coy authorised undertakers, but who have not been taken into the employment of an electricity board as aforesaid."
I am going to move a manuscript Amendment, which was suggested to me to make this matter plainer, which is to leave out in line 11 the phrase, "the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised", and put in the words, "undertakings or parts of undertakings of", which I am told makes it plainer. Therefore, I can give the noble Lord the most ample assurance—and I am sure he will agree with me—that I have here a power to pay pensions to anybody who has been employed by any of the bodies to whom Part H of this Act applies. I have added these words about whole-time people for the simple reason that I want to go further than that. I want to be able to include servants of holding companies which are not taken over because, for instance, they may own more than 25 per cent. of extraneous assets. All the same, I think it right to pay a pension to a servant of theirs who has devoted all his time to undertakings which are taken over and which were subsidiaries of the holding company. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will rest satisfied.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Naturally I accept what the noble and learned Viscount has said in regard to the altera-

295
tions which he proposes to make to the clause, but there still remains the point that the Minister and the Secretary of State may make regulations. There is great anxiety on the part of the employees of a company with which I am concerned, and of the whole of the employees throughout the industry. I have had representations made to me that the Bill states only that regulations "may be made" in regard to these matters, and not "shall be made." When the matter was raised in another place, it was stated on behalf of the Minister that he would look again at the clause and introduce in the Report stage a form of words covering the difficulties. That has been done, but actually nothing has been done to implement this undertaking, though something appears to have been done, by what the noble and learned Viscount has said to-night. The fact remains that it is provided that regulations "may" and not "shall" be made in regard to these matters. Employees still feel in a state of uncertainty as to what the position will be if the clause is left as it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As a matter of fact, the Treasury nearly always use the word "may" instead of "shall." You cannot say "shall" make general regulations for "all or any of the following." It does not make sense. The pensions of ex-Lord Chancellors are authorized by saying that the Treasury "may" pay. It is the same with Judges' pensions. The Treasury always do pay, and noble Lords really need have no concern. The "may" will be treated as "shall." It is a matter of the English language—and the Scottish language. I am afraid I cannot put in the word "shall."
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am very glad to hear the noble and learned Viscount's explanation, and I must accept it. But I listened in your Lordships' House only a few days' ago to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, insisting that the word "shall " should be inserted in a particular case—I think it was in the Agriculture Bill—in order to give security to a certain class of persons. It was actually suggested on this side of your Lordships' House that the word "may" should be used; now, the Lord Chancellor says that the word "shall" is the same as "may." It is difficult to know where we stand.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It shows how revolutionary Lord Chorley is!
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That is not an answer.
LORD HAWKE: I think there is some excuse for the timid gazelle having fallen into the trap where the king of the jungle, the Lord Chancellor, had fallen in before him! Can the noble and learned Viscount assure me that where a man has been employed by different subsidiary companies but has not been employed by the holding companies at all, he will be eligible for a pension?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. He is quite all right because he has been employed by a company to whom Part II of the Act applies. There is nothing unfair.
LORD HAWKE: It is difficult to see where the Lord Chancellor's Amendment will precisely meet the point of people who are vitally interested in this matter. Obviously we shall have to consider it between now and the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is the one I indicated just now. I have reason to think that it will meet with the Committee's approval. I do not mean that this makes any difference, but I think it may help some people who are in doubt about this matter and make them happier than they would be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 11 leave out from beginning to ("authorised") in line 12, and insert ("undertakings or parts of undertakings of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a drafting Amendment to bring this Bill into conformity with the Transport Bill. Lord Balfour of Burleigh moved the corresponding Amendment in the Transport Bill, and he described it as being in the nature of a drafting Amendment. I will accept the noble Lord's description of this Amendment that it is of that nature. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 19, after ("relating") insert ("in whole or in part").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This again is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 43, after ("rights") insert ("under the scheme, whether such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection or not").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert:
"and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889–1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This proposes to put at the end of subsection (3) of this important Clause 54 words similar to those contained in the Transport Bill. Clause 54, as your Lordships will now be aware, deals with provisions as to pension rights and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), and subsection (3) of the same clause, all provide for the making of regulations, and they are, of course, of great importance to people who have claims to pensions. There is, however, no provision under which these regulations can be at all discussed in public, and in the Transport Bill, under Clause 99, subsection (3), there was a provision that a reference mentioned in line 21, page 73, should be deemed to be an arbitration following the terms of the Transport Bill. I venture to think that that was a wise provision arid it would be a wise provision here, because if you refer a question of law to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for their determination, it is desirable that you should know what provisions of the law apply to such a reference. That difficulty was got over in the Transport Bill, and I venture to think that the clause inserted by the Amendment will do no harm here and will clear up an ambiguity which I know is rather serious in the minds of some of those people who are interested in these questions of pension rights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 21, at end insert ("and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889–1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to
298
such reference and determination."—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount quite naturally wants to get this Bill into conformity with the Transport Bill. Your Lordships will remember what happened in the Transport Bill; I remember it very well and so does Lord Chorley. Such an Amendment was moved in the Transport Bill and Lord Chorley had just made a very eloquent speech against it when Viscount Addison came in and s rid that he had decided to accept the Amendment and to see if he could get his colleagues' approval afterwards, or words to that effect. As a matter of fact, yow Lordships may have seen that Viscount Addison, the Minister and I went out together and we were willing to accept it. However—there is no secret about it now because it is being dealt with to-day and may indeed have been dealt with by now—the other place were not willing to accept this Amendment. Therefore the Transport Bill will come back to your Lordships' House with the other place disagreeing with this proposal and it will be for your Lordships in due course to consider what course to take. I mention those facts because I think your Lordships should know that you should not place any undue stress upon the fact that it makes this Bill conform with the Transport Bill.
May I say this about the merits of the proposal? When I first became in charge of an office, which had nothing to do with law, I took to that office a profound regard for our judicial system and I, for my part, thought that it was natural that in all arbitrations all sensible people would desire arbitrators to have power to state a case for the opinion of the court, so that the court could keep control of the matter and see that the arbitrator; keep straight on questions of law. I stand here quite unblushingly and say that if my rights were concerned, and my rights were going to be subject to arbitration, I should desire that that principle should apply. Of course, I know the courts, and I know the Judges, and there are other people who do not. But when I became the Minister of National Insurance and had to work out the scheme of national insurance, and particularly in regard to industrial injury, which uses the old phrase "arising rut of, and in the course of the employment," I was very surprised to find that the

299
workers representatives—the trade unions in short—were most insistent that there should be no appeal to the courts. It was the fact, the regrettable fact, but it was the fact.
When I went to the employers on this matter, I went in some trepidation, and I was quite certain that they would take a strong line, saying there must be an appeal; but, to my even greater surprise, the employers too said that they thought it desirable that the courts should not come into this at all. It is a fact—as I say, a regrettable fact—that both sides, so far as national insurance is concerned, have taken that view. I still keep in touch with my old office. An the servants of the Friendly Societies, many of whom are being taken over but many of whom are not, have agreed, in regard to pensions and the like, upon of system of Ministry of Labour arbitrations, which are not in any way subject to the courts. I must admit that later experience with regard to the Ministry of Pensions has led me to see that there is something to be said for those who objected to a combination of the two systems, for what has happened there? We have given, under that scheme, a right of appeal by case stated to the courts, and the Judge from time to time pronounces on the cases. This has had a most unfortunate result. He pronounces on some case, a case of principle, and thereupon all those people who have had their cases already decided say, "Well, if only my case had been decided after this principle had been enunciated, how different it would have been. Please try my case again." So I was prevailed upon, rightly or wrongly—at any rate I did so—to set up a new lot of tribunals to determine once again the cases of those people who thought they were aggrieved by the Judge's decision. Those tribunals have been working very hard, trying to deal with the matter satisfactorily.
Now the Judge has given another decision, and has said that those tribunals must be unanimous. Therefore, I have now got another request to start all the work from the beginning again. I have resisted this time, because, after all, you cannot go on doing this sort of thing. Therefore, I do see some criticism. But having said all that, I frankly say I remain of the opinion that if I were the judge of my own rights I should desire this right to go to the court to get
300
a case stated. But the problem as I see it is this: ought I to insist that this is such a fundamental principle that I must force it upon people who do not want it? Because these electrical industry men are very well organized in their trade unions, and the trade unions have made it perfectly plain to us that they do not want this principle. Let us remember also that an appeal to the courts on a case stated is a double-edged weapon. It by no means follows that the man is always going to win. Sometimes there might be an appeal by the Electricity Authority, and the man might lose by virtue of this appeal to the court. That is the position.
I can only give your Lordships guidance, and I quite realize that there are different views held as to what we should do. But, so far as I can give your Lordships any guidance at all, it would be this: that although we may well think that this system of case stated to the court to enable the courts to have control is a desirable system—and I have said that I myself would desire it for my own rights—yet I do not feel that it is so clearly right that we ought to thrust it upon all these people who say that they do not want it. They prefer the informality, and, if you will, the irregularity of a Ministry of Labour referee, who deals with the matter, very largely, I suppose, as a conciliator. Probably he has no regard for the rules of evidence and has never heard of them. The proceedings, I expect, are conducted in a most informal way round a table; the referee tries to fix things up, and I am bound to say that very often he succeeds very well. I would venture to suggest to the Committee that we should not make people who do not want this system put up with it. For those reasons I cannot accept this Amendment having regard to what has happened and is happening to-day. I have no doubt that if we did this we should find that in the other place people are just as much opposed to it as they are showing that they are in reference to the Transport Bill to-day.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think that this is a matter upon which even a lawyer would die in the last ditch. Frankly, I have a completely open mind about it. I do not see that this is a matter in which we need be academic, have a particular article of faith or lay down any sealed pattern rule. With re-

301
gard to war pensions, the conciliation method was tried, but apparently people did not like it at all and a judicial tribunal had to be set up. In social insurance—whether because it was because the Lord Chancellor was the first Minister or not I do not know—the people concerned seem to like the informal way. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor has reported accurately on the state of affairs. Indeed I gather that he has taken a sort of Gallup Poll about this business. The people primarily concerned are people who are going to have disputes about pensions and, on the whole, they would like to start with the irregular and not the regular system. I gather that those who under the new dispensation are going to run this industry are quite agreeable also. These are going to be the two sets of people concerned. The others are going to die so they, at any rate, will not continue to have a great interest in the matter.
My advice, for what it is worth, is that we ought not to be adamant about this principle or this precedent. Do not let us assume that this is a precedent necessarily to be followed in all the other cases in nationalized industry. Let the people who are to run it, and the employers and the workers in ordinary industry, decide. Let the partners in industry decide which is the way in which they would like to run this kind of business. I am sure that both Houses of Parliament would say to them: "This is primarily an industrial question for the partners in this particular industry. We do not want any sealed pattern rule. We do not want to force anything upon you. Whatever you may agree is the best way, that is the way you had better follow, and then, if you find you have made a mistake, you can then try the other." After all, even Socialists are open to conviction and change. We will do what, on the whole, the Gallup Poll indicates they want to do.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This is not a matter on which I am in any way a pedant and I do not in the least think anybody, even I, should die in the last ditch on behalf of the Amendment on the Paper. I tell you quite frankly what I feel about it, with I may say a rather large experience of matters of this kind. I feel that in the ordinary case there should be no appeal to the court and everything should be done in the informal
302
way round the table which the Lord Chancellor has graphically described. Against that I have no objection what-ever. But what I fear is that in a case like this, with complicated regulations of all kinds, there may sometimes be questions of construction of pension rights and documents, and under the regulation; which are to be made under this clause those questions really ought to be generally decided, once and for all. As I understand it, these particular referees will not give reasons. They will give their decisions on the cases before them. The world will not know what decision they have given and there may be thousands of other people who are not in the least aware of what their rights are.
It is that which I think we might. add to this clause without accepting the provision I have put down on the Paper. I think we might give the Minister power to direct the referees on any particular case to order a case to he stated to the court, or if you like, to some other agreed tribunal, in order that that particular question should be settled, and when it is settled—we do not want any rule about it—there, ought, as a matter of practice, to be a definite statement in some periodical to enable everybody to knew that the question has been decided once and for all. I believe that would save a great deal of heartburning and difficulty. But I frankly admit that that is not the Amendment have on the Paper. I did suggest when this was drafted, that the precedent of the Transport Bill should probably be followed, but I invite those concerned to say whether they do not want a little formal direction to be given to the referees. I would suggest that they should have an opportunity of asking the Minister, in a question of great difficulty, to have a case stated as if it were a case under the Arbitration Act, and for the matter to be decided once and for all. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, could I ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor one question on what he said? I understood him to say that there had been discussions between the Minister of Fuel and Power and the trade union representatives on the question of pensions, and they had preferred the method of dealing with them which is laid down in the Bill.

303
The alternative method, as posed in the Amendment, does fall in line with what we have had in the Transport Bill, on which the question was raised which I would like to ask. Remembering the number of people who are not in pensions schemes and are not by the nature of their employment members of trade unions, is he satisfied that their interests have been represented in the sense that this method is also suitable to them? I am bound to say that in trying to ascertain from the part of the industry I know which of these methods would be thought to be most suitable for the men concerned, I can find very little preference for one or the other. I would like to feel that not only those represented by trade unions, but other employees of the industry, had been able to express their views, and that their opinions had been considered in deciding which of these two methods to adopt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know what the non-unionist view is. The difficulty about that is that you cannot collect their opinions. I can say, however, that amongst the organized workers in this country there is an overwhelming view about this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to add, after subsection (7), the following new subsection:
"(8) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment does not depend at all on the other one. It is simply this. Many of these regulations will be of the greatest importance. It has been the practice of the Government in all these cases to arrange that when important regulations or orders are made, the Houses of Parliament shall have a right, if they choose to exercise it, to examine the matter and, if necessary, to refuse to approve or, in other cases, move to rescind the order or regulation. I think regulations of this sort ought to have some such sanction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 10, at end insert the said subsection,—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have a similar Amendment on the next clause, and in that clause, which deals with compensation, I was proposing to accept the Amendment about the regulation being made in draft, with the affirmative resolution of Parliament. Your Lordships will see that that Amendment is to page 75, line 38, and it is also in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. That is following the precedent of the Transport Bill. There they accepted this clause in the compensation clause, but did not put it into the pensions clause. With regard to the pensions clause, the position is this. Clause 62 (3), as your Lordships will see, says:
"All orders and regulations made under this Act, not being orders required to be laid before Parliament in draft or orders subject to special parliamentary procedure"—
if we do not pass this Amendment, these words will apply—
"shall be laid before Parliament immediately after they are made and if either House, within a period of forty days … resolves that the order or regulation be annulled"
they shall cease to have effect. So the effect of leaving out this Amendment here would be to make them subject to negative approval. But in the next clause, following the precedent of the Transport Bill, I propose to accept the Amendment which will make them subject to affirmative approval. I hope with that assurance the noble and learned Viscount will accept the later Amendment and not press this one.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should have called attention to one of the other clauses. I am quite content with what the noble and learned Viscount says, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved after Clause 54 to insert the following new clause:
"Special provisions as to customary pensions.
The provisions of this Act which direct that liabilities of a body to which Part II of this Act applies shall become as from the date of transfer, liabilities of an Electricity Board shall apply in relation to customary obligations of the body in relation to pensions, notwithstanding that the body was under no legal obligation in respect of those pensions, and if any question arises as to the existence or

305
extent of any such customary obligation, the question shall, in default of agreement be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and the decision of that referee or board shall be final, and the Electricity Board shall give effect to that decision."
The noble Lord said: This is a rather long Amendment, but it is really very simple. It provides that pensions which are based on customary practice, and may not be covered by a pensions scheme or a deed, should he continued. I should just like to say that this Amendment is drafted rather on the basis of paragraph 4 of the Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933. I feel that His Majesty's Government should be able to accept this very reasonable Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 54 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teynhanz.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this provision is in the Bill already, because "pension rights" is defined. If your Lordships will look at the definition of "pension rights" which begins on page 85 you will see this:
"… and any expectation of the accrues of a pension to or in respect of that person under any customary practice …"
However, I think we had better have something like the noble Lord suggests here. I accept his Amendment in principle; and I will see that the appropriate words are added to the Bill to make it quite plain that persons relying on customary rights are not thereby deprived of their pensions merely because they are not based upon legal rights. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now, I will see that the proper words are put into the Bill.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am very grateful for the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55:
Compensation to officers in connection with transfers.
55.—(1) The Minister and the Secretary of State jointly shall by regulations require every Electricity Board to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to officers of any body whose property, rights, liabilities and obligations vest by virtue of this Act in the Board and officers employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorized
306
undertakers, being officers who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emcluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened in consequence of the vesting, or in consequence of the subsequent transfer to another Electricity Board or the subsequent disposal in any other manner, of any such. property, rights, liabilities or obilgations.
(5) Regulations made under this section—.

(a) shall prescribe the procedure to be followed in making claims for compensation, and the manner in which and the person by whom the question whether any or what compensation is payable is to be determined; and

(b) may in particular contain provisions enabling appeals from any determination as to whether any or what compensation is payable to be brought, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, before a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service,

and where any such provision is made as is specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the decision of the referee or board of referees shall be final.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (1) to leave out from "officers," where that word occurs a second time, to "being," and insert:
"who have been regularly employed in or about the whole or any part of any undertaking or business vested or transferred by or under this Act"
The noble Lord said: I return to the charge with very much the same Amendment as I moved to Clause 54. The noble and learned Viscount pointed out to me that I had misread the meaning of Clause 54, but here we have another set of words which are different from those. As a matter of form, I again mace the accusation that he has not power here to compensate part-time officers, and I leave the onus of proof to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 16, leave out from ("officers") to ("being") in line 18, and insert the sad new words.—(Lord Hawke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot understand why the noble Lord takes this view, because he understands these thins so very clearly. The part-time officer to whom he is referring is, I presume, a part-time officer of a body taken over under Part II of this Bill. If that is so, then he is plainly covered by the words:
"… as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to officers of any body whose property, .rights, liabilities and obligations vest: by virtue of this Act in the Board… ."

307
The part-time officer must be an officer of a body who are taken over, and if he is employed only by a holding company which is not taken over, then we get exactly the same problem as we had before. In order to make this matter plain, and to remove misapprehensions rather than make any change—I do not think it makes any difference—I am moving a manuscript Amendment to line 17, to leave out from "administering" to "authorized" in line 18, and insert the words, "undertakings or parts of undertakings of," I am given to understand that that makes people feel happy about it, but I really can assure the noble Lord that we have covered the matter quite properly.
LORD HAWKE: I would just like to know the precise reason why the Government are so shy of the words used in the 1919 and the 1926 Acts, which are the ones we are using.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought we had words which quite obviously covered this matter. You cannot say more than that you may pay a pension to an officer of a body who is taken over. That is very simple and about as wide as it can be.
LORD HAWKE: The noble and learned Viscount cannot give any particular explanation why those long hallowed words are no longer to be used in this Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I cannot. They are not hallowed so far as I am concerned.
LORD HAWKE: We will no doubt have an opportunity of studying the manuscript Amendment and be able to refer to it again on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think this Amendment makes any difference, but I have reason to believe that it will remove some misgivings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 17, leave out from ("administering") to ("authorised") in line 18 and insert ("undertakings or parts of undertakings of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) If within five years after the vesting date—

(a) any existing officer relinquishes his employment on the ground that he has been required to perform duties which are not reasonably comparable to or are an unreasonable addition to those which as an officer of his previous employer he was required to perform; or

(b) the services of any existing officer are dispensed with by an Electricity Board because his services are not required and not on account of misconduct or incapacity to perform such duties as immediately before the vesting date he was performing or might reasonably have been required to perform; or

(c) the emoluments of any existing officer are reduced;

that officer shall unless the contrary be proved, be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section to have suffered loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments by reason of the vesting.
For the purposes of this subsection the expression existing officer means any person who was on the nineteenth day of November nineteen hundred and forty-five and immediately before the vesting date such an officer as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section and whose services are transferred to an Electricity Board by reason of the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to secure that these employees shall have the same right of compensation up to a period of five years after the vesting, as is provided for them in the 1919 and 1926 Acts, should employees fall into a similar predicament. I do not think the Amendment requires any explanation other than that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hawke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The principle of this Amendment is not acceptable to us, but in view of the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, has an Amendment to this clause in which he is going to provide for draft regulations and an affirmative resolution, I suggest that the noble Lord can rest quite satisfied that he will have a chance of seeing these regulations in draft. That being so, perhaps he will not wish to proceed with this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert the following new subsection:
"(5) Any dispute between an Electricity Board and an officer as to whether any, or what, compensation is payable under this section, or any regulations made thereunder, shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for determination, and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889–1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitration shall apply to such rates and determination."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I do not know what view the Government will take of this Amendment, which is on the same lines as some others which are concerned with relations of officers and compensation. This one relates to compensation to officers in connexion with transfers, and it leaves everything rather vague. The principal part of my Amendment, except the last lines, is really designed to make the matter a little clearer. In the first instance it must be taken that the dispute will arise between the Electricity Board and an officer as to whether any or what pension is payable to him, and I should like the regulations necessarily to prescribe, after stating that fact, what is to happen in the dispute. I say that the dispute ought to be referred to someone or other, and I am willing to accept the view of the Government and follow the other clause where the dispute goes to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour.
Now, so far, there is no reason that I can see why this should be objected to. I think it makes the clause a little clearer and shows the people concerned what it is intended to do in connexion with the claim for compensation if there is a dispute. Then it is interesting to note that the regulations in the Bill to be made under this clause, subsection (5), paragraph (b)
"may in particular contain provisions enabling appeals from any determination as to whether any or what compensation is payable to be brought, in such cases … before a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour …"
I am not quite sure that I know what is meant there by "appeals": appeals from what decision? My suggestion is that we should go, after a dispute has arisen between the Electricity Board and an officer, to a board of referees. And then
310
in my Amendment I have a suggestion that
"such reference shall he deemed to be a n arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts."
With reference to what the Lord Chancellor said on the previous Amendment, which contained words rather like that and which I have withdrawn, I do not think those arguments apply to the present case because here there may he a claim for large compensation to an officer. As I conceive it, it is rather like those cases which can be settled easily by informal methods round a table. The claim may be for some thousands of pounds and I do not think it is pleasant to settle that sort of litigation round a table in a private room, I suppose with no public necessarily admitted and it being left to a referee to determine without any appeal from him.
Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that the provisions in Clause 55 really relate to something quite different from the pension clause, that it is necessary that there should be a decision by a board of referees and that in a proper case them should be power to have a case stated. Large sums are involved here, and I do not think the views of the ordinary trade unions art of much importance with regard to these claims to compensation by officers. It is not a wages claim at all; it is something quite different; it involves different considerations and often large question; of law. Accordingly, I hope that the Amendment which stands in my name and in the names of Lord Rochdale and Lord Wolverton May be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 11, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Viscount asked in particular about these appeals. The theory of the appeal is this: The officer, first of all, states this claim before the Central Authority, and it is only if the Central Authority do not give him satisfaction that he goes before this referee appointed by the Minister of Labour. That is the appeal which they have in mind. They regard the going to the Minister of Labour's referee as an appeal from the

311
Central Authority. For the rest, I am sorry to tell the Committee that a precisely similar Amendment is being, or has been by now, I suppose, disagreed with in another place on the Transport Bill.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Is that one on compensation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On compensation. Although it is possible, of course, that a claim might be more serious, and might be a larger claim, in the majority of cases it would be on behalf of workers in the industry—at least I should imagine so; and all I can tell the Committee is what I have said before. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they have a strong feeling that it is better to have the Ministry of Labour left to do that. Anyhow, I am not in a position to accept this Amendment, and I think it should be withdrawn. The other place would disagree with it and I do not think it is an Amendment which we should force upon people unless they want it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: In those circumstances, I must beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I suppose, however, that if, as a matter of fact, something does happen in another place to the clause there will be an opportunity to reinstate my Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This Amendment has already been mentioned, and the Lord Chancellor has kindly said that he would be willing to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 38, at end insert:
"(7) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each house of Parliament."—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56:
Application, amendment and repeal of enactments relating to electricity supply.
(3) All local enactments in force at the vesting date and applicable to any authorised undertakers except enactments applicable to local authorities or composite companies otherwise than in. their capacity as authorised undertakers, shall, as from the vesting date, have effect⁃
(c) with such other adaptations and modifications (if any) as may be prescribed:
10.38 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "(c) with" and insert:
"shall also have effect, as from such date as may be prescribed which may be prior to the making of the regulations but not to the vesting date, with."
The noble Lord said: This clause is one which, amongst other things, gives the Minister power to make regulations for the purpose of clearing up local Acts of Parliament and local regulations and matters of that kind, which deal with this sort of consideration. As the clause is at present drafted, the regulations have to be made before the vesting date, which, on consideration, obviously would lead to all sorts of difficulties, because many of these Acts have not yet floated into the vision of the Ministry, so to speak. Therefore, it is desirable that the regulations should be made, or that there should be power to make the regulations, at a later time. The Amendment has been tabled in order to enable that to be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 39, leave out ("(c) with") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The next Amendment is really little more than drafting. It only makes clear that the adaptations and modifications mentioned have to be required in consequence of the provisions of the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 40, at end insert ("being adaptations and modifications required in consequence of the provisions of this Act").—(Viscount Maugham).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The next Amendment represents only a desire to bring the provisions here in line with the other provisions, in perhaps somewhat shorter form. The Amendment seeks to add that an order made under the subsection (3) shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure, which is, of course, laid down in the Act of Parliament relating to such procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 35, at end insert ("An order under this subsection shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.")—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, after Clause 57, to insert as a new clause:
Allocation of assets of certain bodies.
"Where any body, not being a body to whom Part II of this Act applies, have among their objects the promotion or protection of the interests of electricity undertakers or any class thereof, or of the officers of electricity undertakers or any class thereof, and, by reason of the failure of the objects of the body in consequence of the provisions of this Act, the affairs of the body are being wound up, any assets of the body which, after satisfaction of all their debts and liabilities, remain undisposed of may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment or instrument defining the objects of the body or regulating their affairs, be applied in whole or in part in compensating the officers of the body."
The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who is unfortunately unable to be here this evening, I am moving the Amendment which stands in his name. The Amendment is put forward on behalf of the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association and other associations who will naturally be wound up when the industry is taken over by the Government. They are anxious that their staffs should be fairly dealt with, and they have been advised by counsel that under their Memo-
314
randa of Association they could not devote the funds which they still have in their possession to staff compensation. They therefore approached the Ministry of Fuel and Power with a request that a clause should be inserted in the Bill which would enable them to carry out their wish despite the terms of the Memoranda. I understand that the Ministry appreciate the position, and I have been informed that this Amendment will probably be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 57, insert the said new clause—(Viscount Elibank.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I understand that it is suggested that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is one to which we attach a certain amount of importance and I think perhaps the discussion on it would take half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour. We are entirely in the hands of the House, of course, but it may be thought a little late now to start on a discussion of that length.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again till Tuesday next for convenience of Parties.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
King's Consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.